quote:COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - The school board of a small central Ohio community voted unanimously Friday to fire a teacher accused of preaching his Christian beliefs despite staff complaints and using a device to burn the image of a cross on students' arms.
School board members voted 5-0 to fire Mount Vernon Middle School science teacher John Freshwater. Board attorney David Millstone said Freshwater is entitled to a hearing to challenge the dismissal.
Freshwater denies wrongdoing and will request such a hearing, the teacher's attorney, Kelly Hamilton, told the Mount Vernon News.
School board members met a day after the consulting firm H.R. On Call Inc. released its report on the teacher's case.
The report came a week after a family filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Columbus against Freshwater and the school district, saying Freshwater burned a cross on a child's arm that remained for three or four weeks.
Freshwater's friend Dave Daubenmire defended him.
"With the exception of the cross-burning episode. ... I believe John Freshwater is teaching the values of the parents in the Mount Vernon school district," he told The Columbus Dispatch for a story published Friday.
Several students interviewed by investigators described Freshwater, who has been employed by the school district located 40 miles northeast of Columbus for 21 years, as a great guy and their favorite teacher.
But Lynda Weston, the district's director of teaching and learning, told investigators that she has dealt with complaints about Freshwater for much of her 11-year term at the district, the report said.
A former superintendent, Jeff Maley, said he tried to find another position for Freshwater but couldn't because he was certified only in science, the report said.
Freshwater used a science tool known as a high-frequency generator to burn images of a cross on students' arms in December, the report said. Freshwater told investigators he simply was trying to demonstrate the device on several students and described the images as an "X," not a cross. But pictures show a cross, the report said.
Other findings show that Freshwater taught that carbon dating was unreliable to argue against evolution.
I mean I can think of worse ideas but honestly I think that man deserves some kind of award.
he ain't even smart or honest enough to know not to present an impossible defense (it's just an X!) to authorities so obviously he is a perfect candidate for teaching science to our students. bless.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
He probably could have got away with being a really bad teacher, so it's really a good thing that he went crazy and decided branding students was a good idea.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Well, he has been a teacher for 21 years, so there has to have been support from faculty or parents somewhere. It even said there are students who like him as a teacher. All this means to me is education today isn't about learning, but about politics.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why wasn't he arrested immediately after the 'cross-branding' thing? To me that's perhaps a more troubling story than this one.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Well, he has been a teacher for 21 years, so there has to have been support from faculty or parents somewhere. It even said there are students who like him as a teacher. All this means to me is education today isn't about learning, but about politics.
He's being fired for doing something undeniably inexcusable for a public teacher. He's being fired right after he does it. You conclude that it means that education "isn't about learning, but about politics."
What the heck do you even mean. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Occassional, if you brand a student, you get fired. Period.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Is the "branding" permanent? I mean, I can't imagine he'd cause the students pain, which a real branding, like branding cattle, would. I'd assume it's a temporary process that'd wear off, otherwise I can't imagine that he wouldn't be fired, brought up on charges, and the district sued.
I'd like more details on the process.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
I'd like to know, also, how a high-frequency generator works, and its effect on the human body. It could very well be that the default pattern really WAS just an "X." Doesn't it use radio waves, or something along those lines? It's not like he took a poker off the coals and laid it on a kid's arm.
So, we don't know a number of things: 1. How the generator even works and if it's permanent, 2. If the student volunteered or not, and 3. the SOURCE of the article. Speaking from experience, newspapers in Columbus can be pretty skewed and unreliable.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: 3. the SOURCE of the article.
When an article says (AP) it is Associated Press.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
It looks like bad acne. If you look for it I think you can see a cross, and I certainly don't see just an X. I'm more curoius about the process at the moment and whether or not the students volunteered.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote: I can't imagine he'd cause the students pain, which a real branding, like branding cattle, would.
The original CNN article on this quoted the kid's parents as saying he was crying in pain so bad he couldn't sleep the day it happened. The article has changed since then and doesn't include the quote anymore.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:The school board of a small central Ohio community voted unanimously Friday to fire a teacher accused of preaching his Christian beliefs despite staff complaints and using a device to burn the image of a cross on students' arms.
This sentence is worthy of the attention of the Grammar Ninja Death Squad. He very likely preached in spite of staff complaints; many people do. It is exceedingly unlikely that he preached in spite of branding a student with a cross. Rather, he is "accused of preaching despite complaints, and of branding a student". The ninjas have accordingly been dispatched, and will not rest from righteous vengeance until their mission is fulfilled!
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
About the high frequency thing... my understanding is that, given a high enough frequency, alternating current of extraordinarily high voltage can be applied to a human harmlessly. I remember receiving a 3-5kV shock from a Tesla Coil at the Griffith Park Observatory and remember watching someone demonstrate standing on a similar device unharmed while a piece of wood he was holding burst into flames.
Maybe the teacher was trying something like this?
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Occassional, if you brand a student, you get fired. Period.
Thank you.
And what the heck does it matter if it's permanent or not? If I punch a child in the nose, and his nose bleeds, the fact that the blood can be wiped up is really not the point. I can't imagine that any experiment which leaves a semi-permanent mark on skin would be condoned in any public school. I mean, even the Catholic schools don;t brand their students! (kidding)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hell, I don't care if it's permanent, painful, or impermanent and painless. You shouldn't either, Occassional. It's a disgraceful thing for a teacher to do, and disgraceful for you to excuse it as 'just politics'.
And of course this ignores the non-question of whether there's any learning at all about 'teaching' Creationism in a science class.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
It doesn't appear that it matters that it looks like a cross, or even if the kid volunteered. Heck, a teacher with 21 years under his belt can ask his class "who wants to get kicked in the rear?" and *someone* will probably volunteer; that doesn't mean he has a free pass to do it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I think the [image first linked a few posts above, url ends with "large"] is in such close-up that it is harder to see the overall design (as in a close-up of a tattoo). [There is some pixilation, suggesting it is losing image quality on close-up. Other parts of the image are less fuzzy when not zoomed in as well.] The original view of the article [linked above in this post] has an image at resolution that is more suggestive of the cross interpretation.
