A community college instructor in Red Oak claims he was fired after he told his students that the biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be literally interpreted.
Steve Bitterman, 60, said officials at
Southwestern Community College sided with a handful of students who threatened legal action over his remarks in a western civilization class Tuesday. He said he was fired Thursday.
"I'm just a little bit shocked myself that a college in good standing would back up students who insist that people who have been through college and have a master's degree, a couple actually, have to teach that there were such things as talking snakes or lose their job," Bitterman said.
Sarah Smith, director of the school's
Red Oak campus, declined to comment Friday on Bitterman's employment status. The school's president, Barbara Crittenden, said Bitterman taught one course at Southwest. She would not comment, however, on his claim that he was fired over the Bible reference, saying it was a personnel issue.
"I can assure you that the college understands our employees' free-speech rights," she said. "There was no action taken that violated the First Amendment."
Bitterman, who taught part time at Southwestern and
Omaha's Metropolitan Community College, said he uses the Old Testament in his western civilization course and always teaches it from an academic standpoint.
Bitterman's Tuesday course was telecast to students in Osceola over the Iowa Communications Network. A few students in the Osceola classroom, he said, thought the lesson was "denigrating their religion."
"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," Bitterman said. "I told them it was an extremely meaningful story, but you had to see it in a poetic, metaphoric or symbolic sense, that if you took it literally, that you were going to miss a whole lot of meaning there."
Bitterman said he called the story of Adam and Eve a "fairy tale" in a conversation with a student after the class and was told the students had threatened to see an attorney. He declined to identify any of the students in the class.
"I just thought there was such a thing as academic freedom here," he said. "From my point of view, what they're doing is essentially teaching their students very well to function in the eighth century."
Hector Avalos, an atheist religion professor at Iowa State University, said Bitterman's free-speech rights were violated if he was fired simply because he took an academic approach to a Bible story.
"I don't know the circumstances, but if he's teaching something about the Bible and says it is a myth, he shouldn't be fired for that because most academic scholars do believe this is a myth, the story of Adam and Eve," Avalos said.
"So it'd be no different than saying the world was not created in six days in science class.
"You don't fire professors for giving you a scientific answer."
Bitterman said Linda Wild, vice president of academic affairs at Southwest, fired him over the telephone.
Wild did not return telephone or e-mail messages Friday. Bitterman said that he can think of no other reason college officials would fire him and that Smith, the director of the campus, has previously sat in on his classes and complimented his work.
"As a taxpayer, I'd like to know if a tax-supported public institution of higher learning has given veto power over what can and cannot be said in its classrooms to a fundamentalist religious group," he said. "If it has ... then the taxpaying public of Iowa has a right to know. What's next? Whales talk French at the bottom of the sea?"
Story Link
I think it a fair question to ask is could a teacher get fired at a non-religious college for claiming the Bible conatains truth in regards to the Earth's origin?
It seems the main issue here is how much personal opinions are professors allowed to lecture with.
In MY opinion, if a statement can be backed up with objective, scientific evidence, it is fair game for a professor to say in a classroom. His statement, based on this article, reflects the current academic stance.
If a professor (in a non-religious school) said that genesis contains some truths for earth's origin, he darn well better have some objective, scientific evidence to back him up. Period. Bottom line.
In academia, you are paid to teach what the evidence supports, whether you agree with it or not. You can THINK what you like...and put those thoughts to the test of the scientific method. Should you discover something new, great. But it should be provable throughout the world through other experiments and research...not just based on what your opinion is or on what you WANT to be true. Until you DO manange to scientifically prove your claim--in this case, that genesis contains some truth about the earth's origins--you should teach what the evidence supports and keep your theology in SUNDAY school (NOT a college campus!).
It seems the main issue here is how much personal opinions are professors allowed to lecture with.
No, Evan, I think the main issue here is how much value is placed on a myth. Most people accept that the genesis account is not literal, therefore, a myth. It tells a story and makes some points. To be fired for comments made about the origins of this story is beyond belief. However, I guess the professor is lucky he didn't live in the 15th century. He would have had his tongue cut out and then burned at the stake.
