Teacher fired for saying Genesis should not be interpreted literally.

No context is provided with regard to the remark made by the instructor. I've had instructors in high school and college who have been deliberately and insultingly condescending towards Christians. I don't think that their "academic freedom" extends that far. Again, I don't know what the professor said or how he said it, but if he stepped over the line between expressing his own views and denigtating those of others, then he was rightfully fired.

In reading the piece, it indeed indicates what he said.

I'm surprised he was fired over that. Having lived in Iowa for five years now, it's never struck me as an overly religious state, not enough to do something like this anyway.

Luigi Novi - In reading the piece, it indeed indicates what he said.

It does indicate what he said, but not how he said it. In rereading the piece, I don't think it was approriate for the students to threaten legal action, but depending on the context of the remark, the professor may have deserved to be disciplined or fired. A lot of my uncertainty here comes from the way that the piece was written. There is a huge bias against the students and Christians in general (comparing the Bible to the Wizard of Oz and Winnie the Pooh) as well as a mocking analysis of a Biblical passage.

Randi's article has a much bigger issue than the juvenile Balaam joke (which is both unfunny and far too long). As usual it seems for Randi's web writings, he fails to cite his source for this information, which is bad form from any argumentive standpoint.

Randi may simply have gotten this from some email going around or somesuch, but it appears that the original source was a report in the Des Moines Register. Of course, had he done any further research, he could have seen that the issue may not be as clear cut as he suggests. A subsequent article to the original article, published a week before Randi published his piece, notes that students are more concerned about his teaching style, including (rather absurdly, in my opinion) trying to calm a heated debate by telling a student to "pop a Prozac."

Personally, I'm still trying to figure out how proper modern interpretation of Genesis has any place in a Western Civ class. If you are dealing with pre-history, you don't reference The Bible, the Koran, or any other creation stories, you reference the archeological and scientific evidence. Unless prompted by a question, scriptural issues are irrelevant.

On the other hand, if you are dealing with the Isrealite culture, the Genesis story is relevant not in whether or not it is factual, but how the interpretations of the stories in scripture influenced their culture and actions on a historical basis. Any attempt to address the validity of their claims is irrelevant, as the point is to learn about ancient cultures, how they lived, and what they did, not critique their scientific acumen.

Of course, the professor is not wrong in that there is a lot to be learned by looking at the early Genesis stories in a metaphorical light. The problem is that the literal and the metaphorical interpretions are not mutually exclusive. Sadly, even within Chrisitanity, the topics of discussion rarely delve into the issues that the metaphorical interpretation exposes, but focus purely on the literal interpretation and whether or not it conforms with scientific findings. Sadly, many never even realize there is anything beyond the surface, and never see the primary message the scriptures are trying to present to us.

I'm still trying to figure out how proper modern interpretation of Genesis has any place in a Western Civ class.

Discussing people's interpretation of Genesis seems very relevant considering how many people even today want things like a 6,000 year old Earth to guide how we teach science and what land people have a right to.

Brian FitzGerald - Discussing people's interpretation of Genesis seems very relevant considering how many people even today want things like a 6,000 year old Earth to guide how we teach science and what land people have a right to.
Requesting that evolution be taught as theory and not as fact isn't much to ask, especially since doing so respects the beliefs of millions of people and is factually correct (you can't prove evolution without time travel). Could you clarify what you mean by "land rights"?

>Discussing people's interpretation of Genesis seems very relevant considering how many people even today want things like a 6,000 year old Earth to guide how we teach science and what land people have a right to.
-Brian Fitzgerald

That would be fine if we were talking about a course on current events, civics, science education, theology, etc. However, we are talking about a history course. It's primary purpose should be to inform the students about the cultures involved, how they formed, what they believed and what they did. Unless there was major contention over the interpretation of Genesis in that time, there is no reason to bring it up.

Dustin, thanks for posting that link. I'm going to ask Mr. Randi about it.

David: Requesting that evolution be taught as theory and not as fact isn't much to ask, especially since doing so respects the beliefs of millions of people and is factually correct..
Luigi Novi: It is not factually correct. That natural selection occurs is both a theory and a fact. All facts, after all, are theories. Natural selection has been confirmed to such an extent that it is reasonable to offer provisional agreement, which is what a fact is. Time travel isn't needed to do this. The "beliefs of millions" do not change this.

Oh, and Dustin, in reading that article, it relates:

Bitterman said the Prozac comment was a joke meant to disarm a student who "was screeching at me."

