TRIED IN THE COURT OF FACEBOOK
Is Facebook ever the best place to go to find the truth? Balance? Fairness?
Yet, that’s the route the mother of a Hamilton County Schools student took recently in claiming her daughter’s middle-school Bible history teacher uttered an antisemitic remark.
In addition to Facebook, the mother also sought to have her story aired on a local television station, telling this newspaper she couldn’t comment much on the situation because the station had asked her not to talk to other media.
On Friday, the school district released the results of a review of the situation, saying, “We cannot conclude that the teacher intended to actually instruct her students about how to ‘torture’ a Jewish person (which had been alleged), and none of the students interviewed who recalled the comment interpreted it negatively.”
The teacher in question, her attorney said in a statement, is willing to meet with the mother, the Jewish Federation of Greater Chattanooga or the Anti-Defamation League if it would promote a productive dialogue.
“My client has been unjustly smeared online and in the media for allegedly saying something that she absolutely did not say, nor would she ever,” the statement said. “This is what happens when people rush to judgment without knowing the facts. Fortunately, the Hamilton County School System took its time, conducted a thorough investigation of this matter and arrived at the correct conclusion that my client said nothing of the sort.”
The school system- and seminary-trained teacher said she “strongly supports the equal and fair treatment for people of all religious, racial and cultural backgrounds.”
“I am personally offended by the statements that have been attributed to me, and I unequivocally deny making them,” her statement said. “I did not utter antisemitic remarks nor refuse a parent/teacher meeting. It is a shame that a misinterpretation of what I actually said has caused such far-reaching destruction to my students, the Jewish community worldwide, and me. I am grateful that the investigation of this matter by the Hamilton County School System has completely exonerated me. It is my hope that this statement will clear up confusion and false accusations.”
After the results of the investigation were released, the mother of the student said the district only focused on the antisemitic remark, which she said is the only one she does not have documented.
Of course, that’s the remark on which a significant part of her Facebook outrage dealt, and it came at the same time as national news was mounting on a book on the Holocaust that was removed from a McMinn County Schools curriculum.
The mother, in her original social media post that was removed for violating Facebook’s community guidelines around hate speech, also indicated the way the teacher guided the class was “blatant Christian proselytizing.”
The school district, in its statement, said the district’s partner [Bible in the Schools] would form a review committee to evaluate course content and reference materials.
Whatever your position on public schools and religion, the Bible history classes in Hamilton County Schools are supposed to be guided by rules set forth in a 1979 United States District Court decision that had judged the classes in the then-city and county schools in the 1978-79 school year violated the First Amendment.
On its website, the local Bible in the Schools program paraphrases a 1963 Supreme Court ruling: “It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.”
The classes, offered in 29 Hamilton County schools, are said by the organization to be “non-sectarian” and taught “from a viewpoint-neutral perspective and adhere to a court-approved curriculum.”
And as important as the Bible and faith are in a city that had annually been rated as one of the top Bible-minded and most churched cities in the country, those “non-sectarian” and “viewpoint-neutral” perspectives can’t come with a winkwink and a nudge-nudge.
If the program’s teachers are not adhering to the court’s guidelines for teaching Bible history, they should be. And if they are not, it is no wonder the student in question was reticent to admit she was Jewish.
But, again, the case should never have been tried initially in the court of Facebook or in the glare of a me-first television interview.
We look forward to hearing — from a fairness standpoint — the results of the review committee’s evaluation of the local classes.