I don't think it is clearly a deliberate cross, although I'd want to see it firsthand to judge. I am surprised this was done on more than one child. From what I see, I do expect that would hurt quite a bit.
[ June 21, 2008, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's a deliberate cross and the guy's a liar (now on more than one issue)
And seriously occasional, what were you talking about. I know you are reading this thread. It's not very covert.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
quote: I mean, even the Catholic schools don;t brand their students! (kidding)
Maybe not physically, but...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:And what the heck does it matter if it's permanent or not? If I punch a child in the nose, and his nose bleeds, the fact that the blood can be wiped up is really not the point. I can't imagine that any experiment which leaves a semi-permanent mark on skin would be condoned in any public school. I mean, even the Catholic schools don;t brand their students! (kidding)
You don't see a substantive difference between say, writing on someone with a Sharpie and melting a couple layers of skin with hot metal? Other than ElJay's account, I've seen absolutely nothing on the process itself, how painful it is or isn't, or what the longterm effects were. If he had written on them with a Sharpie for whatever reason, would there be such an uproar? I highly doubt it.
The controversy seems to be stirred up mostly by the word "brand." But without details, I have no idea if the word is appropriate or not.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Lyrhawn, the example she gave was punching someone in the nose, from which one can heal. But it's still an injury, not writing with a sharpie.
The picture shows an injury.
And for what it's worth, I can't believe those here who claim they can't see the cross shape, which is clearly visible in the photograph.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
quote:The report came a week after a family filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Columbus against Freshwater and the school district, saying Freshwater burned a cross on a child's arm that remained for three or four weeks.
Next Mr. Potter, for detention, you will write "I will not lie" on the back of your hand.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
That is so weird. I thought MY biology teacher was bad.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If he had written on them with a Sharpie for whatever reason, would there be such an uproar?
Well, I'd be less pissed because it wouldn't have involved an actual violent assault (as we usually think of stuff like that). But I'd still be pissed.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's not even much of an injury. Marking someone with a high-frequency generator probably doesn't even hurt. I'm not assuming he tortured or maimed or assaulted any students.
He just branded them. With a christian cross. In his science room. Where he displayed the ten commandments and taught creationism and preached christian religion.
Injury isn't the issue. It's (1) this guy turning his classroom into a pulpit, (2) pulling an insanely stupid stunt as part of 1, and (3) being a flat-out liar.
Posted by adfectio (Member # 11070) on :
I'm a College student in the Town were this happened, studying to be a teacher, actually. Never thought it would show up here.
On several occasions I had a chance to meet, observe his class, and talk to him. And after this happened (This is actually old news) I heard the reactions from the teachers around him. They were very supportive, not complaining about him like the news articles seem to say.
There are really two different claims here:
1) That he was preaching in class and
2) That he branded a student
Now to address them from a personal experience. 1) He never preached in the classroom. He had posters, as many teachers do, hanging on his walls. Some of them included quotes from the Bible. He also had a Bible sitting on his desk for his own personal use. He offered to remove the posters, but the Bible was for his personal use, and would not remove it.
2) The branding, from my understanding, happened to more than one student. They volunteered and even asked if he would. The high voltage generator (my understanding is it was a Tesla Coil) does not produce any serious pain. No more than a Van de Graff generator. Just minor discomfort. The claim that the kid was unable to sleep because of pain is flat out not true.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Injury isn't the issue.
Injury is a separate issue. I'd be hard pressed to say that injury is of secondary importance.
And I'd also be hard pressed to say that marking someone with high-freq current doesn't hurt. Especially when it leaves significant tissue damage.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Injury, however, is the issue if you're trying to figure out why the guy wasn't arrested immediately, which I am. Most school districts these days don't even allow a formal paddling. I don't think a teacher could have gotten away with an actual branding even 100 years ago. If this inflicted injury, that the teacher wasn't in a jail cell that evening demands an explanation.
It seems more likely that something other than "burning" occurred here. Hence my previous suggestion that maybe it was some kind of demonstration along the lines of what I have seen from people with Tesla Coils and the like. Edit: and while I was posting, someone has confirmed that hypothesis... thank you.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Lyrhawn, the example she gave was punching someone in the nose, from which one can heal. But it's still an injury, not writing with a sharpie.
The picture shows an injury.
And for what it's worth, I can't believe those here who claim they can't see the cross shape, which is clearly visible in the photograph.
See, I doubt the generator hurts. Punching someone in the nose hurts. Sharpie doesn't. The picture shows a mark, not an injury.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: " With the exception of the cross-burning episode... I believe John Freshwater is teaching the values of the parents in the Mount Vernon school district,"
How do you even say that with a straight face?
"With the exception of the beating episode, I believe he loves his wife."
Posted by adfectio (Member # 11070) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: [QUOTE] And I'd also be hard pressed to say that marking someone with high-freq current doesn't hurt. Especially when it leaves significant tissue damage.
If he were to have taken them outside and one of them got a sunburn, that's significant tissue damage. It also heals.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:The high voltage generator (my understanding is it was a Tesla Coil) does not produce any serious pain. No more than a Van de Graff generator. Just minor discomfort. The claim that the kid was unable to sleep because of pain is flat out not true.
I have a tesla coil, which I've used in school demonstrations. I hold the coil in one hand, and with the other I hold hands with several children to form a chain. The last child holds a fluorescent lightbulb. With about five kids, the lightbulb doesn't light, unless we all raise one foot. But I preface the demonstration with a warning: Don't let go of your neighbor's hand, or both of you will get a shock, and it will hurt like hell.
When I've seen Van deGraaf generator demonstrations, the same warning is issued. As long as you are in direct contact with the electrode, you just build up a static charge, and no spark is thrown. But if you remove your hand and a spark jumps, it hurts.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:The picture shows a mark, not an injury.
The picture shows tissue damage.
quote:If he were to have taken them outside and one of them got a sunburn, that's significant tissue damage. It also heals.
It also causes skin cancer, and it also hurts. If he performed an "experiment" in which he subjected a kids skin to sunlight long enough to get a sunburn, that's still inflicting an intentional injury.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
It is also just a line a teacher should not cross! (so to speak...)
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
I thought about you when I saw where this article was talking about Adfectio. I knew MVNU was in Ohio.