What say you believers join us in the 21st century and leave your laughable beliefs for sunday school. Noboby will get fired there.
If this truly is the reason, he has a legitimate case.
If stating that the Adam and Eve story is mythological warrants termination, then denying the existence of leprechauns should too.
Or imagine a student from Greece filing a complaint because Zeus was relegated to mythological status during a Western Civ. class.
And Evan, professors "personal opinions" (whatever that means here) on subjects covered during class are perfectly acceptable. That is part and parcel to the concept of academic freedom.
The only issues you could really complain about would be if the opinions of others was not allowed (something creationist students were always trying to pull off on us biology teachers regarding us not teaching creationism...only to be dismissed), or that the professor was consistently opining on topics irrelevant to the course (a behavior which would have to establish a pattern and be evaluated by the administration).
In either case, neither warrants immediate dismissal.
I can't see the relevance of this comment. It seems to imply that he takes Southwestern Community College to be a religious institution, which as far as I can see, it isn't.
Boe
A commenter called "kizzie" at the DeMoines Register forum on this topic claims to have been in the class Bitterman was teaching. It appears he may have been verbally abusive rather than merely doing his job as a teacher. Of course, this "kizzie" has a rather warped view of what a teacher's job is, since he/she says a teacher shouldn't tell students they're wrong. Still, "kizzie's" description of Bitterman as a bully was backed up by others claiming to be students or alumni.
Everyone here knows (or should know) the difference between attacking an idea and attacking the person who thinks it (ad hominem). If this teacher was engaging in the latter, perhaps his energies would be better spent somewhere other than in a classroom.
On the other hand, if this really went down as Bitterman says, then the college may be in deep doo-doo.
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2007/09/why-religion-and-public-schools-should.html
The students could have challenged Bitterman to further discussions, instead of complaining to a higher authority. What this shows is that it is difficult to make people "see sense" when they are prejudiced.
However I feel my question was dismissed as irrelevant.
If a professor at a non-religious school taught intelligent design with supporting evidence (along with other theories and their evidence) would that be grounds for firing?
On a side note I hope this professor gets his job back or quickly finds a new one.
Your question is NOT irrelevant. It complements the article.
HOWEVER...
I do not feel that ID deserves an equal footing in a non-religious school, because the evidence for ID simply cannot stand up to the same scrutiny as the mainstream views of science. ID is based far to much on conjecture and unobjective thinking.
Yes, mainstream scientists have biases, too, but they also have a peer review system that would NOT let them get away with spreading false information.
"If a professor at a non-religious school taught intelligent design with supporting evidence (along with other theories and their evidence) would that be grounds for firing?"
---
Evan,
If you were taking a classroom course on the subject of ID, then the answer is obvious.
If you were taking a class on science theory versus ID theory, then again the answer is obvious.
If you signed up for any course that made a claim to anything supernatural, then you are getting what you paid to learn about.....something supernatural.
For instance, many colleges today offer courses on different branches of the paranormal and other psudo-science subjects.
You would surely walk into such a class expecting to hear a supporting case for these beliefs.
It wouldn't matter that there is no concrete evidence to support these ideas, so unless the professor was caught fabricating experiment results, he's likely never to be fired for teaching about what a student surely expected to learn in such a course.
That said, if one is taking a science biology course, one is expecting to be taught what is accepted in the general science community and not some psuedo science from it's fringes.
Nor would one expect to be taught in parallel, that some unknown intelligent super being created all we see around us.
That is clearly the stuff of religious faith, as science has NOT accepted any evidence presented to them that would make a case for the ID theory.
To teach ID in the same way as concrete science theory, would mean other pseudo sciences should also get equal weight as well.
Just how much class time would students then need to learn about ALL those other ideas in conjunction with 'proven' science.
Then of course, what is taught in science classes has to conform to present scientific understanding. That understanding did not arrive by wishful thinking but by evidence and experiments and vast research etc etc.
What type of scientific evidence (as this is a science class we're talking about) could ID offer as valid proof that would make it on par with the rest of science knowledge?
I highly doubt from what I've read, that ID folks have ANYTHING to back up their FAITH and wishful thinking.
Can you demonstrate otherwise to all of us?
ATF