Case Title: Freshwater v. Mount Vernon City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.

Citation: 2013-Ohio-5000

Docket Number: 2012-0613

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-11-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Freshwater v. Mt. Vernon City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-5000.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2013-OHIO-5000 
FRESHWATER, APPELLANT, v. MOUNT VERNON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD 
OF EDUCATION, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Freshwater v. Mt. Vernon City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 
 Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-5000.] 
R.C. 3319.16 proceeding for termination of public school teacher’s contract—
Good and just cause—Insubordination defined as a willful disobedience 
of, or refusal to obey, a reasonable and valid rule, regulation, or order 
issued by a school board or by an administrative superior. 
(No. 2012-0613—Submitted February 27, 2013—Decided November 19, 2013.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Knox County, No. 2011-CA-000023,  
2012-Ohio-889. 
____________________ 
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 
In a proceeding under R.C. 3319.16 for the termination of a public school 
teacher’s contract, “good and just cause” includes insubordination 
consisting of a willful disobedience of, or refusal to obey, a reasonable and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
valid rule, regulation, or order issued by a school board or by an 
administrative superior. 
____________________ 
O’CONNOR, C.J. 
{¶ 1} In this appeal, we determine whether the evidence supports the 
stated reasons for terminating the employment of a public school teacher, 
appellant John Freshwater, for introducing religion into his eighth-grade science 
classes and for insubordination.  More specifically, we must address whether the 
evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that appellee, Mount Vernon City School 
District Board of Education (“the board” or “the district”), terminated Freshwater 
for insubordination in refusing to remove religious displays in his classroom after 
being told to do so, and for continuing to inject his personal religious beliefs into 
his plan and pattern of instruction, thereby exceeding the bounds of the school 
district’s bylaws and policies, even after being forbidden to do so. 
{¶ 2} After detailed review of the voluminous record in this case, we hold 
that the court of appeals did not err in affirming the termination.  The trial court 
properly found that the record supports, by clear and convincing evidence, 
Freshwater’s termination for insubordination in failing to comply with orders to 
remove religious materials from his classroom.  Accordingly, based on our 
resolution of this threshold issue, we need not reach the constitutional issue of 
whether Freshwater impermissibly imposed his religious beliefs in his classroom.  
We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals because there was ample evidence 
of insubordination to justify the termination decision. 
RELEVANT BACKGROUND 
{¶ 3} Mount Vernon School Board asserts that despite the district’s 
instructions to cease doing so, Freshwater unequivocally injected his own 
Christian faith into his classroom as early as 1994 and continued to do so right up 
until he was relieved of his teaching duties.  The board also asserts that after it 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
denied Freshwater’s 2003 teaching proposal to critically evaluate evolution, 
Freshwater surreptitiously supplemented his eighth-grade science curriculum with 
religious handouts, showed videos on creationism and intelligent design, 
displayed religious materials in his classroom, and made various statements in 
class referring to the Bible. 
{¶ 4} Freshwater, on the other hand, argues that the board violated his 
right to academic freedom pursuant to the First Amendment to the United States 
Constitution when it terminated him based on the content or viewpoint of his 
curriculum-related academic discussions with students and his use of 
supplemental academic materials. 
{¶ 5} We agree with the board and find that there is ample support for 
Freshwater’s termination based upon insubordination.  We resolve this case solely 
as a teacher-employment-termination case governed by R.C. 3319.16, which sets 
forth standards and procedures for termination of teaching contracts by boards of 
education.  We need not address the various constitutional issues raised by 
Freshwater, because we resolve this appeal on an other-than-constitutional 
ground.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Essig v. Blackwell, 103 Ohio St.3d 481, 2004-
Ohio-5586, 817 N.E.2d 5, ¶ 34, citing State ex rel. DeBrosse v. Cool, 87 Ohio 
St.3d 1, 7, 716 N.E.2d 1114 (1999) (“Courts decide constitutional issues only 
when absolutely necessary”). 
Early Conduct 
{¶ 6} The legal battle in this case began largely in 2007, when a student 
and his parents alleged that Freshwater used a Tesla coil1 in class to make a mark 
on the student’s arm.  But the antecedents of this case go back to 1994, when 
                                                          
 
1 A Tesla coil, named after inventor Nikola Tesla, is “an air-core transformer for high-frequency 
alternating or oscillating electrical currents.”  Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2361 
(1986).  When the hand-held Tesla coil (also called a high-frequency generator) used for 
classroom demonstrations involved in this case is properly adjusted and its electrode is held near a 
metal object, a spark jumps from the coil to the metal. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
district administrators first instructed Freshwater not to distribute materials 
informing his students about a religious seminar.  And district officials advised 
and counseled Freshwater multiple times about similar behavior in the 15 years 
that followed, directing him not to incorporate religious documents based upon 
creationism or intelligent design into his classroom instruction and to remove 
displays of religious materials from the classroom. 
{¶ 7} The voluminous record here establishes, by clear and convincing 
evidence, that Freshwater has been insubordinate in the course of his employment 
with the district.  For purposes of this appeal, however, we are specifically 
concerned with the occurrences of 2007 forward. 
{¶ 8} Thus, we find it necessary to review in detail the evidence presented 
in the hearing conducted by a referee considering whether termination was 
warranted and summarized in the referee’s report issued after the hearing. 
Background to the Referee’s Report and the Evidence at the Hearing 
{¶ 9} After the hearing, which involved 38 different days of witness 
testimony spread out over almost 21 months, included more than 80 witnesses and 
hundreds of exhibits, and ultimately resulted in over 6,000 pages of transcript, the 
referee issued a report on January 7, 2011.  In his report, the referee set forth the 
facts, including an overview of Freshwater’s sometimes contentious teaching 
record. 
{¶ 10} The referee addressed the four grounds asserted by the board in 
considering Freshwater’s termination:  (1) the Tesla coil incident, (2) his failure to 
adhere to established curriculum, (3) his role as administration-appointed 
facilitator, monitor, and supervisor of the student group Fellowship of Christian 
Athletes (“FCA”), and (4) his disobedience of orders. 
{¶ 11} The referee ultimately concluded in his report that grounds two and 
four were valid bases to support Freshwater’s termination. 
January Term, 2013 
5 
 
Freshwater’s teaching record and evaluations contain references to his 
incorporation of creationism and intelligent design in his classroom instruction 
{¶ 12} In 1987, the board hired Freshwater as an eighth-grade science 
teacher.  In addition to his teaching duties, Freshwater served as the 
administration-appointed facilitator, monitor, and supervisor of the FCA for more 
than 15 years. 
{¶ 13} Freshwater’s students at Mount Vernon Middle School often 
performed at or above the state’s standards and requirements in achievement 
testing.  Dr. Lynda Weston, former director of teaching and learning for the 
district, testified that Freshwater’s students’ science scores on state standardized 
tests were “the highest of the three eighth grade science teachers.” 
{¶ 14} William Oxenford, a seventh-grade science teacher at Mount 
Vernon Middle School, also served as an academic-achievement coach.  In the 
latter capacity, Oxenford was responsible for coordinating the implementation of 
strategies that would assist students in passing the achievement test.  He 
confirmed that Freshwater’s students had the highest performance level on 
achievements tests of the students taught by the three eighth-grade science 
teachers.  Similarly, Kerri Mahan, a teacher at Mount Vernon Middle School who 
also served on the “data team” for improving standardized-test performance, 
testified that Freshwater’s students “showed proficiency and achievement” on 
those tests. 
{¶ 15} During his employment with the district, Freshwater received at 
least 20 performance evaluations.  Almost all were positive.  In fact, Freshwater 
had never been disciplined before the precipitating events.  But Freshwater’s 
teaching career certainly was not without controversy. 
{¶ 16} Freshwater’s evaluations and communications from his superiors 
repeatedly directed him to cease distributing documents that presented students 
with information about intelligent design and creationism.  Freshwater was 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
admonished a number of times to abide by the board’s policy forbidding the 
teaching of religious thought in the curriculum. 
{¶ 17} The first of these incidents occurred on September 19, 1994, when 
Freshwater received a memorandum from Jeff Kuntz, then the principal at Mount 
Vernon Middle School, regarding Freshwater’s distribution to students of a 
handout entitled “Answers In Genesis” giving information about an upcoming 
seminar.  The handout discussed in the memorandum described a “free meeting 
* * * for students * * * [to] learn the evidence that supports creation—and denies 
evolution.”  (Emphasis sic.)  The handout also stated that the seminar would 
“reveal why it is vital to believe in Genesis as it is written * * * [and] declare that 
many of the important issues in our troubled society (the breakdown of the family, 
abortion, lawlessness, etc.) are related to evolution!” 
{¶ 18} In the memorandum, Kuntz instructed Freshwater to “please refrain 
from distributing materials not supported by your adopted course of study to 
students.  Your classroom is not an appropriate format for disseminating 
information on religious seminars to students.  In addition, please withdraw any 
extra credit you awarded to students who attended the ‘Answers In Genesis’ 
seminar.” 
{¶ 19} The record contains limited information of any occurrences for a 
number of years that followed, with no additional counseling or intervention 
regarding Freshwater documented until January 21, 2003.  That day, Freshwater 
received a mostly positive evaluation from Kuntz, who noted specifically that 
“Mr. Freshwater utilizes a good variety of methods and materials in his 
classroom.”  But Kuntz also noted, under the section of the evaluation marked 
“Growth/Improvement Areas,” that Freshwater should “[c]ontinue to adhere to 
board policy and guidelines 2270 with respect to Religion In The Curriculum (see 
attached).”  Kuntz attached the board’s policy and guidelines to Freshwater’s 
January Term, 2013 
7 
 
evaluation and later testified that he did so because of “two different situations” 
that had occurred in the fall of 2002. 
{¶ 20} The first situation Kuntz referred to evidently arose when some 
teachers from the high school, in particular one science teacher, spoke to Kuntz 
about her concern that she was having to “reteach” evolution to students in her 
high-school classes.  That teacher believed that Freshwater was contributing to 
that problem. 
{¶ 21} The second incident Kuntz referred to arose from a complaint from 
a parent concerning a handout that Freshwater had distributed.  Notably, however, 
at the hearing, Kuntz could not “exactly” recall the handout or its content. 
{¶ 22} Although the record does not reveal whether these complaints had 
merit, Kuntz decided to act because two complaints had been voiced within a 
reasonably short period of time and he felt that he could not ignore them.  
Therefore, Kuntz attached the board policy and guidelines on religion in the 
curriculum because he felt it was a “very appropriate” way to make a statement to 
Freshwater that was relevant to the concerns raised in the complaints. 
{¶ 23} The record establishes two patterns in Freshwater’s teaching career 
from 1994 through 2002—he repeatedly received positive evaluations of his 
teaching, and he repeatedly was advised not to distribute materials about 
creationism and intelligent design to students. 
Freshwater’s proposal to “critically examine” evolution 
{¶ 24} Despite receiving prior instructions not to provide students with 
religious information, Freshwater submitted a proposal to the board in 2003 
entitled “Objective Origins Science Policy.”  In that proposal, Freshwater 
requested that the board “[a]dd a policy statement to the MVCS [Mount Vernon 
City Schools] science curricula that allows teachers/students to critically examine 
the evidence both for and against evolution.”  More specifically, Freshwater 
asserted that one problem with teaching evolution was that “the Mount Vernon 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
City Schools do not offer a place in the curricula to scientifically and critically 
examine this theory” and that “there is confusion among some MVCS science 
teachers over whether they are even allowed to encourage critical scientific 
thinking on evolution, even though it is considered excellent scientific reasoning 
to do so with any other controversial science theories (such as the particle versus 
wave theories on light).” 
{¶ 25} The board rejected Freshwater’s proposal.  Its rejection was 
consistent with the State Board of Education’s subsequent decision to strike 
language similar to Freshwater’s proposal from the state of Ohio’s Academic 
Content Standards for K-12 science.  When first adopted, those standards required 
schools to teach students to critically evaluate evolution, which is primarily taught 
in the eighth and tenth grades in Ohio’s public schools.  Specifically, part of the 
relevant benchmark for grades nine and ten then provided, “Describe how 
scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary 
theory.  (The intent of this benchmark does not mandate the teaching or testing of 
intelligent design.)”  The accompanying achievement indicator for grade ten 
tracked this language.  But on February 14, 2006, the State Board of Education 
modified the above-mentioned benchmark and indicator to remove the foregoing 
language from its standards.  Thus, the state no longer required or encouraged 
schools to teach students to critically evaluate evolution. 
{¶ 26} But neither the board’s denial of his proposal nor the State Board 
of Education’s decision dissuaded Freshwater from teaching as if his proposal had 
been adopted. 
{¶ 27} On April 7, 2006, Paul Souhrada, a parent of one of Freshwater’s 
students, submitted a complaint form to the district.  In it, Souhrada alleged that 
on April 4, 2006, Freshwater distributed a handout to his son’s class entitled 
“Darwin’s Theory of Evolution—The Premise and the Problem.”  Although 
Freshwater apparently collected the handouts at the end of class, Souhrada’s son 
January Term, 2013 
9 
 