Posted by adfectio (Member # 11070) on :
yeah. I haven't been on Hatrack a lot recently, but the gf mentioned that this article was on here so I had to come say something.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:The picture shows a mark, not an injury.
The picture shows tissue damage.
quote:If he were to have taken them outside and one of them got a sunburn, that's significant tissue damage. It also heals.
It also causes skin cancer, and it also hurts. If he performed an "experiment" in which he subjected a kids skin to sunlight long enough to get a sunburn, that's still inflicting an intentional injury.
That is exactly what I was thinking-- "Doesn't any burn inflict damage that can increase the risk of skin cancer, and if it left the mark, didn't it damage cells, whether it hurt or not?"
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: " With the exception of the cross-burning episode... I believe John Freshwater is teaching the values of the parents in the Mount Vernon school district,"
How do you even say that with a straight face?
"With the exception of the beating episode, I believe he loves his wife."
Have you ever had siblings? Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I wasn't talking about the branding. That IS very stupid. I am talking about the underlying assumption both in the article and in the first few posts that he is a VERY bad teacher; especially of science.
Lets put it this way, I have seen far more times a teacher was fired or not rehired because of political or personal reasons than because they are a bad teacher. Sometimes it because the faculty doesn't like them and sometimes its because the influencial members of the community don't like them. I suppose that happens in any work environement, but it is especially the case in education. It takes a very serious stupid move like this stunt to remove some teachers where others are dropped almost without reason.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Occasional, it is actually the opposite of what you are saying, at least in most public school systems these days. It is nigh on impossible to get rid of teachers, unless they are still in the probationary period, even ones who are incompetent or who blatantly break the rules. Administrators are faced with more and more roadblocks to weeding out incompetent educators. No one even dares giving a bad recommendation.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Getting zapped with a tesla coil hurts like HELL. Getting zapped with one long enough to leave a mark? I can't even imagine how badly that would hurt.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I think the difference, Elizabeth, is whether or not the teacher is tenured.
In Alabama, if you're not tenured your contract can be non-renewed because they don't like the color of your hair. And, some school systems lately seem to like the idea of non-tenured teachers - I've heard of many people non-renewed the year before they get tenure, and of course, they have to start over again if they get hired in a new district.
I know some teachers who've been teaching more than 10 years but are unable to get tenure because every time they are at the brink of being tenured, they're let go.
I don't think they're bad teachers - other districts are quick to snatch them up, but administrators seem to want the ability to let go of teachers whenever they wish.
I should note - all of these teachers who get bounced around without the chance to gain tenure are in English or Social sciences. If you're math or science or foreign language, it's easy to get tenure because there is such a shortage in those areas.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I understand that difference, and I am pretty sure I pointed it out in my post, I just didn't use the term "tenured."
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Getting zapped with a tesla coil hurts like HELL. Getting zapped with one long enough to leave a mark? I can't even imagine how badly that would hurt.
This was not my experience.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I wasn't talking about the branding. That IS very stupid. I am talking about the underlying assumption both in the article and in the first few posts that he is a VERY bad teacher; especially of science.
Actually, if he teaches Creationism in his Science class, I'm quite comfortable in saying he is a very bad teacher. Even if a bunch of kids liked him.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Many school systems use a straight seniority system: adjusted for needed subjects/qualifications, teachers are always let go in the reverse order they were hired (excepting cause, of course).
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
He may be skilled as a teacher and still be a bad teacher.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Belle, I apologize if i sounded snippy, I did not mean to, but I am reading it that way! I know there are differences between schools and districts and states. It is certainly a power that can be easily abused, but I guess I have hope that people do the right thing, and often, around me, they do. Principals want to make sure they are not hiring a problem. It is their last chance with veto power.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Ok, I got out my tesla coil, turned it all the way down, and held the tip near my palm as I turned up the power. When the first spark jumped my hand pulled away involuntarily. On the second try I was able to hold my hand there, and at the lowest power that would create a spark, I got a sharp prickling feeling, accompanied by a jumping feeling in the muscles of my arm. It did not leave any mark on my skin. I also didn't do it to my forearm, because I knew that that would be more sensitive.
Also, the article said it was a hi frequency generator. A Tesla coil is high voltage, not a hi-freq generator. Mine operates at line frequency of 60Hz. Welding power supplies have a high frequency setting, which allows a welder to start an arc at very low voltages. A welder uses low voltage, and high current. It's the current that heats up the metal, not the voltage, or the frequency. In the case of this teacher, he must have been using enough current to cause the damage seen in the picture. That's clearly more than I was using from my tesla coil.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I always pulled my hand away from the Van De Graff so I could feel like Emperor Palpatine with my blue lightning power. The shock isn't bad at all (probably 3/10 on my pain scale). Some people's threshold for pain is lower.
My take--seems like a cool science experiment. I bet the kids got a kick out of it, and that the one kid who didn't has a beef with the teacher that has nothing to do with the incident. The wording that the news story chose is clearly set up to sensationalize the story, and I think he's getting fired because they don't want the bad PR. My distrust of the media wins over on this story.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I have known many middle school teachers who were beloved of their students because they, the teachers, broke the rules, and that was cool. Being well liked does not necessarily equate to being a good teacher.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I wasn't talking about the branding. That IS very stupid. I am talking about the underlying assumption both in the article and in the first few posts that he is a VERY bad teacher; especially of science.
Lets put it this way, I have seen far more times a teacher was fired or not rehired because of political or personal reasons than because they are a bad teacher. Sometimes it because the faculty doesn't like them and sometimes its because the influencial members of the community don't like them. I suppose that happens in any work environement, but it is especially the case in education. It takes a very serious stupid move like this stunt to remove some teachers where others are dropped almost without reason.
You still aren't making any sense.
You took THIS EVENT and used it to make your declaration that teaching is about politics.
You have not defended that. Now you're doing something else entirely. You're making claims based on anecdote.
Do you even have any understanding how hard it is to get rid of even openly incompetent teachers who have tenure? If we're getting into Anecdote Warz, I'm going to win, because my anecdotes are all larger and more detailed and I have more of them.
And the underlying assumption that he is a bad science teacher has to do with him teaching creationism in a science class, and has even more to do with him evidently discounting evolutionary theory and pimping out creationism and Christianity, because evolutionary theory doesn't match up with his religious beliefs.