"Sometimes you say something outrageous just to see if you can provoke some discussion. ... I can be a little acerbic at times, I don't deny that," he said. "I certainly take students' viewpoints seriously in the sense that I encourage them to express it, and then I will challenge that viewpoint, regardless of what it is, to see how well they can back it up with reason and critical thought.

"Often, these students are essentially right out of high school and they take things so personally," Bitterman said. "They really can't distinguish between a critical assessment of their argument and an attack upon them personally."

Casey Overton, 19, who also was in the Osceola classroom, said Bitterman spoke "very crudely and made us feel like ••••."

"I think he was trying to start a debate, but it came across as insulting and offended everybody," Overton said. "After some of the comments he made, I didn't expect him to be fired, but I'm kind of glad he's gone. There's no way I could have finished the class."

Bitterman said that when he was fired over the phone, he was told it was for teaching religion instead of history, and no mention was made of how he treated students.

So according to Bitterman, he made that comment to a student yelling at him, and no mention of that comment was mentioned when he was fired, but his attitude on religion was.

>Oh, and Dustin, in reading that article, it relates:

Bitterman said the Prozac comment was a joke meant to disarm a student who "was screeching at me."

"Sometimes you say something outrageous just to see if you can provoke some discussion. ... I can be a little acerbic at times, I don't deny that," he said. "I certainly take students' viewpoints seriously in the sense that I encourage them to express it, and then I will challenge that viewpoint, regardless of what it is, to see how well they can back it up with reason and critical thought.

"Often, these students are essentially right out of high school and they take things so personally," Bitterman said. "They really can't distinguish between a critical assessment of their argument and an attack upon them personally."
-Luigi Novi

This portion is just laughable. I have yet to find a heated exchange calmed by suggesting that someone needs psychiatric medication, nor does it seem unreasonable to consider it more of a personal attack than "a critical assessment of their argument." Either the reporter is pulling these topics together on his own and making Bitterman look bad, or someone need to teach Bitterman some argumentation skills.

>Casey Overton, 19, who also was in the Osceola classroom, said Bitterman spoke "very crudely and made us feel like ••••."

"I think he was trying to start a debate, but it came across as insulting and offended everybody," Overton said. "After some of the comments he made, I didn't expect him to be fired, but I'm kind of glad he's gone. There's no way I could have finished the class."

Bitterman said that when he was fired over the phone, he was told it was for teaching religion instead of history, and no mention was made of how he treated students.

So according to Bitterman, he made that comment to a student yelling at him, and no mention of that comment was mentioned when he was fired, but his attitude on religion was.
-Luigi Novi (emphasis added)

Exactly. All we have to suggest that this was motivated by religion is statements from the individual who was fired, who has every reason to present himself as the victim. As far as I can tell, he has yet to provide any documentation from the school, nor has the administration responded (presumably, they are concerned with liability about exposing confidential employee records). Students who actually witnessed the incident state that he was crude, insulting and offensive towards his class, and that was the issue, not the topic of discussion.

Of course, even if what he said was true, the statement still works against him, as the issue is what subject he was teaching. He was hired to teach history, but instead started teaching religion (and not, apparently, in the proper historical context). In doing so, he lost control of his classroom, started a heated exchange with a student, insulted that student, offended the rest, and created a significant problem for the administration, all because he couldn't stay on topic.

If a math teacher started teaching politics, wouldn't you expect the administration to step in and remind him what he is supposed to be teaching? If he does this in a way that offends his class, insulting his students and perhaps permanently damaging his ability to teach his students, would you really expect him to keep his job, let alone still teach that class?

Luigi Novi It is not factually correct. That natural selection occurs is both a theory and a fact. All facts, after all, are theories. Natural selection has been confirmed to such an extent that it is reasonable to offer provisional agreement, which is what a fact is. Time travel isn't needed to do this. The "beliefs of millions" do not change this.
Luigi, I have absolutely no problem with natural selection, nor do most Christians. It makes perfect sense that the bear with the least amount of fur will die out in the coldest climates. The actual concept of evolution from one life-form to another over billions of years is what is in question.

Dustin: Of course, even if what he said was true, the statement still works against him, as the issue is what subject he was teaching.
Luigi Novi: He taught Western Civilization, so I don't see how touching upon any and all aspects of culture, including religion, is off-limits. You say he should've brought it up in the proper historical context. Well, this is what he said:

I put the Hebrew religion on the same plane as any other religion. Their god wasn’t given any more credibility than any other god. I told them it was an extremely meaningful story, but you had to see it in a poetic, metaphoric or symbolic sense, and that if you took it literally, you were going to miss a whole lot of meaning there.