kept his and gave it to his father.  Souhrada checked the source of the information 
contained in the handout.  In his complaint, he wrote that the handout came from 
“All About God Ministries” and stated, “I don’t believe that is a proper source for 
science material, especially in light of the state school board’s decision in 
February to strike language regarding the critical evaluation of evolution from the 
state guidelines.” 
{¶ 28} Six weeks later, on May 26, 2006, Charles Adkins, a science 
teacher at Mount Vernon Middle School, and Richard Cunningham, the science-
department chairperson at Mount Vernon High School, wrote an e-mail to Weston 
and the district’s superintendent at the time, R. Jeff Maley, in response to Maley’s 
request that the school district review the handout mentioned in Souhrada’s 
complaint.  Adkins and Cunningham stated that they had investigated the possible 
sources of the handout and examined the associated media related to the topic and 
had determined that the handout, as well as the original source of the material, had 
not passed the test of scientific peer review and acceptance by the scientific 
establishment.  Neither of them was able to attribute this handout to a particular 
author, but they opined that the handout appeared in part or in its entirety in 
several intelligent-design websites. 
{¶ 29} After reviewing the complaint and researching the handout, Adkins 
and Cunningham met with Weston and Freshwater so that Freshwater could 
provide background information regarding the handout’s alignment with the Ohio 
content standards, benchmarks, and indicators.  Adkins and Cunningham wrote in 
the e-mail to Maley that Freshwater’s “explanation [did] not match the direction 
or the tone of the article.”  They also concluded that the “handout is inappropriate 
as an instructional resource for the grade level content benchmarks and 
indicators.” 
{¶ 30} On June 8, 2006, Maley directed Freshwater, in writing, to cease 
use of the handout and similar materials.  Maley wrote, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
 
“After review, I have determined the material in question 
cannot be attributed to a particular author or source.  The material 
has not passed the test of scientific review and acceptance of the 
established scientific community.  I am directing you to delete the 
material from your supplemental resources.  Also, in the future 
please refrain from using materials that the source or author cannot 
be readily identified.” 
 
Maley subsequently emphasized that his main concern with the material was that 
it did not have a source and that the failure to provide sources was “bad practice.” 
{¶ 31} Despite this warning and the prior incidents in which Freshwater 
had been warned not to distribute religious materials, there is no indication in the 
record suggesting that the district took adverse action against Freshwater for his 
practice of failing to cite sources in supplemental materials or his prior 
transgressions.  But the following school year, new allegations arose that raised 
serious questions about Freshwater’s compliance with the directives of 
Superintendent Maley and his continued status with the district. 
The allegations 
{¶ 32} On December 7, 2007, Stephen and Jenifer Dennis met with 
Stephen Short, then the interim superintendent for the district.  Their son was one 
of Freshwater’s eighth-grade science students and a participant in the FCA.  The 
Dennises complained that on the day before, December 6, 2007, Freshwater used 
a Tesla coil to make a mark on their son’s arm that appeared to be in the shape of 
a cross. 
{¶ 33} On December 10, 2007, Short met with William White, Mount 
Vernon Middle School principal, to investigate and determine what had taken 
place in Freshwater’s classroom.  Later that same day, White met with Freshwater 
January Term, 2013 
11 
 
to discuss the incident.  Freshwater admitted to White that he had used the Tesla 
coil on students during class and that he had used it to put an “X” on the 
Dennises’ son’s arm.  But he also testified that he did not see that he had made 
any significant lasting mark on the student, let alone a mark in the shape of a 
cross. 
{¶ 34} On January 22, 2008, White wrote a letter to Freshwater as a 
follow-up to their conversation on December 10.  White stated that “the 
electrostatic machine(s) should not be used for purposes of shocking students” 
and “the machine(s) should be removed from the classroom or locked up so that 
the students do not have access to” them.  White testified that after sending the 
letter to Freshwater, he never heard a single word or further complaint from the 
Dennises about the mark on their son’s arm until the Dennises filed suit against 
the board in April 2008. 
{¶ 35} But in the intervening period, White heard several other concerns 
about Freshwater from the Dennises.  For example, the Dennises complained 
about the manner in which Freshwater advised the FCA.  They alleged that 
Freshwater was operating in an improper leadership role by directly participating 
in the organization’s affairs rather than simply monitoring it.  Direct faculty 
participation in the organization was a violation of the FCA’s rules, which require 
that FCA clubs must be voluntary, student-initiated, and student-led. 
{¶ 36} The district was also aware that Freshwater allegedly was not 
enforcing the required permission-slip policy for FCA events, was contacting 
speakers himself rather than having the students do so, and allegedly had 
conducted a healing session for a speaker who appeared at an FCA event who had 
been ill. 
{¶ 37} The Dennises also complained that Freshwater had religious 
materials in the classroom. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
 
{¶ 38} On April 7, 2008, White met with Freshwater about these issues.  
White then instructed Freshwater, in clear and unequivocal writing, that 
Freshwater could not display religious materials in his classroom:  
 
With regard to religious materials in your classroom, it has been 
brought to my attention that you have a bible out on your desk and 
that the “collage” on your classroom window includes the 10 
commandments.  While you certainly may read your bible on your 
own, duty free time [i.e. during lunch], it cannot be sitting out on 
your desk when students are in the classroom and when you are 
supposed to be engaged in your responsibilities as a teacher.  As 
for the 10 commandments, that part of your collage must be taken 
down and replaced with something that is not religious in nature.  
As a public school teacher, you cannot engage in any activity that 
promotes or denigrates a particular religion or religious beliefs 
while on board property, during any school activity or while you 
are “on duty” as a teacher.  Unless a particular discussion about 
religion or religious decorations or symbols is part of a Board 
approved curriculum, you may not engage in religious discussions 
with students while at school or keep religious materials displayed 
in the classroom. 
 
{¶ 39} On April 11, 2008, White once again met with Freshwater 
regarding the need to remove overtly religious icons and materials from display in 
his classroom. 
{¶ 40} And on April 14, 2008, White yet again gave written instructions 
“to follow up” on his prior meetings, conversations, and writings with Freshwater 
regarding religious items in Freshwater’s classroom.  White’s letter directed that 
January Term, 2013 
13 
 
“all religious items need to be removed from your classroom by the end of the day 
on Wednesday, April 16, 2008.  Bibles and other religious DVD’s, videos, etc. 
should also be placed out of sight and access of the students by this date.”  
Freshwater signed the letter as acknowledgment of his receipt. 
{¶ 41} But evidently, Freshwater was far from compliant.  Despite having 
been directed repeatedly to remove the Bible and other religious items from his 
classroom, Freshwater proceeded to the school’s library, where he checked out 
two books, Jesus of Nazareth and the Oxford Bible.  He then displayed them on a 
lab table in his classroom rather than keeping them from his students’ sight. 
{¶ 42} And on April 16, 2008, the date by which he had been ordered to 
remove religious material from his classroom, Freshwater submitted a written 
statement refusing to remove the Bible from his classroom.2  
{¶ 43} As these events were unfolding, the Dennises’ attorney was 
formulating a letter to Short regarding what the Dennises believed to be “several 
instances of violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.”  The 
letter, dated April 14, 2008, set forth eight alleged violations in bulletpoint 
fashion, including the Tesla coil incident and regarding Freshwater’s behavior 
during FCA activities.  As to one violation, the Dennises alleged that the Ten 
Commandments were displayed in Freshwater’s classroom and several Bibles 
were also kept in the classroom as a display to his students, not for his personal 
use.  The Dennises averred, “This display represents an ostensible and 
predominant purpose of advancing religion and violates that central Establishment 
Clause value of official religious neutrality.”  This allegation was supported by 
citing McCreary Cty., Kentucky v. Am. Civ. Liberties Union of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 
844, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005). 
                                                          
 
2 By that date, Freshwater had removed the Ten Commandments from the collage in his 
classroom, but he refused to remove a poster depicting a Biblical verse above a photograph of 
former President George W. Bush and former Secretary of State Colin Powell in prayer with other 
government officials.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
14 
 
{¶ 44} The Dennises also claimed that Freshwater teaches his personal 
beliefs, from the Bible, in his eighth-grade science class.  According to the 
Dennises, students were taught the meaning of Easter and Good Friday in their 
science class.  The Dennises further asserted that whenever Freshwater disagrees, 
based upon his own religious beliefs, with teaching material, he advises the 
students that although he is forced to teach from the textbooks, the teachings are 
wrong or not proven according to the Bible. 
{¶ 45} In their letter, the Dennises requested three remedies:  (1) the 
immediate removal of the Bibles and the Ten Commandments display, (2) 
Freshwater’s removal from both the classroom and his leadership role in the FCA 
as well as the commencement of an investigation regarding his violation of the 
laws of this country and the policies of the district, and (3) an agreement by the 
district to correct the concerns they raised and to follow the law. 
{¶ 46} Counsel for the Dennises sent a follow-up letter on April 21, 2008, 
alleging a ninth violation by Freshwater.  That letter alleged that since the date of 
the April 14, 2008 letter, Freshwater had continued to teach religion in his 
classroom, including the assignment of extra-credit work regarding intelligent 
design.  Counsel wrote that it was obvious that Freshwater had not ceased his 
religious teachings and that the district nevertheless continued to allow 
Freshwater to teach eighth-grade science. 
Investigation by H.R. On Call, Inc. 
{¶ 47} In response to the Dennises’ claims, the district engaged an 
independent investigator, H.R. On Call, Inc. (“HROC”),3 to investigate the 
allegations.  Beginning on April 23, 2008, and continuing through the end of the 
school year, a monitor sat in Freshwater’s classroom and took notes of classroom 
observations and of statements made in class.  HROC investigated the Dennises’ 
                                                          