Big question: if you are a public school teacher and you do this, should you be fired? Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Also, the article said it was a hi frequency generator. A Tesla coil is high voltage, not a hi-freq generator. Mine operates at line frequency of 60Hz.
I distinctly recall the tour guide describing the Tesla Coil I was shocked by as operating at a very high frequency and explaining that as the reason the shock was not lethal, so that may have had to do with my experiential difference from yours.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
The high frequency would allow a tesla coil to throw a spark at lower voltage, which would reduce the "shock" feeling from each spark. That makes sense.
But as I said, neither frequency nor voltage would cause tissue damage. It's the current that would do that. Without any personal experience (and this is an experiment that I'm not willing to try) ramping up the current enough to damage my skin would probably create a sensation which feels much more like heat, as opposed to the sensation of a high voltage spark.
Posted by cassv746 (Member # 11173) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin:
My take--seems like a cool science experiment. I bet the kids got a kick out of it, and that the one kid who didn't has a beef with the teacher that has nothing to do with the incident. The wording that the news story chose is clearly set up to sensationalize the story, and I think he's getting fired because they don't want the bad PR. My distrust of the media wins over on this story.
That's my take on it also. I remember driving through Mt Vernon a couple weeks after news had broken in Ohio. In front of a small business there was a sign that read, "IF THE BIBLE GOES THE SCHOOL LEVY WILL FAIL."
Just adding more pieces to the story.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue:
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Lyrhawn, the example she gave was punching someone in the nose, from which one can heal. But it's still an injury, not writing with a sharpie.
The picture shows an injury.
And for what it's worth, I can't believe those here who claim they can't see the cross shape, which is clearly visible in the photograph.
See, I doubt the generator hurts. Punching someone in the nose hurts. Sharpie doesn't. The picture shows a mark, not an injury.
I used to give electricity demonstrations at a science museum in high school. At one point, I ended up with splotches up and down my arm, similar to the ones in the photos.
It hurt. It felt like being poked with a bunch of pins.
-pH
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I think with a little imagination we could use this incident to generate a very compelling horror movie plot.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Stephen King. *nods
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
When does branding not hurt? Teaching creationism in science class is stupid, maybe they could get away with that in the vatican but here he should have been fired immediately!
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Noooooooooooooooooooooo lost the longest post I've ever written. Synopsis: No religion in school bad!
Posted by adfectio (Member # 11070) on :
It makes me laugh that you are assuming he was teaching Creationism. Which is not the experience I had. Nor was it that of the fellow teachers and the students I talked to.
A majority of the faculty and student body was with Freshwater. They had a rally on the square in MV, which the news attended. I heard more than one story of people being turned down for interviews because the news was looking for someone who did not support him.
For those of you who don't know I grew up 20 minutes from Mount Vernon, where this happened. I now go to the University in Mount Vernon. It is a Christian University. Mount Vernon is a VERY conservative place.
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
I don't personally see anything wrong with this as long as the children volenteered. It also doesn't look much like a cross to me, but either way i dont think he chose the shape. Finally is is not permanant and doesn't hurt, it can't even be seen that well. My teacher turned my left ahand purple and it lasted that way for a week last year, and that was infinitly more noticable.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by adfectio: For those of you who don't know I grew up 20 minutes from Mount Vernon, where this happened. I now go to the University in Mount Vernon. It is a Christian University. Mount Vernon is a VERY conservative place.
So branding a cross on a student's arm is now a conservative value?
Posted by adfectio (Member # 11070) on :
Did I say that? Please don't put words in my mouth.
My point was that it's not how the news is portraying it. In fact, it is very much the opposite. Not Everyone wanted him out of there. In fact, most people wanted him to stay. It was only the people in charge who decided that they would rather get rid of one teacher than face a lawsuit who wanted him out.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: For those of you who don't know I grew up 20 minutes from Mount Vernon, where this happened. I now go to the University in Mount Vernon. It is a Christian University. Mount Vernon is a VERY conservative place.
Unless you're assuming that a place being VERY conservative means that public schoolteachers there should be allowed to breach conduct rules regarding the separation of church and state, that don't really mean much.
quote:My point was that it's not how the news is portraying it. Not Everyone wanted him out of there.
So you're saying that the news was portraying the situation as being "everyone wanted him out of there."
That and/or you are faulting the 'people in charge' for following the rules as opposed to defaulting to popular consensus on a teacher. That's crazy logic right there. A teacher here could toke up his kids under the creek bridge and be REAL popular with the students. Don't mean he shouldn't get his butt canned, yeah?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I am much more disturbed by the teacher burning students (whether it hurt or not at the time) than by what he burned on them (since it's true that it could be a cross but could just be a pair of intersecting lines; the proportions are a bit different than the typical "cross" I think of as a Christian cross.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I am much more disturbed by the teacher burning students
The question I've been asking is if burning, or branding or whatever is even an appropriate word.
We don't know what happened exactly. A sun tan is tissue damage, a scratch is tissue damage, a mosquito bite is tissue damage, if tissue damage is the issue, I don't see how just having it is a problem. It's the severity that matters. Or in general, it's the details that matter.
I don't think we know enough about what was done to pass any sort of judgement, and I think the articles linked to the story have been sensationalist.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:A sun tan is tissue damage, a scratch is tissue damage, a mosquito bite is tissue damage
Those are rather extreme examples but, I would have a problem with a teacher scratching a student on purpose, or placing a mosquito on the student's skin and allowing it to bite him. I would also have a problem with a teacher deliberately exposing a student to excessive sunlight or taking him into an area infested with mosquitoes where he would not normally be without providing parents and students with information on what would be happening and possible risks beforehand so they could prepare as much as possible (as in, wear sunblock or insect repellent) and make an informed choice whether or not to participate.
Posted by adfectio (Member # 11070) on :
I'll admit that maybe my last few lines before were probably unnecessary, but I wanted everyone to realize that the news columns are wrong about this.
quote:So you're saying that the news was portraying the situation as being "everyone wanted him out of there.
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.
But, Samprimary, You're escalating. If he had asked a student to volunteer to have iodine put on their skin to show that it stains the skin, would you be just as upset? The iodine causes no permanent damage and does no harm. And yeah, you can technically say that he "used a potent chemical to disfigure the student's body."
Should the teacher be fired for that? That also seems just as crazy. There is a time to follow the rules strictly, and a time to allow flexibility. It seems to me, that those of you who are suggesting that 1) He was preaching in the classroom and 2) He did real harm or damage to the student are not looking at all sides of the argument.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I've been doing some reading online about high-freq generators. The type that are designed for use on people's skin, at least (used in alternative medicine), do not appear to be designed to cause burns or marking on the skin of any sort, and warnings are attached that if they operate at too high a power level, they can cause burns, sometimes severe. I am leaning more and more toward this being a harmful practice, even if not extremely harmful, at least somewhat harmful.
And you know what? I'd have a problem with a teacher marking on a student's skin with a pen without parental consent. Even if it doesn't hurt, it's just not okay to do stuff like that. If someone did it to my daughter, even with her consent but without mine, I would not be okay with it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.
Well then you are obviously wrong!
quote:Freshwater's friend Dave Daubenmire defended him.
"With the exception of the cross-burning episode. ... I believe John Freshwater is teaching the values of the parents in the Mount Vernon school district," he told The Columbus Dispatch for a story published Friday.
Several students interviewed by investigators described Freshwater, who has been employed by the school district located 40 miles northeast of Columbus for 21 years, as a great guy and their favorite teacher.
These quotes completely deny the sentiment. Obviously, not everyone wanted him out of there. Nor did the news report state as such. Your statement is wrong.
quote: If he had asked a student to volunteer to have iodine put on their skin to show that it stains the skin, would you be just as upset? The iodine causes no permanent damage and does no harm. And yeah, you can technically say that he "used a potent chemical to disfigure the student's body."
Should the teacher be fired for that?
The situation is not analogous unless he used the iodine to dye his religious symbol on the kid's skin. I'm not one of the people claiming that the real issue is that he mutilated the kid or something. The real issue is that he branded the christian cross on a student in a public school in his science class where he taught creationism and displayed the ten commandments. in a public school. and he was allowed to get away with this unacceptable breaching of the rules pretty much until he did something so stupid that it resulted in an independent investigation that found him guilty of all of it and resulted in a unanimous expulsion of him by even a demographically sympathetic school board.
quote: those of you who are suggesting that 1) He was preaching in the classroom and 2) He did real harm or damage to the student are not looking at all sides of the argument.
quote:A public school teacher preached his Christian beliefs despite complaints by other teachers and administrators and used a device to burn the image of a cross on students' arms, according to a report by independent investigators.
Mount Vernon Middle School teacher John Freshwater also taught creationism in his science class and was insubordinate in failing to remove a Bible and other religious materials from his classroom, the report said.
quote:In its report, released Thursday, the company found Freshwater "did improperly use an electrostatic device on the student who filed the report" and had violated Ohio State standards by "teaching creationism and intelligent design."
Students charged him with preaching in the classroom. An independent investigation was called for because of reports of his improper behavior. independent investigation confirms everything. The people who say 'he was preaching in the classroom' are looking at the evidence we have. School board agrees with corroboration provided by independent inquiry. Report states, verbatim, "The manufacturer of Model BD-10A warns that the electric device has a high voltage output that should never be used to touch human skin. Mr Freshwater applied the electric device to the arm of at least one other eighth grade student on December 6, 2007. The area burned with Model BD-10A resulted in an easily identifiable cross consisting of red welts with blistering, swelling and blanching in the surrounding area. On December 7, 2007, John and Jane Doe notified Defendant Superintendent Short regarding Mr. Freshwater's inappropriate activity in his eighth grade science class. ... Mr. Freshwater knew that the electric device, model BD-10A, could cause harm if placed in contact with human skin. As the eighth grade science teacher, it is Mr. Frewhwater's duty to understand and follow the manufacturer's advice regarding proper use of science instruments. "
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:A sun tan is tissue damage, a scratch is tissue damage, a mosquito bite is tissue damage
Those are rather extreme examples but, I would have a problem with a teacher scratching a student on purpose, or placing a mosquito on the student's skin and allowing it to bite him. I would also have a problem with a teacher deliberately exposing a student to excessive sunlight or taking him into an area infested with mosquitoes where he would not normally be without providing parents and students with information on what would be happening and possible risks beforehand so they could prepare as much as possible (as in, wear sunblock or insect repellent) and make an informed choice whether or not to participate.
Any field trip outside on a sunny day could result in a sun tan or sun burn. Any school event that takes place at night, around here anyway, well, not in Fall or Winter, is likely to result in a mosquito bite. And students might get scratched, bit, burnt, etc to some degree in many varieties of school functions that wouldn't cause any sort of uproar at all. Besides, you live in SoCal, when isn't there excessive sunlight when you're outdoors?
I don't think they are extreme examples at all, because we don't know precisely what happened here. There's no basis for comparison when you don't really know what's being compared.
What if your daughter went to a school dance and they inked her hand when she walked in the door? That's what they used to do to kids at my school for dances in Jr. High. What if they wrote an X on her hand if she went to a high school foot ball game to show that she paid admission? If you have a problem with that, I guess there's nothing I have to say against it personally as it's your right to be as protective as you want to be with your kids, and generally I say the more proactive the parent the better.
But kids aren't made of glass, and I think expecting everyone in the world to treat them that way is unrealistic.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
In all the cases you mentioned, I would know ahead of time what was likely to happen and have a chance to consent to it (and probably would.)
That's the difference. That, and the post above where it says the device carries a warning that it is not to come in contact with human skin.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So you'd be upset if a teacher took his class outside for whatever reason on a hot sunny day?
I'm not attempting to be prosecutorial, I'm just curious as to where the line is.
Regardless, if what Samp says above is true, and I have no reason to believe it isn't, then it looks like yeah, he acted quite inappropriately.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
It would depend on the circumstances. If it was unforseen or spur of the moment, I wouldn't mind as much, though I would be peeved if she got a sunburn (likely if, say, Bridey, my palest, went outside for more than 5-10 minutes without re-applying sunscreen more than a few hours after she had applied it) and probably give the teacher a talking-to about how I needed to know when my daughter would be going outside so I could make sure she had sunscreen with her and remind her to put it on beforehand (as well as give my daughter a talking-to about always having sunscreen with her, putting it on before going outside, and wearing a hat outdoors.)