How is that not the proper historical context? And even if we decide that it's not, is that cause for the students to threaten legal action against him? But to compare a Western Civ teacher mentioning religion to a math teacher teaching politics is just a bad analogy.

I emailed Mr. Randi to ask him about the point regarding what Bitterman was really fired over. Our exchange went thus:

--------------------------
Luigi Novi: Hi, Mr. Randi. A friend of mine referred me to the article at: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007709250379, which asserts that Steve Bitterman was not fired from Southwestern Community College over his remarks on religion, but for other aspects of his behavior toward his students. Bitterman claims that he made the comment "Go pop a Prozac" to a student who was "screeching" at him, which he meant as a joke, but which was taken the wrong way, and that no mention of his was made when he was fired. Still, though, this might've merited mention in your site.

Randi: I cannot imagine that the “Prozac” comment would bring about a firing; however, that may have served as a trigger to call for the firing without the actual reason being made known. Otherwise, why would it be kept so secret by the administration…?

Luigi Novi: In what way was it kept secret? I can't find a reference to that in your piece or in the Des Moines Register article. (Thank you for your speedy reply.)

Randi: They have said that he was fired for “other aspects of his behavior toward his students.” Surely that’s a “secret”? If not, I can’t solve it…
--------------------------

David: Luigi, I have absolutely no problem with natural selection, nor do most Christians. It makes perfect sense that the bear with the least amount of fur will die out in the coldest climates. The actual concept of evolution from one life-form to another over billions of years is what is in question.
Luigi Novi: I've continued this discussion over on the EvC boards.

>He taught Western Civilization, so I don't see how touching upon any and all aspects of culture, including religion, is off-limits. You say he should've brought it up in the proper historical context. Well, this is what he said:

I put the Hebrew religion on the same plane as any other religion. Their god wasn’t given any more credibility than any other god. I told them it was an extremely meaningful story, but you had to see it in a poetic, metaphoric or symbolic sense, and that if you took it literally, you were going to miss a whole lot of meaning there.

>How is that not the proper historical context?
-Luigi Novi

It's all in the phrasing. If he's saying that there is more to be learned if we look at deeper levels of the story, then that's fine. But, if he is denigrating or dismissing the literal interpretation outright, he's moved beyond the historical context, unless he is suggesting that the Hebrews of the time did not believe in the literal interpretation. Given that after the class he called the Eden story a "fairy tale," it seems more likely he took the latter approach instead of the former.

>And even if we decide that it's not, is that cause for the students to threaten legal action against him? But to compare a Western Civ teacher mentioning religion to a math teacher teaching politics is just a bad analogy.
-Luigi Novi

To evaluate whether or not legal action would be warranted, we'd need a lot more information than what we have. All we really have are a few quotes from the interested parties. We lack a complete presentation of the case from either side, any disinterested third-party to present a more neutral assessment, nor a transcript or video from the class (given the closed circuit feed, such evidence may exist somewhere). Without that information, any evaluation of any legal claim is speculative at best.

As for the math teacher talking about politics, it is hardly a bad analogy. Statistics courses could easily discuss polling and census taking and how they are used in political decision making as well as gerrymandering. Calculus courses dovetail well into Engineering, which includes public works. Number Theory is used in Cryptology, which could lead to discussions of the NSA, Eschelon, etc. All of these are valid topics of discussion for the classes, making the abstract more practical to the students. But any of them can easily become significant distractions from the actual topic if the teacher can't maintain control.

In the same way, Bitterman lost control when one aspect (the Eden story) became a distraction from the topic (the Hebrew people). Once the proper interpretation of Genesis for us today became the topic, he stopped teaching history and started teaching religion.

>I cannot imagine that the “Prozac” comment would bring about a firing; however, that may have served as a trigger to call for the firing without the actual reason being made known. Otherwise, why would it be kept so secret by the administration…?
...
>They have said that he was fired for “other aspects of his behavior toward his students.” Surely that’s a “secret”? If not, I can’t solve it…
-James Randi, via Luigi Novi

You (generic) do realize that we are in a highly litigious culture, right? Generally speaking, employee information, including reasons for dismissal, are confidential. Employers are sued for daring to give negative reports about employees when asked for references, even when they are valid. How much more likely is a lawsuit if an employer handed over this information to the press for public dissemination?

Plus, it doesn't help them to do so. Right now, they are getting some bad press. If they come out and say Bitterman was fired for the reasons he has said, they strengthen any wrongful termination suit he may file. If they say he was terminated for the reasons the students say, any action they may want to take against the school is strengthened. As the great Mark Twain is (mis)quoted as saying, "It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt."