May 2009

A U.S. District Court judge has ruled both for and against a high school teacher, in C.F. v. Capistrano Unified School District, a lawsuit claiming that the teacher’s “anti-religious” comments violated a student’s First Amendment rights.

The Court’s Ruling

The student had sued the teacher and the district, claiming that over 20 statements by James C. Corbett, the teacher in an Advanced Placement European history course, violated his First Amendment rights because they disparaged religion. The judge held that most of the statements did not violate the student’s constitutional rights because they either reflected the teacher’s political views and did not touch upon religion or were otherwise appropriate in the context of an AP history course in which students were to be taught deductive reasoning and current world events.

According to the judge, a teacher’s statement does not violate the U.S. Constitution merely because a particular religious group finds it offensive. Thus, Corbett’s opinions on such social or political issues as the availability of birth control pills, the connection between religion and morality, and scientific reasoning and the Bible were allowable. In addition, statements that Corbett made about religion, including the provocative “When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth,” were permissible in the context of the class’s discussion of how religion historically has led people to make political choices that were not in their best interest.

The judge upheld the contention that Corbett’s statement that creationism is “superstitious nonsense” violated the student’s rights because there was no secular purpose and it sent a message of disapproval of religion.

All claims against the district were dismissed because the court did not find any evidence the district was aware that Corbett made any statements hostile to religion. The court will hold another hearing regarding the student’s claims for damages and attorneys’ fees, and also to consider whether to issue an injunction prohibiting Corbett from making such statements in the future. Either party may appeal this ruling.

Why This Case Is Important

Cases like these are always complex. This ruling—and the 37 pages the judge needed to lay out his analysis—underscores the difficulty superintendents and board members face in determining whether such statements are merely “offensive” to a student or rise to a level that may violate a student’s constitutional rights.

However, the ruling does provide some helpful guidance:

• A statement is not unconstitutional just because a particular religious group might find it offensive. Teachers do not need to tailor their comments so avoid offending or disagreeing with any religious group.
• The underlying purpose or motive for teachers’ statements is important. Were the statements relevant concepts in light of the class discussion, the goals of the course and the age of the students? In this case, the judge found the statements relevant for the curriculum of an AP history course for high school students.
• Looking at the context of the discussion, would it be reasonable for the statements to be construed as sending a message of disapproving of religion? Again, the judge looked at the discussion as a whole and considered whether the statement could be interpreted as illustrating a historical point or to stimulate class discussion.

A copy of the court’s decision can be found at:

http://thecapistranodispatch.com/uploads/pdfs/2009/News%20Documents/CUSD%20Farnan%20Decision.pdf