But if the teacher KNEW that they would be going outside for an extended amount of time, gave no advance warning to allow us a chance to prepare for that eventuality, then I would be more upset.
Not to mention the schools I attended had strict rules about being outside of the classroom during class time in a class not already designated for that (like gym); they had to plan for that in advance, they couldn't just walk around campus. But this is beside the point; the two are not analagous. I have an especial thing about sunburns because my grandmother has had skin cancer for the past 30 years, they keep removing cancerous lesions from her skin and for all we know the next one could metastacize before they catch it. I don't expect all adults in my kids' lives to know how frightened I am of them getting sunburnt too many times like she did growing up.
This teacher, though, KNEW he would be using an instrument that specifically warns not to use it on skin on the students, and he knew it could cause harm, and he did not have the parents give permission or warn the parents or the students that it could cause harm. I think any reasonable adult would know that when using an instrument that says it can cause harm to human skin, you should not then test that statement by using it on the skin of a minor child.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:This teacher, though, KNEW he would be using an instrument that specifically warns not to use it on skin on the students
Yeah I'm with you on that now. I don't think this was nearly as clear when I was probing for further information earlier in the thread, but now I agree that the situations are not analagous.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I don't know, from the moment I saw the pictures and googled what he used, I knew it had the potential to be harmful. Even if he didn't read the directions (and being a science teacher, he should have), after the first time he saw what it did he should not have repeated it, and he should have tested it on himself if he was gonna do it on anyone.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Samprimary:
How did they determine that the teacher was teaching creationism and intelligent design?
Did they ask students? How did they interview students? What questions were asked? Did they observe the classroom? Review his testing material?
quote:he should have tested it on himself if he was gonna do it on anyone.
Yep. My kids have varying tolerances of pain-- the youngest refuses to get in a bath of anything but what I would consider chilly water. You can't determine other people's pain threshold; only your own.
On the surface, it appears like the guy should be fired. Creationism and intelligent design (as the terms are generally understood by the general public) should not be taught in school. The branding thing is CREEPY.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I wish I'd been around when kids were playing with mercury and liquid nitrogen.
Seriously, though--what made science class so much more interesting to me was that we were dealing with dangerous things--and we were responsible for our own safety. We burned balls of magnesium, and we were warned that if we looked at the flash, we'd almost certainly get permanent retinal damage. We dealt with high-concentration acids and bases, poisonous substances, super-sharp scalpels, and blue-hot bunsen burners. I could hear a similar "terrified parent" story for each case... "Students were given dangerous poison acids/razor-sharp scalpels/white-hot torches...very bad judgement on Mr Jones' part, and it cost him his job."
The teacher may have crossed a line, but I'm willing to bet that he'd been doing that same experiment for 21 years before now, and he hadn't been crossing a line back then. The LINE moved, and I'm not so quick to call him on bad judgement when he'd been doing (an essentially harmless experiment) for so long.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Now to address them from a personal experience. 1) He never preached in the classroom. He had posters, as many teachers do, hanging on his walls. Some of them included quotes from the Bible. He also had a Bible sitting on his desk for his own personal use. He offered to remove the posters, but the Bible was for his personal use, and would not remove it.
2) The branding, from my understanding, happened to more than one student. They volunteered and even asked if he would. The high voltage generator (my understanding is it was a Tesla Coil) does not produce any serious pain. No more than a Van de Graff generator. Just minor discomfort. The claim that the kid was unable to sleep because of pain is flat out not true.
If nothing permanent was done, if there was no pain, and if the kids were the ones that requested it, then there is no foul play in the specific cross incident. I had a chemistry teacher in high school who used to blow stuff up, shock students, and who I could imagine doing something like this. It would have been easy to write an article describing her actions in ways that would make it sound to people who had never stepped foot in her classroom that she wasn't fit to be a teacher. But the truth was, she was a fantastic teacher, precisely because she acted like that.
It sounds like this may be a situation where some parents have decided to inject their own personal political issues into a situation, and have ended up harming the students - by eliminating a well-liked teacher. Would there have been the same fuss if the shape he had "branded" into them was not affiliated with religion?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: I could hear a similar "terrified parent" story for each case... "Students were given dangerous poison acids/razor-sharp scalpels/white-hot torches...
Add onto that "with the intent to injure themselves" and you've got a winner.
The issue isn't so much that he used the equipment, but that he misused it, according to item instruction warnings.
"How could he? Mr. Johnson drove the kids in a bus!" .............. " ... at hazardous speeds on a slick road, sliding into a tree."
Even without permanent injury, that's not okay for a teacher to do, and never has been. Intent matters. Context matters. The same action can be done both safely and unsafely.
(I'm not even touching the other parts of the report. )
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Am I the only one who is curious as to why a science teacher needs a bible to sit on his desk for personal use?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I hope there's full discovery and a trial on the branding issue. I'd like to see a better statement of facts than what's available so far.
I read the complaint initiating the federal suit, and very little of it is aimed at the branding. Most of it is about the alleged establishment clause violations. There are two causes of actions: violation of the establishment clause and retaliation against the student involving a field trip and purposely putting the student in Freshwater's chaperon group after the parents complained about the in-class proselytizing.
If the brand were not in the shape of the cross, it would be absolutely irrelevant to the claims raised in the complaint.
The other thing the brand does is make monetary damages come into play, rather than just injunctive relief and attorney's fees.
Even without the branding, the facts as alleged make a prima facie case for an establishment clause violation.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Even without permanent injury, that's not okay for a teacher to do, and never has been. Intent matters. Context matters. The same action can be done both safely and unsafely.
But that raises the following questions: (1) Was it misuse? Did it or could it have reasonably caused any real harm? (2) Does it warrant firing him? Should we label all teachers who go beyond the instruction warnings as "very bad teachers" and fire them?
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Am I the only one who is curious as to why a science teacher needs a bible to sit on his desk for personal use?
When I was in school, many of my teachers had at least one or two non-teaching-related books they kept on hand to read during their break time, or when otherwise free.
Depending on the teacher, these could range from fiction books, to religious, to do-it-yourself stuff...a wide range of content. As long as they didn't read their recreational books when they were supposed to be teaching, the school didn't seem to care.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Am I the only one who is curious as to why a science teacher needs a bible to sit on his desk for personal use?
When I was in school, many of my teachers had at least one or two non-teaching-related books they kept on hand to read during their break time, or when otherwise free.
Depending on the teacher, these could range from fiction books, to religious, to do-it-yourself stuff...a wide range of content. As long as they didn't read their recreational books when they were supposed to be teaching, the school didn't seem to care.
I have no objection to him having it and reading it.
But keeping it out on his desk and flat-out stating he would refuse to remove it. That strikes me as strange.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
The ones I knew kept their books on their desk because (if you'd ever seen their drawers) there was no other place to put them. Maybe his was also over-stuffed?
I don't find refusing strange...confrontational, definitely, but not strange. Many people don't take demands that their personal property be removed from their work space well. It's just the way some people are.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Not to mention teaching creationism in science class. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But keeping it out on his desk and flat-out stating he would refuse to remove it. That strikes me as strange.
It depends. If teachers are allowed to have non-school related, personal-use only books out on the desk, then I would resist being told to hide it.
However, assuming all the other allegations are adequately supported by evidence, and assuming the school was keeping him instead of firing him, I would support a prophylactic order barring HIM from keeping the Bible out based on his difficulty in understanding the rules.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Did they ask students? How did they interview students? What questions were asked? Did they observe the classroom? Review his testing material?
While I'd much like to see the full reveal on the methodology used by the independent investigators, I don't think it's out yet. Or at least it's not out where I can find it. All we know at this point is that the independent investigators were brought on by the school district to investigate claims that the school district already suspected, or knew and needed independent verification to have any action taken on the matter of an insubordinate teacher. Based on the news reports it is possible that the school district slacked on this guy's obvious clause and rule violations until the public suit brought about by the parents of one of the multiple (at least two) children that the investigators determined had christian crosses marked on their arms by Freshwater. At any rate, the results of the independent investigation when combined with the school district's own internal review resulted in a unanimous decision of the school board to terminate Freshwater's employment. In the course of both the independent and the internal investigation, students were interviewed and statements were taken to help verify claims made by the family now charging Freshwater with inappropriate action as a teacher, violation of the constitution and of school policy, and furthermore charges the school with being negligent and not stopping Freshwater's repeated and egregious violations of Constitutional religious neutrality requirements.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Even without permanent injury, that's not okay for a teacher to do, and never has been. Intent matters. Context matters. The same action can be done both safely and unsafely.
But that raises the following questions: (1) Was it misuse? Did it or could it have reasonably caused any real harm? (2) Does it warrant firing him? Should we label all teachers who go beyond the instruction warnings as "very bad teachers" and fire them?
My comment was directed at Launchywiggan's implicit and explict claims, not further. That is a separate discussion.
Given that you and I haven't seemed to be able to go anywhere productive in our interactions, that further discussion isn't one I want to enter into with you. I trust you understand.
Maybe someone else would be, though.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:My comment was directed at Launchywiggan's implicit and explict claims, not further. That is a separate discussion.
Well, yes, but I was trying to direct your comment back to the topic at hand - if it is true that intent and context matters, what does that tell us about this particular case? In this particular case, is there misuse going on, and if so what consequences should it warrant?
quote:Given that you and I haven't seemed to be able to go anywhere productive in our interactions, that further discussion isn't one I want to enter into with you. I trust you understand.
Um, actually, I don't! We haven't interacted in this thread yet and discussions in other threads have definitely in some cases been productive. Why are you singling me out to refuse a response? And why make a post explicitly to say you won't respond to me? All that does it make me wonder what is prompting you to hold a grudge against me in particular.... so what's the deal?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Tresopax, I've found reports of second-degree burns from similar instruments. The manufacturer says not to use it on humans. I think it most definitely is misuse, and resonably can cause real harm.
This is not a case of just "going beyond instruction warnings", though I don't think a blanket policy of saying "teachers are not to use science equipment for purposes not approved by the manufacturer without prior approval of the school or district" would be a bad thing. And yes, he should be fired for purposefully burning students and putting them at possible risk of more severe burns.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In these kinds of discussions, I think it's almost irrelevant how well-confirmed the facts have been. Certainly, that's extremely relevant to the question of whether the teacher should be fired, disciplined, or exonerated. But, unless one lives in the school district, that's not the most important part of the discussion given that we have no accusations of an unfair investigation and no real detail into how the investigation was conducted.
The important question is "what should be done to or about this teacher, assuming the facts as alleged are true?"
We quite simply lack any actual facts to help us judge whether this teacher should be fired, because we don't know the strength of the evidence supporting the allegations. What we do know is that the school board thinks the evidence is sufficient to support those allegations.
I do think it's important that someone keep an eye on political entities and make sure that their conclusions are supported. But baseless speculation about deficiencies in the board's methodology aren't actually a way to do that. This teacher will have counsel in the lawsuit. Most teachers' unions provide representation concerning adverse employment actions. Each of these will help ensure that the investigation was thorough and reached the correct conclusion.
Absent specific allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the board, what's the point in raising questions about the investigation? Even if all those questions were answered, it would be easy to come up with new questions that, if answered in a particular way, would undercut the investigation.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Ketchupqueen,
I agree with the first part - it does seem to be misuse, if the manufacturer says it can harm humans. The second part (whether or not it warrants firing) is where I'd take issue. I don't think that lapse in judgement, by itself, demonstrates he is a bad teacher or that he needs to be fired. But if he repeats doing things like this, or refuses to stop when told to, as the article seemed to suggest, then I'd agree that firing is a step that could ultimately be necessary even if he is well-liked. As Dag said, we can't know the facts for sure, but in my mind the dividing line is whether or not this is a pattern that other discipline doesn't seem to rectify.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
See, I think of it this way: a teacher at a public school is put in a position of trust and authority over other people's children. It is not unreasonable to expect better than average judgement and forethought in regards to protecting their physical safety than one would expect in the general public. In a case where he clearly did something with the potential to cause fairly extreme harm, and should have had reasonable knowledge and understanding that such harm could occur, I think a teacher should not be given a warning but should be fired. In a case where he had done it multiple times, he should be fired with even less consideration as to whether or not he should have known-- because after the first time he REALLY should have known.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Yes. I don't understand why it's even a question whether or not this guy should be fired.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:But baseless speculation about deficiencies in the board's methodology aren't actually a way to do that.
At least one member here, having personal experience in the case has asserted that the board is deficient; I wouldn't call such speculation "baseless."
The articles in question are textbook examples of how to go about firing up interest in a news story without describing fact-- point to a poll, survey, or study. Adfectio (I believe) has already reported that the news media seems uninterested in people supporting the teacher.
I don't see any problem with being being skeptical about such methods, and I don't see any problem with pointing up the fact that they're deficient.
IF the facts as they're presented are true, THEN he should be fired and possibly be subjected to legal action. I think that's entirely logical.
BUT if the facts are not true-- if as adfectio alludes, something else entirely is going on-- then we should be considering the ramifications of those falsehoods, and the power we've handed over to our governmental officials.
It seems that we've had this discussion before, and quite recently.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:At least one member here, having personal experience in the case has asserted that the board is deficient; I wouldn't call such speculation "baseless."
I wasn't referring to adfectio's posts at all, since he has not alleged any deficiencies in the board's investigation.
He has alleged deficiencies in the news reporting, something that doesn't surprise me one bit. He has also given personal testimony that the people in the community don't agree with the investigation - something I would expect to see whether the investigation had been deficient or not, especially in a conservative Christian town (as described by adfectio).
He has also stated that his experience and the experience of some people he talked to are not consistent with the conclusions of the investigation. This is also something I would expect to find whether the board's investigation was deficient or not.
Adfectio has not alleged that particular students' testimony was discounted. He has not alleged that their testimony was not sought. He has alleged that some people did not witness some of the events which constitute violations.
quote:BUT if the facts are not true-- if as adfectio alludes, something else entirely is going on-- then we should be considering the ramifications of those falsehoods, and the power we've handed over to our governmental officials.
Of course. This doesn't contradict, refute, or even put in tension anything I said. In fact, I said, "I do think it's important that someone keep an eye on political entities and make sure that their conclusions are supported."
quote:It seems that we've had this discussion before, and quite recently.
Yep. And, as there, speculation of the kind I addressed makes it more difficult to actually keep an eye on government.
For example, in the previous discussion people claiming that common occurrences such as reliance on hearsay when seeking warrants indicated wrongdoing distracted from the real issue.
We have NO information about any wrongdoing by the board. If someone provides some, the issue can be discussed. Until it exists, though, what is there to discuss about it?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
"With the exception of the cross-burning episode"...
That's just funny.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
He should have been fired as soon as he started preaching christianity in his class. No community has only christian members unless it is very small, not town size. edit: oops mispelled
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
This "high frequency generator" is the same thing that I refer to as my Tesla coil. As I said, it operates at 60Hz, which isn't even high frequency by audio standards. Mine does not have any warning not to use it on human skin, but mine is quite old, so it was probably made before they had to put warnings on everything.
Of course, I've already said that I use mine in a demonstration with children, although my demo is very different from using the spark to make a mark on skin.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
But Glenn, does yours have that high of an output?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(As they said in the blog you linked to, a small shock would not leave a welt. There are clearly welts on the skin in the pictures that have been linked to.)
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Then obviously the generator did not leave the burn mark, rather the cross itself left its brand upon the vampire. And his parents are just trying to cover up their lifestyle.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
The output is adjustable. When I tested it on myself I used the lowest setting that would throw a spark, and as I said, I only used it for a very short time to find out how it felt. It didn't leave a mark on my skin, partially because I didn't give it enough time, and also because the setting was too low.
When I used it in the demo, I held the tip tightly, so that it didn't throw a spark at all. Instead it built up a static charge in my body and those of the children I held hands with, so that a fluorescent bulb lit up in the last kid's hand. Since it was a static charge, there was essentially no current flow. And I always held the tip myself, and instructed the children not to let go, or they would get a shock. Even if they had let go though, they would have got a single spark, like from rubbing your feet on a carpet, not a continued current, as would be necessary to cause the tissue damage seen in the picture. And it would have been dampened because they were not the one holding the coil.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
So obviously, he did not use the device on the skin in the same way you did.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:[adfectio] has not alleged any deficiencies in the board's investigation.
He has alluded to the board's deficiencies:
quote:Not Everyone wanted him out of there. In fact, most people wanted him to stay. It was only the people in charge who decided that they would rather get rid of one teacher than face a lawsuit who wanted him out.
Dag said:
quote:[adfectio] has alleged that some people did not witness some of the events which constitute violations.
Not just some, but a "majority" of faculty and students.
quote: In fact, I said, "I do think it's important that someone keep an eye on political entities and make sure that their conclusions are supported."
But you sought to discourage discussion of the possibilities of political corruption.
quote:speculation of the kind I addressed makes it more difficult to actually keep an eye on government.
For example, in the previous discussion people claiming that common occurrences such as reliance on hearsay when seeking warrants indicated wrongdoing distracted from the real issue.
I don't follow you.
Let's switch "speculation" with "skepticism" and we might begin to agree.
quote:We have NO information about any wrongdoing by the board. If someone provides some, the issue can be discussed. Until it exists, though, what is there to discuss about it?
And yet here we are discussing it. I think that there is room for consideration.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:He has alluded to the board's deficiencies:
Scott, I know to what I was referring. That wasn't it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
All right.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:And it would have been dampened because they were not the one holding the coil.
(emphasize mine)
I think you meant to say damped
(not trying to be snarky, this is just a pet peeve...)
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:So obviously, he did not use the device on the skin in the same way you did.
Probably in a similar way to the way I did when I tested it on myself, but he would have had to hold it over the skin for a longer period, or turned the power up more or both. Probably both.
When I did it to myself, it was definitely uncomfortable, only a little bit short of painful.
And yes, I did mean to say damped.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
If he turned up the power and left it on longer, I'd say there's a difference in the usage-- not to mention you did that on YOURSELF. Not students.
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)