 
3 According to the testimony of HROC’s owner at the hearing, HROC is “a human resources 
consulting firm that provides a full range of human resource services to clients.” 
January Term, 2013 
15 
 
nine concerns, along with the complaint from April 2006 regarding the handout 
on Darwin that Freshwater had used in class, by interviewing the Dennises’ child, 
former and current students, and 18 teachers and administrators, including 
Weston. 
{¶ 48} In its summary of findings, HROC found that Freshwater’s 
teaching of evolution was not consistent with the district’s curriculum and state 
standards.  Specifically, HROC found that Freshwater taught creationism or 
intelligent design and the unreliability of carbon dating as reasons to support 
opposing evolution and that he discussed the meaning of Easter and Good Friday 
with his students.  Moreover, HROC found that Freshwater distributed materials 
from religious sources challenging evolution and then collected the materials back 
from the students in spite of specific directives not to teach religion, creationism, 
or intelligent design.  In addition, HROC recounted evidence that Freshwater had 
told students that “science is wrong because the Bible states that homosexuality is 
a sin.”  HROC concluded that Freshwater taught his religious beliefs in his 
classes. 
{¶ 49} HROC also found that Freshwater gave an extra-credit assignment 
for students to view the movie Expelled, which is about intelligent design. 
{¶ 50} HROC’s report included a finding that Freshwater was 
insubordinate by failing to remove all religious materials from his classroom as 
ordered by his superior, Principal White. 
{¶ 51} HROC issued its 15-page report on June 19, 2008. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
16 
 
Board resolutions 
{¶ 52} On June 20, 2008, the board unanimously passed a resolution titled 
“Intent to Consider the Termination of the Teaching Contract of John 
Freshwater.”4 
{¶ 53} The board resolution set forth four grounds for Freshwater’s 
termination:  (1) the Tesla coil incident, (2) his failure to adhere to established 
curriculum, (3) his role as facilitator, monitor, and supervisor of the FCA, and (4) 
his disobedience of orders. 
Referee’s Report 
{¶ 54} On June 30, 2008, Freshwater requested a public hearing pursuant 
to R.C. 3319.16.  That request was honored, and the protracted hearing ensued.  In 
his subsequent report and findings, the referee addressed the four specified 
grounds for Freshwater’s termination as set forth above in the board’s resolution. 
Ground One: Tesla coil incident 
{¶ 55} The referee found that the Tesla coil incident “became the focus of 
the curious * * * and print media” due to the sensational and provocative nature 
of the allegation.  He also found that once sworn testimony was presented 
regarding the incident, it became obvious that “speculation and imagination had 
pushed reality aside.”  He found that the Tesla coil issue was at an end as soon as 
White instructed Freshwater to stop using it.  Freshwater did in fact stop using the 
Tesla coil for any purpose thereafter.  Thus, the referee found that the Tesla coil 
incident did not seem to be a proper subject for the amended resolution. 
Ground Two: Freshwater’s failure to adhere to established curriculum 
{¶ 56} The referee found that Freshwater injected his personal religious 
beliefs into his plan and pattern of instruction of his students.  According to the 
                                                          
 
4 On July 7, 2008, the board unanimously passed an amendment to the June 20, 2008 resolution, to 
change erroneous mentions of “American Content Standards” in the initial resolution to 
“Academic Content Standards” wherever that term appeared. 
 
January Term, 2013 
17 
 
referee, in so doing Freshwater exceeded the bounds of all pertinent board 
policies and bylaws, including “Religion in the Curriculum,” “Controversial 
Issues,” 
“Religious/Patriotic 
Ceremonies 
and 
Observances,” 
“Religious 
Expression in the District,” and “Academic Freedom of Teachers.”  The referee 
found that Freshwater instructed his students to examine evidence both for and 
against evolution, as if his proposed policy for doing so had been adopted by the 
board, and that Freshwater presented evidence against evolution by passing out 
and collecting handouts and showing videos.  The evidence against evolution was 
based upon the Christian religious principles of creationism and intelligent design, 
running afoul of the board’s policies entitled “Religion in the Curriculum” and 
“Religious/Patriotic Ceremonies and Observances.” 
{¶ 57} The referee relied on testimony by Jim Stockdale, a retired teacher 
from the district.  Stockdale testified that in the fall of 2006, he was a substitute 
special-education teacher and that he accompanied his students into Freshwater’s 
classroom and sat in one of the student desks in the back.5  
{¶ 58} Stockdale testified that Freshwater started the class on a new unit 
regarding the origin of the universe.  According to Stockdale, Freshwater stated 
that “oftentimes scientists and information in textbooks are incorrect” and that as 
an example Freshwater stated that in an article in Time magazine, scientists had 
found a genetic link to homosexuality.  But, Stockdale testified, Freshwater then 
told the students that the “scientists in the article were wrong because the Bible 
states that homosexuality is a sin, so anyone who chooses to be a homosexual is a 
sinner; and that, therefore, science can be wrong, scientists can be wrong.”  Then, 
                                                          
 
5 Freshwater disputes Stockdale’s testimony and argues that Stockdale was not present in his 
classroom in the fall of 2006 and therefore could not have witnessed the alleged statement.  The 
referee, however, found Stockdale’s testimony credible and, in fact, called it “[p]erhaps the most 
egregious example” of Freshwater’s failure to adhere to established curriculum.  Although 
Freshwater contests Stockdale’s testimony, we defer to the referee’s findings of fact. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
18 
 
Freshwater concluded that the material in the textbook in that particular unit could 
be incorrect. 
{¶ 59} The referee concluded: 
 
[I]n one incident, witnessed by an experienced and seasoned 
educator, John Freshwater not only injected his subjective, biased, 
Christian religion based, non-scientific opinion into the instruction 
of eighth grade science students but also gave those students 
reason to doubt the accuracy and or veracity of scientists, science 
textbooks, and/or science in general. 
 
Ground Three: Freshwater’s role as facilitator, monitor, and supervisor of FCA 
{¶ 60} Regarding ground three, the referee stated that although 
“Freshwater was provided a copy of the guidelines for the conduct of [FCA] on 
more than one occasion * * *, Freshwater did not follow the guidelines 
implicitly.”  The referee concluded that there were several acts—Freshwater 
instituting a prayer, admitting to putting his hands up during a prayer, and praying 
for a guest speaker—that constituted violations of the FCA Handbook for Public 
Schools.  However, the referee did not discuss these violations in later setting 
forth his conclusions regarding Freshwater’s termination. 
Ground Four: Freshwater’s disobedience of orders 
{¶ 61} Regarding ground four, which is dispositive for purposes of our 
opinion, the referee stated that school administrators were concerned with 
materials displayed in Freshwater’s classroom including the “handwritten Bible 
verses, videos, posters, and a Living Bible.”  The referee also found that White 
was assigned the task of implementing a plan of corrective action.  The referee 
further stated: 
 
January Term, 2013 
19 
 
Beginning on April 7, 2008 [White] had several contacts with John 
Freshwater both in person and in writing.  Principal White testified 
that “there were several meetings and several conversations in 
April.”  He further testified that multiple contacts with John 
Freshwater became necessary “because the things that I had asked 
to happen on April 7th were not attended to.”  Granted, there may 
have been some confusion about the instructions, orders, and 
directives which Mr. White gave John Freshwater.  However, it is 
abundantly clear that what may have begun as confusion soon 
transformed into defiance. 
 
Between April 7th and April 16 2008, Mr. White clarified 
and reiterated the directives.  Finally, he was forced to set a 
deadline for compliance—April 16, 2008.  Two days prior (April 
14, 2008), Mr. White and John Freshwater had a discussion about 
whether his disobedience would constitute insubordination.  He 
(Freshwater) was told that it would be.  Nevertheless, John 
Freshwater decided to comply only in part.  * * * [Freshwater] also 
decided to add another element to the controversy.  He checked out 
[two] religious texts from the school library and [testified that he 
positioned them on his lab table in his classroom].  John 
Freshwater’s explanation for this act included the phrases “it was a 
curiosity” and “it’s my inspiration.”  These explanations seem 
questionable.  The act appears to have been one of defiance, 
disregard, and resistance. 
 
When Mr. White returned to John Freshwater’s classroom 
on April 16, 2008 to see if his directives had been followed, he 
discovered that they had not been.  His testimony recounts his 
observations[:]  “Almost everything had been removed, but there 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
20 
 
was still the Colin Powell poster . . . out of the school library he 
had checked out the Bible and had a book called Jesus of 
Nazareth.”  John Freshwater admitted that he had not removed the 
Colin Powell poster.  He explained . . . “with that poster, that’s a 
patriotic poster of our Commander and Chief” . . . “and I don’t 
recall being told to remove it.” 
 
(Ellipses sic; citations of transcript omitted.) 
Referee’s conclusions 
{¶ 62} The referee concluded that pursuant to R.C. 3319.16, a teacher may 
be terminated for “good and just cause,” meaning that “the conduct of the teacher 
in question must constitute a ‘fairly serious matter,’ ” quoting Hale v. Lancaster 
Bd. of Edn., 13 Ohio St.2d 92, 99, 234 N.E.2d 583 (1968).  The referee found that 
Freshwater’s conduct constituted a fairly serious matter and was therefore “a valid 
basis for his termination in accordance with ORC 3319.16.”  Specifically, the 
referee stated: 
 
John Freshwater was given ample opportunity to alter or 
adjust his content and style of teaching so as to avoid running 
headlong into the Establishment Clause and the Policy/Bylaws of 
the Mount Vernon Board of Education.  Instead, he persisted in his 
attempts to make eighth grade science what he thought it should 
be—an examination of accepted scientific curriculum with the 
discerning eye of Christian doctrine.  John Freshwater ignored the 
concept of in loco parentis and, instead, used his classroom as a 
means of sowing the seeds of doubt and confusion in the minds of 
impressionable students as they searched for meaning in the 
subject of science. 
January Term, 2013 
21 
 
John Freshwater purposely used his classroom to advance 
his Christian religious views knowing full well or ignoring the fact 
that those views might conflict with the private beliefs of his 
students.  John Freshwater refused and/or failed to employ 
objectivity in his instruction of a variety of science subjects and, in 
so doing, endorsed a particular religious doctrine.  By this course 
of conduct John Freshwater repeatedly violated the Establishment 
Clause.  Without question, the repeated violation of the 
Constitution of The United States is a “fairly serious matter” and 
is, therefore, a valid basis for termination of John Freshwater’s 
contract(s).  Further, he repeatedly acted in defiance of direct 
instructions and orders of the administrators—his superiors.  These 
defiant acts are also a “fairly serious matter” and, therefore, a valid 
basis for termination of John Freshwater’s contract(s). 
 
{¶ 63} The referee’s final recommendation was that the board terminate 
Freshwater’s contract for good and just cause. 
Freshwater’s Termination 
{¶ 64} On January 10, 2011, the board, relying on the referee’s report, 
adopted it by a four-to-one vote and found that two main grounds (ground two, 
his failure to adhere to established curriculum, and ground four, his disobedience 
of orders) constituted good and just cause for the termination of Freshwater’s 
teaching contract. 
{¶ 65} As to ground two, the board found that Freshwater injected his 
personal religious beliefs into his plan and pattern of instructing his students.  In 
doing so, the board found, “he exceeded the bounds of all the pertinent 
Bylaws/Policies of the Mount Vernon City School District.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
22 
 
{¶ 66} As to ground four, the board found that “Freshwater acted in 
defiance of direct instructions and orders of the administrators” by failing to 
comply with the directive to remove or discontinue the display of all religious 
articles in his classroom, including all posters of a religious nature and had 
“brought additional religious articles into his classroom, in a direct act of 
insubordination.” 
{¶ 67} The board determined that “each individual action independently 
constitutes ‘good and just cause’ for the termination of Mr. Freshwater’s teaching 
contract(s), whether considered individually or jointly,” and it therefore 
terminated Freshwater’s employment contract with the school district. 
{¶ 68} On January 11, 2011, Barbara Donohue, treasurer of the school 
district, sent Freshwater a letter informing him of the board’s vote to terminate his 
contract at the board meeting. 
Procedural History 
{¶ 69} After his termination, Freshwater brought suit in the Knox County 
Common Pleas Court to appeal the board’s resolution terminating his contract and 
to request that the trial court conduct additional hearings.  The trial court reviewed 
the referee’s report and the evidence and found that there was clear and 
convincing evidence to support the board’s termination of Freshwater’s 
employment “for good and just cause.”  Thus, the trial court affirmed the board’s 
resolution. 
{¶ 70} Freshwater appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeals.  In his 
sole assignment of error, he argued that the trial court abused its discretion in 
finding that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the board’s 
termination of his employment contract for good and just cause, in affirming the 
board’s termination of his employment contract, and in ordering him to pay the 
costs of the appeal.  2012-Ohio-889 at ¶ 15. 
January Term, 2013 
23 
 
{¶ 71} The court of appeals affirmed.  In doing so, the appellate court held 
that pursuant to Graziano v. Amherst Exempted Village Bd. of Edn., 32 Ohio St.3d 
289, 294, 513 N.E.2d 282 (1987), it was compelled to affirm the trial court’s 
judgment unless it determined that the trial court abused its discretion.  Id. at ¶ 21.  
In its analysis, the court of appeals held that it did not 
 
perceive an “unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable attitude,” 
nor one that is “not merely error of judgment, but [one of] 
perversity of will, passion, prejudice, partiality, or moral 
delinquency.”  To the contrary, the referee’s memorandum 
provides a well-reasoned and articulated basis for affirming the 
decision of the Board and for the trial court to accept the 
recommendation of the referee. 
 
Id. at ¶ 22. 
{¶ 72} The appellate court held that pursuant to Graziano, the “ ‘report 
and recommendation undertaken by the referee pursuant to R.C. 3319.16 must be 
considered and weighed by the board of education,’ ” and that “ ‘due deference 
must be accorded to the findings and recommendations of the referee * * * who is 
best able to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and weigh their credibility.’ ”  
(Emphasis added by the appellate court.)  Id. at ¶ 23, quoting Graziano at 293.  
The appellate court then rejected Freshwater’s contentions that there was not 
sufficient evidence to sustain the board’s termination decision and that additional 
hearings were necessary. 
{¶ 73} The Fifth District next rejected Freshwater’s contention that “the 
conduct found did not rise to the level of good and just cause sufficient to 
terminate his contract.”  Id. at ¶ 26.  The appellate court stated that in Hale v. 
Lancaster Bd. of Edn., 13 Ohio St.2d at 99, 234 N.E.2d 583, “good and just 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
24 
 
cause” is defined as a “fairly serious matter,” and observed that the referee found 
that Freshwater’s “ ‘repeated violation of the Constitution of the United States’ ” 
and his repeated acts “ ‘in defiance of direct instructions and orders of the 
administrators—his superiors’ ”—both constituted a “fairly serious matter.”  Id. at 
¶ 27, quoting the referee’s report. 
{¶ 74} The court of appeals noted that “a hearing spanning nearly two 
years was conducted, testimony from over 80 witnesses was received, a transcript 
of over 6,000 pages was produced, and approximately 350 exhibits were admitted 
into evidence.”  Id. at ¶ 31.  It further noted that Freshwater “was represented by a 
competent attorney, he was permitted to fully explain his actions, he presented 
witnesses on his behalf, and he had a full opportunity to challenge the Board’s 
key witnesses.”  Id. at ¶ 32.  The Fifth District concluded that the trial court did 
not abuse its discretion by rejecting Freshwater’s requests for additional hearings 
and that the common pleas court’s decision to affirm the termination was not an 
abuse of discretion.  Id. at ¶ 33-34.  Therefore, the appellate court overruled 
Freshwater’s sole assignment of error.  Id. at ¶ 36. 
{¶ 75} We accepted Freshwater’s discretionary appeal, 132 Ohio St.3d 
1461, 2012-Ohio-305, 969 N.E.2d 1230, and now affirm. 
ANALYSIS 
Standards for Termination of a Teacher’s Contract 
{¶ 76} Before a board of education can terminate a teacher’s contract, it 
must comply with R.C. 3319.16, which sets forth the procedures for terminating a 
contract: 
 
[T]he employing board shall furnish the teacher a written notice 
signed by its treasurer of its intention to consider the termination of 
the teacher’s contract with full specification of the grounds for 
such consideration. * * * [T]he teacher may file with the treasurer 
January Term, 2013 
25 
 
a written demand for a hearing before the board or before a referee 
* * *.  The hearing shall be conducted by a referee appointed 
pursuant to section 3319.161 of the Revised Code * * * and shall 
be confined to the grounds given for the termination. * * * 
* * * After a hearing by a referee, the referee shall file a report 
within ten days after the termination of the hearing. * * * After 
consideration of the referee’s report, the board, by a majority vote, 
may accept or reject the referee’s recommendation on the 
termination of the teacher’s contract.  After a hearing by the board, 
the board, by majority vote, may enter its determination upon its 
minutes.  Any order of termination of a contract shall state the 
grounds for termination.  * * * 
 
Any teacher affected by an order of termination of contract 
may appeal to the court of common pleas of the county in which 
the school is located within thirty days after receipt of notice of the 
entry of such order. * * * The court shall examine the transcript 
and record of the hearing and shall hold such additional hearings as 
it considers advisable, at which it may consider other evidence in 
addition to the transcript and record. 
 
{¶ 77} If a party to an R.C. 3319.16 proceeding, i.e., termination of a 
teacher’s contract, appeals to an appellate court, “[a]bsent an abuse of discretion 
on the part of the trial court, the court of appeals may not engage in what amounts 
to a substitution of judgment of the trial court.”  Graziano, 32 Ohio St.3d at 294, 
513 N.E.2d 282.  “The term ‘abuse of discretion’ has been defined as implying 
‘ “not merely error of judgment, but perversity of will, passion, prejudice, 
partiality, or moral delinquency.” ’ ”  Id. (Douglas, J., concurring), citing State ex 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
26 
 
rel. Shafer v. Ohio Turnpike Comm., 159 Ohio St. 581, 590-591, 113 N.E.2d 14 
(1959). 
{¶ 78} Here, the board had good and just cause to terminate Freshwater’s 
contract.  The court of appeals held:  “There was sufficient evidence to support 
both the referee and [the board’s] findings, and we do not determine issues 
involving credibility.”  2012-Ohio-889 at ¶ 24.  The appellate court held that it 
did “not perceive an ‘unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable attitude,’ nor one 
that is ‘not merely error of judgment, but [one of] perversity of will, passion, 
prejudice, partiality, or moral delinquency.’ ”  Id. at ¶ 22. 
{¶ 79} Upon careful review, we agree. 
Display of Religious Materials 
{¶ 80} White’s letter to Freshwater made clear that Freshwater, as a public 
school teacher, could not “engage in any activity that promotes or denigrates a 
particular religion or religious beliefs while on board property, during any school 
activity” or when he was teaching.  The district simply stated what the law, and 
the First Amendment, commands. 
{¶ 81} Freshwater not only ignored the school district’s directive, he 
defied it.  After he was directed to remove the items, Freshwater deliberately 
added to them, incorporating the Oxford Bible and Jesus of Nazareth into the 
classroom.  He then refused to remove his personal Bible from his desk, and 
refused to remove a depiction of former President George W. Bush and Colin 
Powell and others in prayer from his wall. 
{¶ 82} Pursuant to R.C. 3319.16, a public school teacher’s contract may 
not be terminated except for good and just cause.  When a teacher has been 
insubordinate, good and just cause exists for a board of education to terminate that 
teacher’s contract.  In the context of teacher-contract-termination cases, the term 
“insubordination” has been defined to include a willful “disobedience of, or 
refusal to obey, a reasonable and valid rule, regulation, or order issued by the 
January Term, 2013 
27 
 
school board or by an administrative superior.”  Annotation, What Constitutes 
“Insubordination” as Ground for Dismissal of Public School Teacher, 78 
A.L.R.3d 83, 87 (1977). 
{¶ 83} This is a succinct definition of the term “insubordination,” and we 
adopt it for purposes here.  We therefore hold that in a proceeding under R.C. 
3319.16 for the termination of a public school teacher’s contract, “good and just 
cause” includes insubordination consisting of a willful disobedience of, or refusal 
to obey, a reasonable and valid rule, regulation, or order issued by a school board 
or by an administrative superior. 
{¶ 84} It is undisputed that Freshwater willfully disobeyed orders when he 
failed to remove (1) his personal Bible, (2) Jesus of Nazareth and the Oxford 
Bible, and (3) the poster of government officials praying.  But disobedience alone 
will not establish insubordination under the definition we adopt above.  We must 
also find that the orders themselves were reasonable and valid.  If any order was 
either unreasonable or invalid, Freshwater’s disobedience of it would not be 
insubordinate. 
Freshwater’s Personal Bible 
{¶ 85} We begin by considering Principal White’s order for Freshwater to 
remove his personal Bible from his desk.  We conclude that this order was neither 
reasonable nor valid.  The order infringed without justification upon conduct 
protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United 
States Constitution.  The district’s proffered rationale for the order—that 
Freshwater’s display of his Bible on his desk violated the Establishment Clause—
was erroneous, because  this Bible presented no such violation. 
{¶ 86} Teachers do not abandon their First Amendment rights when they 
enter their classrooms.  Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Community School Dist., 393 
U.S. 503, 506, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969) (students and teachers do not 
“shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
28 
 
schoolhouse gate”).  Included in those First Amendment rights is the ability to 
freely exercise one’s religion.  The protections of the Free Exercise Clause apply 
whenever the government “regulates or prohibits conduct because it is undertaken 
for religious reasons.”  Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 
U.S. 520, 532, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 124 L.Ed.2d 472 (1993). 
{¶ 87} Freshwater’s conduct in keeping his personal Bible at his desk was 
plainly undertaken for religious reasons.  And the district sought to regulate that 
conduct solely because the conduct was religiously motivated.  Thus, when the 
district ordered Freshwater to put away his personal Bible, it infringed upon 
religious conduct protected by the Free Exercise Clause, something Freshwater 
has asserted throughout this controversy.  See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 
547, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984), fn. 13 (Stevens, J., concurring in part 
and dissenting in part) (“possession of * * * personal property relating to religious 
observance, such as a Bible or a crucifix, is surely protected by the Free Exercise 
Clause”); Warnock v. Archer, 380 F.3d 1076, 1082 (8th Cir.2004) (personal 
religious effects in school superintendent’s office, including Bible, were protected 
by Free Exercise Clause). 
{¶ 88} Because the First Amendment protected Freshwater’s conduct, we 
must determine whether the school had a legitimate justification for prohibiting 
that conduct.6  The district provided only one reason for why it ordered 
Freshwater to remove his personal Bible: it wanted to avoid an Establishment 
Clause violation.  The district undeniably has an interest in avoiding 
Establishment Clause violations, and this interest may even justify infringement 
on teachers’ First Amendment rights.  Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 271, 102 
                                                          
 
6 The relevant “conduct” here consists solely of Freshwater keeping his personal Bible on his desk.  
Numerous students testified that Freshwater never held up, spoke from, or opened his Bible during 
class.  One student alleged that Freshwater once referred to his Bible during class, but HROC 
investigated this allegation and found no evidence to substantiate it.  Many teachers, including 
Deborah Strouse, who monitored Freshwater’s classroom in 2008 when this controversy 
developed, similarly confirmed that Freshwater never used his personal Bible in class. 
January Term, 2013 
29 
 
S.Ct. 269, 70 L.Ed.2d 440 (1981); Good News Club v. Milford Cent. School, 533 
U.S. 98, 112-113, 121 S.Ct. 2093, 150 L.Ed.2d 151 (2001).  But the interest must 
be grounded in reality; the district’s mere fear of an Establishment Clause 
violation will not justify burdening First Amendment protections.  See United 
States v. Natl. Treasury Emps. Union, 513 U.S. 454, 475, 115 S.Ct. 1003, 130 
L.Ed.2d 964 (1995), quoting Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 376, 47 S.Ct. 
641, 71 L.Ed. 1095 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring) (First Amendment 
restrictions “requir[e] a justification far stronger than mere speculation about 
serious harms. * * * ‘Men feared witches and burnt women’ ”).  If the district was 
acting to avoid an Establishment Clause violation, there actually needed to be an 
Establishment Clause violation to avoid.  Lamb’s Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union 
Free School Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 395, 113 S.Ct. 2141, 124 L.Ed.2d 352 (1993) 
(rejecting school district’s Establishment Clause defense because its “posited 
fears of an Establishment Clause violation are unfounded”); Brown v. Polk Cty., 
Iowa, 61 F.3d 650, 659 (8th Cir.1995) (baseless fear of Establishment Clause 
violation could not justify county’s order for public employee to remove Bible 
from his desk). 
{¶ 89} In this case, we must reject the district’s justification because the 
inconspicuous presence of Freshwater’s personal Bible posed no threat to the 
Establishment Clause and the record supports that he did not use the Bible while 
teaching.  A public school violates the Establishment Clause if its actions could 
reasonably be perceived as an official endorsement of religion.7  Cty. of Allegheny 
                                                          
 
7 Traditionally, courts have tested for Establishment Clause violations using the test set forth in 
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-613, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971) (government 
action violates the Establishment Clause if (1) it does not have a secular purpose, (2) its primary 
effect is to advance or inhibit religion, or (3) it creates an excessive entanglement between 
government and religion).  In recent years, however, the Supreme Court has only intermittently 
used the Lemon test, and whether the test actually applies in any given scenario is difficult to 
discern.  See, e.g., Utah Hwy. Patrol Assn. v. Am. Atheists, Inc., __ U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 12, 14, 181 
L.Ed.2d 379 (2011) (Thomas, J., dissenting from the denial of certiorari) (“Our jurisprudence 
provides no principled basis by which a lower court could discern whether Lemon/endorsement, or 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
30 
 
v. Am. Civ. Liberties Union Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 592-593, 
109 S.Ct. 3086, 106 L.Ed.2d 472 (1989); Santa Fe Indep. School Dist. v. Doe, 
530 U.S. 290, 305-308, 120 S.Ct. 2266, 147 L.Ed.2d 295 (2000); Rosenberger v. 
Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 841-842, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 
132 L.Ed.2d 700 (1995).  Endorsement occurs when the government “ ‘convey[s] 
or attempt[s] to convey a message that religion or a particular religious belief is 
favored or preferred.’ ”  (Emphasis sic.)  Cty. of Allegheny at 593, quoting 
Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 70, 105 S.Ct. 2479, 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985) 
(O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment).  Endorsement connotes “ ‘promotion’ or 
‘favoritism.’ ”  Capitol Square Rev. & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 764, 
115 S.Ct. 2440, 132 L.Ed.2d 650 (1995). 
{¶ 90} The district does not convey a message that it endorses or promotes 
Christianity by simply allowing Freshwater to keep a personal Bible on his desk.  
Bd. of Edn. of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250, 110 
S.Ct. 2356, 110 L.Ed.2d 191 (1990) (“schools do not endorse everything they fail 
to censor”); see also Helland v. S. Bend Community School Corp., 93 F.3d 327, 
331 (7th Cir.1996) (in Establishment Clause challenge, school’s concern was with 
teacher reading Bible aloud to students, not with teacher merely carrying Bible 
with him).  “Merely employing an individual * * * who unobtrusively displays 
[his] religious adherence is not tantamount to government endorsement of that 
religion * * *.”  Nichol v. ARIN Intermediate Unit 28, 268 F.Supp.2d 536, 554 
(W.D.Pa.2003) (policy prohibiting elementary school teachers and employees 
                                                                                                                                                               
some other test, should apply in Establishment Clause cases”).  In its most recent cases dealing 
with the Establishment Clause in public schools, the Supreme Court has declined to apply Lemon, 
instead opting for the endorsement test.  See Good News Club, 533 U.S. at 113, 115, 121 S.Ct. 
2093, 150 L.Ed.2d 151; Santa Fe Indep. School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 308-309, 120 S.Ct. 
2266, 147 L.Ed.2d 295 (2000); Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. 
819, 841-842, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 132 L.Ed.2d 700 (1995).  Even if we were to apply Lemon in this 
case, we would find no Establishment Clause violation.  Simply allowing a teacher to keep his 
personal Bible on his desk would not have a religious purpose, would not advance religion, and 
would not excessively entangle government with religion.  
January Term, 2013 
31 
 
from wearing religious jewelry deemed offensive to Free Exercise Clause); see 
also Draper v. Logan Cty. Pub. Library, 403 F.Supp.2d 608, 621 (W.D.Ky.2005) 
(permitting public library employee to have “unobtrusive displays of religious 
adherence * * * could not be interpreted by a reasonable observer as 
governmental endorsement of religion”).  Allowing teachers to have personal 
religious items conveys a message of accommodation, not endorsement.  See 
Nichols v. Caroline Cty. Bd. of Edn., D.Md. No. JFM-02-3523, 2004 WL 350337 
at *12 (Feb. 23, 2004), fn. 15 (allowing teacher to keep personal Bible by his desk 
was an accommodation of teacher’s religious expression). 
{¶ 91} The scene of Freshwater’s classroom and the particular physical 
setting of his Bible—key factors to our endorsement inquiry—further demonstrate 
the impossibility of any perceived state endorsement of religion.  See Cty. of 
Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 595, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 106 L.Ed.2d 472 (highlighting 
importance of context and physical setting in endorsement test).  Freshwater kept 
his Bible at his desk.  Teachers at Mount Vernon considered their desks to be 
personal space.  The desk area was off-limits to students, and teachers often kept 
private items there.  Freshwater had even posted a large “KEEP OUT” sign on the 
side of his desk.  The personal nature of the space makes it unlikely that a 
reasonable observer would perceive official state endorsement of private items 
placed there. 
{¶ 92} In addition to being on a personal workspace, rather than in a 
public, student-accessible area, Freshwater’s Bible was inconspicuous.  It lay flat 
on his desk, amongst electronics, texts, office supplies, and other papers.  
Oftentimes, the Bible was buried under other materials.  Teachers testified that 
there was “stuff all over his desk, so you couldn’t hardly see [the Bible]” and that 
it was “hard to find on his messy desk.”  Many students never even noticed the 
Bible or only realized it was in the classroom after it became a highlight of this 
controversy.  HROC concluded that the Bible was not on display; it was neither 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
32 
 
prominently staged nor placed in a way that would draw any particular attention 
to it.  Other witnesses testified that Freshwater himself never drew any attention 
to the Bible.  Given this unobtrusive, obscured, personal setting, no reasonable 
observer would assume that the state intended to promote or endorse Freshwater’s 
Bible.  See, e.g., ARIN Intermediate, 268 F.Supp.2d at 554 (“unobtrusiv[e] 
displays [of] religious adherence” by school employees do not imply government 
endorsement of religion and do not violate Establishment Clause). 
{¶ 93} Finally, we consider that the district has the power to correct any 
misperceptions it anticipates.  As the Supreme Court has stated, a school district’s 
“fear of a mistaken inference of endorsement is largely self-imposed, because the 
school itself has control over any impressions it gives its students.”  Westside 
Community Schools, 496 U.S. at 251, 110 S.Ct. 2356, 110 L.Ed.2d 191.  If the 
school does not want people to think that it promotes Freshwater’s beliefs, it can 
tell them so.  Id.; see also Capitol Square, 515 U.S. at 769, 115 S.Ct. 2440, 132 
L.Ed.2d 650 (“If Ohio is concerned about misperceptions, nothing prevents it 
from requiring all private displays * * * to be identified as such”). 
{¶ 94} The Free Exercise Clause protected Freshwater’s conduct as to his 
personal Bible.  When the district asked Freshwater to remove his Bible from his 
desk, it was not asking him to cease a meaningless activity.  It was demanding 
that he give up his constitutionally guaranteed rights.  The government can 
encroach upon constitutional rights, but it must have a legitimate reason for doing 
so.  Here, the district’s reason was not legitimate.  The district feared an 
Establishment Clause violation where none existed.  Unsubstantiated fear alone 
cannot justify flouting the First Amendment. 
{¶ 95} We therefore conclude that the district’s order for Freshwater to 
remove his personal Bible from his desk was neither reasonable nor valid; the 
order infringed on Freshwater’s free-exercise rights without justification.  
January Term, 2013 
33 
 
Because this particular order was invalid, Freshwater’s disobedience of the order 
cannot be considered insubordination or grounds for his termination. 
The Remaining Orders 
{¶ 96} Freshwater’s refusal to remove the other items from his 
classroom—the Oxford Bible, Jesus of Nazareth, and the George W. Bush/Colin 
Powell poster—presents a much simpler issue.  Freshwater’s First Amendment 
rights did not protect the display of these items, because they were not a part of 
his exercise of his religion.  Freshwater admitted that he checked out the 
additional books only in order to make a point once this controversy began.  Thus, 
the district would not run afoul of the Free Exercise Clause by ordering 
Freshwater to remove these materials; the orders were both reasonable and valid.  
Freshwater’s willful disobedience of these direct orders demonstrates blatant 
insubordination.  That insubordination is established by clear and convincing 
evidence, and the record fully supports the board’s decision to terminate him on 
these grounds. 
Teaching of Creationism and Intelligent Design  
Alongside Evolution Generally Disfavored 
{¶ 97} We recognize that this case is driven by a far more powerful debate 
over the teaching of creationism and intelligent design alongside evolution.  See, 
e.g., McLean v. Arkansas Bd. of Edn., 529 F.Supp. 1255 (E.D.Ark.1982).  Federal 
courts consistently hold that the teaching of evolution in public schools should not 
be prohibited, Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 106-107, 89 S.Ct. 266, 21 
L.Ed.2d 228 (1968), and have struck as unconstitutional policies and statutes that 
require public school teachers to devote equal time to teaching both evolution and 
the Biblical view of creation.  See, e.g., Daniel v. Waters, 515 F.2d 485 (6th 
Cir.1975).  The United States Supreme Court and at least one other federal court 
have held that teaching theories of creationism and intelligent design in public 
schools violates the Establishment Clause because they convey “supernatural 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
34 
 
causation of the natural world” and therefore are inherently religious concepts.  
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Dist., 400 F.Supp.2d 707, 736 (M.D.Pa.2005); 
Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 591-592, 107 S.Ct. 2573, 96 L.Ed.2d 510 
(1987).  However, the Supreme Court holds that teaching creationism is not 
prohibited in public schools as long as it is done “with the clear secular intent of 
enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.”  Edwards at 594. 
{¶ 98} The Supreme Court also cautions that the courts must be “vigilant 
in monitoring compliance with the Establishment Clause in elementary and 
secondary schools” because  
 
[f]amilies entrust public schools with the education of their 
children, but condition their trust on the understanding that the 
classroom will not purposely be used to advance religious views 
that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or 
her family.  Students in such institutions are impressionable and 
their attendance is involuntary. 
 
Id. at 583-584, citing Grand Rapids School Dist. v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373, 383, 105 
S.Ct. 3216, 87 L.Ed.2d 267 (1985). 
{¶ 99} Here, we need not decide whether Freshwater acted with a 
permissible or impermissible intent because we hold that he was insubordinate, 
and his termination can be justified on that basis alone.  Freshwater is fully 
entitled to an ardent faith in Jesus Christ and to interpret Biblical passages 
according to his faith.  But he was not entitled to ignore direct, lawful edicts of his 
superiors while in the workplace. 
CONCLUSION 
{¶ 100} For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment 
of the court of appeals that upheld Freshwater’s termination. 
January Term, 2013 
35 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
FRENCH and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
 
LANZINGER, J., concurs in syllabus and judgment. 
 
PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, and KENNEDY, JJ., dissent. 
____________________ 
LANZINGER, J., concurring in syllabus and judgment. 
{¶ 101} With respect to this case involving science students in a public 
middle school, I would hold that the school district’s order that John Freshwater 
put away his personal Bible while students were present was a reasonable and 
valid attempt to avoid an Establishment Clause violation.  That order did not 
infringe on Freshwater’s free speech rights, for he was not required to remove the 
Bible from the classroom—merely putting the book into a desk drawer during 
class time would have sufficed.  The lead opinion states that an order to remove 
religious materials is valid and reasonable but that an order that a personal Bible 
not be displayed while students are present is not.  I do not see the distinction.  In 
my view, Freshwater disobeyed a reasonable order by incorporating the Bible by 
reference while teaching in his science classes and displaying the book on his 
desk while students were present.  I would hold that this constituted part of his 
insubordination. 
{¶ 102} Because I disagree with the lead opinion’s discussion of this 
point, I join the syllabus and concur in judgment only. 
____________________ 
PFEIFER, J., dissenting. 
I 
{¶ 103} To the end, John Freshwater has been a teacher.  For more than 
five years, he has argued that the school board had no right to require him to 
remove his Bible from his desk.  Five years of hearings and appeals have passed, 
over $900,000 in legal fees reportedly were expended by the school board on the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
36 
 
hearing alone in its quest to fire its best eighth-grade science teacher, and the only 
holding of consequence by this court today echoes what John Freshwater told a 
gathering of supporters in Mount Vernon’s town square on April 16, 2008: 
 
Because the Bible is * * * personal and private property and the 
source of personal inner strength in my own life, the removal of it 
from my desk would be nothing short of infringement on my own 
deeply held personal religious beliefs, granted by God and 
guaranteed under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment 
in the United States Constitution. 
 
{¶ 104} This court has determined today that Freshwater was right.  The 
central piece of the insubordination claim against Freshwater—that he refused to 
remove his Bible from his desk—has been determined by this court (by the three 
members of the court that concur in the lead opinion and by at least one other 
justice, myself) to be an invalid cause for discipline. 
{¶ 105} What next?  With the insubordination claim gutted, the lead 
opinion should have moved on to consider the constitutional issues remaining in 
the case.  Instead, the majority walks away from the opportunity to provide 
helpful guidance to every school board in Ohio and to the thousands of great 
teachers who could benefit from knowing more about the extent of and limits on 
their academic freedom.  Justice O’Donnell’s well-reasoned dissent addresses the 
issue, but goes unrebutted.  In short, the majority shrinks from the chance to be a 
Supreme Court.  The lead opinion cobbles together the piddling other claims of 
supposed insubordination, and, sitting as Supreme School Board, the majority 
declares the matter closed.  In a case bounding with arrogance and cowardice, the 
lead opinion fits right in. 
 
 
January Term, 2013 
37 
 
The Desk Bible Was the Center of the Insubordination Claim 
{¶ 106} Since Freshwater became aware of possible discipline, the 
presence of the Bible on his desk was a bone of contention.  The April 7, 2008 
letter from Principal William White to Freshwater was to follow up with 
Freshwater regarding concerns about Freshwater’s role with the Fellowship of 
Christian Athletes (“FCA”) and about “religious materials in [his] classroom.”  
The letter mentioned only the Bible on his desk and the Ten Commandments on 
Freshwater’s classroom window as potentially offensive: 
 
 
With regard to religious materials in your classroom, it has 
been brought to my attention that you have a bible out on your 
desk and that the “collage” on your classroom window includes the 
10 commandments.  While you certainly may read your bible on 
your own, duty free time [i.e. during lunch], it cannot be sitting out 
on your desk when students are in the classroom and when you are 
supposed to be engaged in your responsibilities as a teacher.  As 
for the 10 commandments, that part of your collage must be taken 
down and replaced with something that is not religious in nature. 
 
{¶ 107} A letter from White to Freshwater on April 14—before 
Freshwater had checked out books from the library—memorializes an April 11 
conversation between White and Freshwater regarding religious items in 
Freshwater’s classroom: 
 
 
As per our conversation, all religious items need to be 
removed from your classroom by the end of the day on 
Wednesday, April 16, 2008.  Bibles and other religious DVD’s, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
38 
 
videos, etc. should be placed out of sight and access of students by 
this date. 
 
{¶ 108} In the letter from their attorneys dated April 14, 2008,  Stephen 
and Jenifer Dennis, the parents of Zach Dennis, the now adult who was the 
eighth-grade student at the heart of this case, outlined their own bill of particulars 
stating why Freshwater’s career must end: 
 
 
The Ten Commandments are displayed in Mr. Freshwater’s 
classroom.  Several Bibles are also kept in Mr. Freshwater’s 
classroom and are there as a display to his students, not for his 
personal use.  This display represents an ostensible and 
predominant purpose of advancing religion and violates the central 
Establishment Clause virtue of official religious neutrality. 
 
{¶ 109} In a letter from their attorney to Superintendent Stephen Short 
dated April 21, 2008, the hypervigilant Dennises apparently were satisfied that the 
religious-display issue had been cleared up, and moved on to other matters:  
“While we appreciate Mt. Vernon’s efforts to have Mr. Freshwater remove 
religious materials from his classroom, it is obvious that Mr. Freshwater has not 
ceased his religious teachings.” 
{¶ 110} On April 16, 2008, Freshwater and White came to a crystal clear 
understanding:  If Freshwater did not remove his personal Bible from his desk in 
his classroom, he would be considered insubordinate.  That conclusion was 
specific and undeniable.  Only one thing was necessary for Freshwater to be 
found insubordinate—that his personal Bible remain on his desk.  Freshwater 
could not abide any directive to remove it.  He so fervently believed his rectitude 
that he went public, literally entering the public square to air his grievance. 
January Term, 2013 
39 
 
{¶ 111} In a story in the April 18, 2008 Mansfield News Journal entered 
into evidence by Freshwater, Mount Vernon School Board president Ian Watson 
spoke about insubordination, mentioning only Freshwater’s Bible: 
 
“If he doesn’t remove the Bible from his desktop, at some 
point, and I don’t know that point yet because we haven’t 
progressed that far, but some claim of insubordination could be 
made,” Watson said.  “There would be penalties involved, which 
would vary depending on the level of insubordination.” 
 
Kinton, Mount Vernon School Officials Hope to Resolve Bible Standoff Quickly, 
Mansfield News Journal (April 18, 2008).  The same article later recounted 
additional details: 
 
Watson said the Bible on Freshwater’s desk became an 
issue when one family brought it to Short’s attention. 
“The parents expressed concern on what allegedly 
occurred.  Most recently, I spoke to the family at the first of this 
month,” Watson said.  “We would like to see the Bible removed so 
that we can be responsive to parents, and we would like to reach a 
common ground with Mr. Freshwater that everyone can be OK 
with, but I don’t know if that will happen.” 
 
{¶ 112} Over and over again, the Ten Commandments and Freshwater’s 
personal Bible were the focus of the complaints against Freshwater.  There is no 
dispute that the Ten Commandments were quickly removed from his classroom.  
The Bible remained the sticking point. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
40 
 
Other Evidence of Insubordination 
{¶ 113} The issue of Freshwater’s desktop Bible deserves the attention the 
lead opinion gives it.  The presence of that Bible on his desk was at the very 
center of the insubordination claim against Freshwater.  Now that theory is gone, 
and less than a fig leaf remains.  The lead opinion spends many paragraphs 
explaining the invalidity of the central reason given for Freshwater’s dismissal, 
his refusal to remove his Bible from his desk.  An unofficial majority of the court 
agrees with that aspect of the holding, as I consider myself a member of that 
unofficial majority.  But the lead opinion spends just one scant, conclusory 
paragraph outlining why Freshwater’s career had to end.  Now that Freshwater 
has won on the most important dispute, the myth must be created that the 
presence of the other items constituted insubordination. 
Bush/Powell Poster 
{¶ 114} Was there a valid work rule in effect regarding the Bush/Powell 
poster?  The majority cannot be bothered to say whether there was or whether it 
was willfully disobeyed.  Certainly, if there were a rule about the Bush/Powell 
poster, it did not apply to everyone.  As Justice O’Donnell relates in his dissenting 
opinion, at ¶ 147, the poster was distributed by the school and was displayed in 
other teachers’ rooms.  The picture of the poster in evidence shows that the 
biblical quote at the top of the poster is largely obscured by other items on 
Freshwater’s bulletin board.  There is no evidence that Freshwater left the 
Powell/Bush poster up because of its religious nature.  He claimed that it was a 
patriotic poster that appealed to him because he had two children in the military.  
The president of the school board, Watson, testified that “in and of itself,” the 
poster was not a religious display.  And on April 16, the poster was 
inconsequential—Freshwater was told he would be insubordinate for failing to 
remove his Bible.  The poster was then what it is today: a trifle. 
 
 
January Term, 2013 
41 
 
Library Books 
{¶ 115} What work rule or order did Freshwater violate by checking out 
books from the library?  Was there a work rule in effect that a teacher could not 
borrow books from the school library and keep them in his work area?  Does the 
lead opinion really mean to say that books of a religious nature are acceptable in 
the library but not acceptable to be checked out from the library?  Or is it only 
practicing Christians who cannot borrow such books from the library?  
Freshwater is not accused of reading to his class from the books or assigning the 
books to his students.  They were school property and could have been removed 
at any time.  There is no documented complaint about the books and no specific 
order that they be removed. 
{¶ 116} Whether Freshwater checked them out of the library to make a 
point or to provide himself comfort is irrelevant.  There was no work rule or order 
that he could not have them in his classroom.  If he did check them out to make a 
point, the point was valid: religious materials were present in the school and if 
they were not forced upon children, possessing them was acceptable.  If the 
placement of the library books, the Oxford Bible and Jesus of Nazareth, was 
designed to demonstrate defiance, should Freshwater be fired for indicating his 
resistance to a policy that this court has declared illegal? 
A Fairly Serious Matter 
{¶ 117} In interpreting the “other good and just cause” clause of the 
version of R.C. 3319.16 at issue here, this court has made clear that firings 
implicating that phrase must involve conduct on a par with that justifying 
termination for other reasons under the statute: 
 
In construing the words, “other good and just cause,” we 
note that they are used with the words “gross inefficiency or 
immorality” and “willful and persistent violations” of board 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
42 
 
regulations.  In our opinion, this indicates a legislative intention 
that the “other good and just cause” be a fairly serious matter. 
 
Hale v. Lancaster Bd. of Edn., 13 Ohio St.2d 92, 98-99, 234 N.E.2d 583 (1968). 
{¶ 118} Is the presence of this poster and a couple of library books in his 
classroom a serious matter on a par with “gross inefficiency or immorality” or 
“willful and persistent violations” of board regulations?  Is this enough to end a 
career of over 20 years?  
{¶ 119} Freshwater’s activities do not sink to the level of other school 
employees terminated pursuant to R.C. 3319.16.  Should Freshwater join the likes 
of the assistant superintendent in Kitchen v. Bd. of Edn. of Fairfield City School 
Dist., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2006-09-234, 2007-Ohio-2846, who was fired 
because of an arrest for drunken driving and her failure to alert her superior about 
it, the teacher in Oleske v. Hilliard City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 146 Ohio 
App.3d 57, 764 N.E.2d 1110 (10th Dist.2001), who was dismissed for telling 
jokes of a sexual nature to certain of her middle-school students and mocking 
another teacher in vulgar terms, and the high school teacher in Elsass v. St. Marys 
City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-10-30, 2011-Ohio-1870, 
who was terminated for masturbating in a school parking lot during a school 
event? 
{¶ 120} The court in Bertolini v. Whitehall City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 
139 Ohio App.3d 595, 744 N.E.2d 1245 (10th Dist.2000), reviewed the types of 
cases meriting R.C. 3316.19 termination: 
 
A review of cases in which the appellate court affirmed a school 
board’s decision to terminate a school employee shows that the 
teacher’s behavior had or could have had a serious effect on the 
school system.  For example, many of the cases involved 
January Term, 2013 
43 
 
inappropriate sexual relations between faculty and students.  Other 
cases involved instances in which a teacher had been convicted of 
a serious criminal offense.  Some of the cases involved direct 
refusals by teachers to follow board guidelines.  In other cases, the 
actions of a teacher could have caused serious harm to a student. 
 
(Footnotes omitted.)  Id. at 608. 
{¶ 121} Bertolini discussed, in particular, cases involving direct refusals 
by teachers to follow board guidelines: 
 
In Buie [v. Chippewa Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 9th Dist. 
Wayne No. 2924, 1995 WL 542217 (Sept. 13, 1995)], the teacher 
resisted making any changes suggested by the school principal 
over a two-year period to alleviate excessive noise and disorder in 
his classroom.  In Wynne v. S. Point Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. 
(July 23, 1992), [4th Dist.] Lawrence App. No. 91CA15, 
unreported, 1992 WL 174720, a teacher failed to report to work at 
the expiration of her leave of absence after having been absent 
from work for twenty months.  In Swinderman v. Dover City 
School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (Apr. 20, 1992), [5th Dist.] Tuscarawas 
App. No. 91AP110092, unreported, 1992 WL 91655 * * *, a 
teacher lied about time taken for sick leave following a trip during 
Christmas break to Arizona with a student.  In Thomas v. 
Columbus Pub. Schools (Feb. 12, 1991), [10th Dist.] Franklin App. 
No. 90AP–649, unreported, 1991 WL 19301, the teacher refused to 
follow a program established by the board and refused to cooperate 
to the point that the teacher threw a consultant out of his 
classroom. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
44 
 
 
Id. at fn. 4. 
{¶ 122} The remaining instances of so-called insubordination in this case 
involve no program or official policy of the board of education.  Neither the 
Bush/Powell poster nor the library books had a serious effect on the school 
system.  At worst, they were de minimis violations of an unwritten, ad hoc rule. 
{¶ 123} This court’s decision will have far reaching consequences.  In its 
effort to be rid of Freshwater’s case without too much heavy lifting, this court has 
set a very low bar for what constitutes “good and just cause.”  Precedent from this 
court regarding R.C. 3319.16 is fairly limited, but now we have a case on the 
books setting forth that good and just cause means very little cause at all.  
Teachers throughout the state should feel much less secure in their employment 
today. 
II 
{¶ 124} This case illustrates the importance of leadership and the power of 
hysteria.  This case should be a cautionary tale for other school boards, a case 
study of what not to do.  For at least a month before the situation exploded, the 
Dennises had been complaining about Freshwater, often to the school-board 
president, Watson, who was a personal acquaintance of Stephen Dennis.  Based 
on those complaints, Freshwater was admonished by a letter dated April 7, 2008, 
to abide by rules regarding his participation in FCA events and to remove 
religious displays in his classroom.  The situation cried out for leadership by the 
superintendent, a school-board member, or a prominent community member to 
bring the sides together and work together toward some understanding.  Indeed, a 
meeting was arranged between the Dennises and Freshwater.  The Dennises, 
however, wished to remain anonymous so that if they canceled the meeting, 
Freshwater would not know who had lodged complaints against him.  According 
to the Dennises, this was done to protect their son from retaliation.  Near the time 
January Term, 2013 
45 
 
of the meeting, White revealed to Freshwater the name of the complainant, which 
upset the Dennises.  They canceled the meeting because, according to Mr. Dennis, 
Freshwater was going to have representation at the meeting and the Dennises 
were not.  Soon enough, the Dennises obtained representation.  Within a week, 
their counsel was demanding Freshwater’s removal from the classroom.  Fire him 
or face a lawsuit, the Dennises said.  Bullies are not relegated to playgrounds. 
{¶ 125} On April 16, Freshwater made his appearance on the square in Mt. 
Vernon.  The Board of Education responded with a press release announcing 
many of the claims that the Dennises had raised against Freshwater.  And then the 
headlines started.  One headline, accompanied by an article on page A1 of the 
Columbus Dispatch on April 23, 2008, proclaimed:  “DISPUTE WITH MOUNT 
VERNON TEACHER; Religious ‘healing,’ branding charged.”  The circus came 
to Mount Vernon. 
{¶ 126} Hurriedly, an investigation was started.  Counsel was retained by 
the school.  Counsel then retained a “mom and pop” human-resources 
investigation firm, which used a tiny rear-view mirror to review a man’s 20-year 
career.  Hired to find evidence to fire Freshwater, the investigator did just that.  
Based on the report (the board’s lawyer reviewed earlier drafts), the board 
announced its intention to fire Freshwater. 
{¶ 127} Meanwhile, the Dennises, deciding that the end of Freshwater’s 
career was insufficient, filed suit in federal court.  That Tesla-coil mark on poor 
Zach’s arm—the one Freshwater claimed was an X and they claimed was a 
cross—started looking an awful lot like a dollar sign.  Eventually, the suit against 
Freshwater would be settled for $475,000, which included $300,000 for the 
Dennis parents, $25,000 for their lawyer, and a $150,000 annuity that will end up 
paying Zach around $217,000 by the time he is 30.  The suit against the school 
district settled for less: in that case, each parent received $1, Zach $5,500, and 
their lawyers $115,500.  Money was a wonderful salve for Zach’s injured arm, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
46 
 
which, after all, had suffered a mark on it that disappeared in three weeks.  It had 
kept him from sleeping for a few minutes the night it happened.  But now, all is 
well.  His mother, Jenifer, was quoted in a magazine article, Boston, Insidious 
Design: At the Ohio Supreme Court, a Teacher Claims an “Academic Freedom” 
Right to Push Creationism in Public School, Church & State (Nov. 2012) 4, 
available 
at 
https://www.au.org/church-state/november-2012-church-state/ 
featured/insidious-design (accessed Nov. 4, 2013), in 2012: 
 
“Although Mount Vernon has many positive attributes and 
we still spend time there,” Jenifer Dennis said, “we are extremely 
fortunate to have found a warm and welcoming community in an 
adjacent county that we’ve now become a part of.  It is a 
community that is accepting of all ideas, thoughts and people from 
all walks of life and our family is now a part of it, so we haven't 
thought about moving back to Mount Vernon.” 
 
{¶ 128} How special. 
{¶ 129} R. Lee Shepherd was hired to conduct the hearing Freshwater 
demanded; Freshwater had preferred that the board hear it directly, but that 
request was denied.  And so Shepherd conducted the hearing sporadically for two 
years, taking evidence.  On January 7, 2011, he announced his findings.  He 
concluded that none of the grounds individually was enough to cause 
Freshwater’s ouster:  “It is not herein determined whether any one of the 
bases/grounds for consideration of termination would be sufficient in and of itself.  
However, the multiple incidents which give rise to the numerous and various 
bases/grounds more than suffice in support of termination.” 
{¶ 130} Despite relying on only one ground for Freshwater’s termination, 
the lead opinion does not suffer from Shepherd’s finding that only a combination 
January Term, 2013 
47 
 
of grounds could lead to his termination because the school board’s resolution 
slickly states that each action, whether individually or jointly, constituted good 
and just cause for termination. 
{¶ 131} Shepherd concluded that “Freshwater refused and/or failed to 
employ objectivity in his instruction of a variety of science subjects and, in so 
doing, endorsed a particular religious doctrine.  By this course of conduct John 
Freshwater repeatedly violated the Establishment Clause.” 
{¶ 132} This conclusion of constitutional significance has gone 
unexamined by every reviewing court.  Each reviewing court has instead 
remarked how very, very large the record is.  Judge Eyster’s two-page rubber 
stamp of the termination noted that “[t]he referee presided over thirty-eight (38) 
days of witness testimony from over eighty (80) witnesses generating six 
thousand three hundred forty four (6,344) pages of transcript.  The Referee also 
admitted approximately three hundred fifty (350) exhibits into evidence.”  What 
followed in the trial court’s entry was exactly zero (0) analysis of the referee’s 
report upon which the board based its termination resolution. 
{¶ 133} The appellate court stated that “[a] review of the record shows 
that a hearing spanning nearly two years was conducted, testimony from over 80 
witnesses was received, a transcript of over 6,000 pages was produced, and 
approximately 350 exhibits were admitted into evidence.”  2012-Ohio-889 at 
¶ 31.  The appellate court found merely that the trial court had not abused its 
discretion in affirming the board.  Id. at ¶ 34. 
{¶ 134} Here, the lead opinion, at ¶ 9, adds, “After the hearing, which 
involved 38 different days of witness testimony spread out over almost 21 
months, included more than 80 witnesses and hundreds of exhibits, and ultimately 
resulted in over 6,000 pages of transcript, the referee issued a report on January 7, 
2011.”  With a record that large, how could an R.C. 3319.16 referee be wrong 
about the Establishment Clause? 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
48 
 
{¶ 135} How many of those 38 different days were wasted, how many of 
those 80 witnesses were ultimately unnecessary?  The 6,000 pages of transcript 
were at least 60 times too many.  For the lead opinion, all that was necessary to 
fire Freshwater was proof that he had checked out library books and put them in 
his classroom, a classroom that contained a poster that might be considered 
religious. 
{¶ 136} Thus concludes the sorry saga of John Freshwater, excellent 
junior-high science teacher, terminated as a result of an extreme overreaction of 
the parents of a decent student, followed by even less informed and measured 
responses by Mount Vernon school administrators and the school board.  The 
Mount Vernon school board and school administration are the nominal winners of 
this case, but they have managed to divide a really nice community and cost the 
school board and/or its insurance providers well over a million dollars to free 
itself of a very good teacher.  And the people they did it for left town. 
{¶ 137} There is a clear set of winners today: the lawyers who advised a 
high-dollar settlement of a good case that would have proved valueless to the 
plaintiff parents and student if taken to trial and those who advised the Mount 
Vernon school board to pursue a very bad case against John Freshwater to a 
hollow but expensive victory in the Ohio Supreme Court.  They have told 
themselves that they are participating in the evolved version of the Scopes trial, 
when in reality they have created a modern Jarndyce and Jarndyce. 
{¶ 138} John Freshwater will be deemed today’s loser by superficial press 
accounts.  He has lost his job, reportedly mortgaged his home to cover his 
litigation expenses, and will receive no compensation whatsoever.  But John 
Freshwater is not today’s big loser, because he fought to prove that he actually 
followed the rules, that he taught well, and that over a lifetime of dedication to the 
students in his classrooms he made a positive contribution to their lives.  That 
proof is uncontroverted.  In that most important measure of public education, John 
January Term, 2013 
49 
 
Freshwater is a winner and his final departure is a loss to the Mount Vernon 
schools. 
{¶ 139} This court accepted jurisdiction in this case presumably to speak 
to the important issues of the Establishment Clause, academic freedom, and how 
schools may approach educating children about the scientific theories of 
evolution, which may directly clash with religious teachings of creation to which 
many children have been exposed at home and at church.  Instead this court 
sidesteps all of the difficult issues presented in the case leaving the resolution of 
all these heady matters in the hands of a lone referee.  Ironically, the lead opinion 
in this case proves the existence of God.  Apparently, he’s an R.C. 3319.16 
referee from Shelby. 
____________________ 
O’DONNELL, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 140} The right of free speech of public school teachers and their 
students and the freedom of a public school teacher to select and utilize teaching 
materials and methods to effectively present the prescribed school curriculum are 
the core issues in this case.  It involves a veteran science teacher singled out by 
the Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education because of his 
willingness to challenge students in his science classes to think critically about 
evolutionary theory and to permit them to discuss intelligent design and to debate 
creationism in connection with the presentation of the prescribed curriculum on 
evolution.  It is not about marking a cross on a student’s arm with a Tesla coil, 
nor, as viewed by the majority, a simple case of teacher insubordination.  We 
accepted jurisdiction on two propositions of law, which present issues of 
constitutional magnitude: 
 
[I] The termination of a public school teacher’s 
employment contract based on the teacher’s use of academic 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
50 
 
freedom where the school board has not provided any clear 
indication as to the kinds of materials or teaching methods which 
are unacceptable cannot be legally justified, as it constitutes an 
impermissible violation of the rights of the teacher and his students 
to free speech and academic freedom under the First Amendment 
to the United States Constitution and a manifestation of hostility 
toward religion in violation of the First Amendment’s 
Establishment Clause. 
[II] The termination of a public school teacher’s 
employment contract based on the mere presence of religious texts 
from the school’s library and/or the display of a patriotic poster 
cannot be legally justified, as it constitutes an impermissible 
violation of the rights of a teacher and his students to free speech 
and academic freedom under the First Amendment to the United 
States Constitution and a manifestation of hostility toward religion 
in violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. 
 
Because the majority resolves this case by finding that sufficient evidence exists 
to support just cause for termination and fails to examine the constitutional issues, 
I respectfully dissent. 
Insubordination 
{¶ 141} John Freshwater served with distinction as a teacher in the Mount 
Vernon City School District for more than 20 years.  Prior to his termination by 
the board of education, he had received overwhelmingly positive performance 
reviews and, as acknowledged in the referee’s report issued after a protracted 
hearing in this matter, he had been “recognized by his peers for his outstanding 
teaching skills.”  In addition, the record reflects, he had never been subject to any 
formal discipline by school administrators. 
January Term, 2013 
51 
 
{¶ 142} In December 2007, one of his students, Z.D., complained about 
the use of a Tesla coil that marked his arm with what appeared to be an “X” or a 
cross.  After Z.D.’s parents complained, William White, the school principal, 
resolved the matter by instructing Freshwater not to use the Tesla coil on students 
and to secure it when not in use.  That directive, however, did not satisfy the 
student’s parents, and in April 2008, through counsel in a letter to district 
Superintendent Stephen Short, they threatened to sue the board of education if it 
did not order Freshwater to remove Bibles and religious displays from the 
classroom by April 18, 2008, and if it did not suspend him from teaching pending 
an investigation. 
{¶ 143} In an apparent response to the threatened litigation, White 
instructed Freshwater by letter that “all religious items need to be removed from 
your classroom by the end of the day on Wednesday, April 16, 2008.  Bibles and 
other religious DVD’s, videos, etc. should also be placed out of sight and access 
of the students by this date.”  Despite the fact that he had been singled out and 
that other teachers and administrators had Bible verses or other religious 
references on display in their rooms, Freshwater removed copies of the Ten 
Commandments from the walls in his classroom, together with at least ten 
inspirational posters containing Bible verses, various religious DVDs and videos, 
and boxes of Bibles used by the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, a school-
sanctioned organization that he monitored and allowed to meet in his classroom.  
The only items that remained at the end of the day on April 16 were his personal 
Bible, a religious book and a Bible from the school’s library, and a poster of 
President George W. Bush and his cabinet captioned, “The effectual fervent 
prayer of a righteous man availeth much,” James 5:16, which had been distributed 
by the school and which other teachers and colleagues displayed in their 
classrooms and offices at the school. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
52 
 
{¶ 144} The board concluded that by having his personal Bible, the school 
library books, and the school-issued poster in his classroom, Freshwater “acted in 
defiance of direct instructions and orders of the administrators.”  The board then 
stated, “Freshwater was directed to remove or discontinue the display of all 
religious articles in his classroom, including all posters of a religious nature, and 
* * * has failed to comply with that directive and, further, has brought additional 
religious articles into his classroom, in a direct act of insubordination.”  That 
finding is wrong and is not supported by the record.  Notably, White’s letter did 
not instruct Freshwater to remove all religious articles from his classroom, as the 
board stated.  The principal testified that he told Freshwater that “certainly he may 
read his Bible during his own time, but during the times that students were in the 
classroom it was supposed to be, you know, out of sight and put away from the 
students.”  White also informed Freshwater that “other religious DVD’s, videos, 
etc. should also be placed out of sight and access of the students.”  Lacking in the 
record is any indication that any students were present in the classroom when 
White inspected it on April 16 or that students had access to them.  The 
conclusion that Freshwater defiantly violated the directive is subjective—
especially because Freshwater had permission to read his own Bible and the two 
other books in his classroom came from the school’s own library. 
{¶ 145} The lead opinion recognizes that Freshwater had a constitutional 
right to keep his Bible on his desk and that he was not insubordinate for doing so 
and could not be terminated on that basis, yet it concludes that he had no First 
Amendment right to have the copies of the Oxford Bible or Jesus of Nazareth 
from the school library in his classroom, because these books were not a part of 
his personal religious exercise.  But this is a specious argument and a distinction 
without a difference. The conclusory statement in the lead opinion that Freshwater 
was defiant because he had these library books in his classroom is unwarranted.  
He explained that at the time he checked these books out, he “was expecting my 
January Term, 2013 
53 
 
Bible to be removed out of my classroom. And my daughter and I would walk 
in—my daughter would always open it up and say, Dad, it’s still there, Dad, it’s 
still there.  That’s my inspiration.  I’m not going to go without my inspiration.”  
He testified that he checked these books out of the library for two reasons:  
 
[O]ne, I was curious about if the library had them.  I wanted to 
look at them.  And I found some interesting information. 
Q. Okay. 
A. So it was a curiosity.  Two, it’s my inspiration.  I 
thought that someday, after the 16th and on, that my Bible would 
be removed out of my classroom, so I would have the Oxford 
[Bible] from the school library there. And my thinking was they’re 
not going to remove the school library Bible. 
* * * 
* * * My point would be, again, inspirational.  I want to 
have a Bible on my desk.  They’re not going to take the school 
library Bible off my desk.  That was my thinking at the time. 
 
{¶ 146} Thus, his purpose for having the school Bible on a lab table in his 
classroom had nothing to do with being defiant or insubordinate.  As an individual 
who read his Bible during his personal time for inspiration and moral growth, he 
did not want to be deprived of that opportunity if the school authorities 
confiscated his personal Bible.  The school board could not constitutionally 
preclude Freshwater from seeking religious inspiration from the school library’s 
Oxford Bible or its book Jesus of Nazareth.  Rather, the analysis articulated by the 
lead opinion in holding that Freshwater had a First Amendment right to have his 
personal copy of a Bible at his desk also applies to the books he withdrew from 
the school library, because his purpose for doing so is protected by the Free 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
54 
 
Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.  The presence of these school library 
books in the classroom cannot reasonably be viewed as an official endorsement of 
religion, because they are the school’s own books, and thus does not justify the 
school board’s action that encroached on Freshwater’s constitutional right to 
personal religious exercise, let alone justify discharging him for insubordination 
because he had them in the classroom. 
{¶ 147} Nor did Freshwater have any reason to believe that he had to 
remove the poster of President Bush and his cabinet, because he considered it to 
inspire patriotism, not religion, and it had been provided to him by the school.  In 
addition, other members of the faculty had the same poster on display in their 
classrooms and offices—including Dino D’Ettore, Ben Sanders, David Carter,  
Brian Gastin, and Timothy Keib—apparently none of whom had been ordered to 
remove it from display.  Carter kept the poster in his office long after the board 
resolved to terminate Freshwater for not removing it.  And faculty members 
testified that in their view, the poster was not a religious display.  Seventh grade 
teacher Lori Miller thought, “[W]hat an awesome poster to see men that are—that 
have so much power having a moment of humbleness or weakness or—you know, 
I just thought that was great for—especially for middle school kids to see 
powerful men kind of taking a time out.”  Former interim principal Timothy Keib 
called the poster “non-religious”; former middle school principal Jeff Kuntz 
“didn’t look at it as a religious poster”; and intervention specialist Andrew 
Thompson saw it as depicting “the leader of the country and not necessarily 
religious connections.” 
{¶ 148} Thus, based on this and other evidence, Freshwater did not act in 
defiance of instructions and orders of schools administrators when he failed to 
remove his personal Bible, school library books, or the poster of President Bush 
and his cabinet that the school had provided him. The conclusion that Freshwater 
was insubordinate for failing to remove these items is not supported by the 
January Term, 2013 
55 
 
evidence, which demonstrates that the school board singled him out to avoid 
defending itself against a threatened lawsuit.  This is not a valid basis to terminate 
the teaching contract of a veteran science teacher with skill and talent whose 
students demonstrated their level of curriculum comprehension by their scores on 
the Ohio Achievement Test. 
Academic Freedom 
{¶ 149} The remaining cause asserted for terminating Freshwater is that he 
“injected his personal religious beliefs into his plan and pattern of instructing his 
students” by exceeding the bounds of all pertinent bylaws and policies of the 
Mount Vernon City School District. The board referenced Freshwater’s 
instruction on evolution as injecting Christian religious principles of creationism 
and intelligent design. 
{¶ 150} Notably, the referee in this case rejected any claim that 
Freshwater failed to teach any material, including evolution, as required by the 
Academic Content Standards, and the referee found that Freshwater’s students 
met or exceeded the expectations for eighth grade science students regarding such 
mandatory subject areas. 
{¶ 151} And the Bylaws and Policies of the Mount Vernon City School 
District provide: 
 
The Board of Education believes that the consideration of 
controversial issues has a legitimate place in the instructional 
program of the schools. 
Properly introduced and conducted, the consideration of 
such issues can help students learn to identify important issues, 
explore fully and fairly all sides of an issue, weigh carefully the 
values and factors involved, and develop techniques for 
formulating and evaluating positions. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
56 
 
For purposes of this policy, a controversial issue is a topic 
on which opposing points of view have been promulgated by 
responsible opinion. 
The Board will permit the introduction and proper 
educational use of controversial issues provided that their use in 
the instructional program: 
A. is related to the instructional goals of the course of study 
and level of maturity of the students;  
B. does not tend to indoctrinate or persuade students to a 
particular point of view;  
C. encourages open-mindedness and is conducted in a spirit 
of scholarly inquiry. 
Controversial issues related to the program may be initiated 
by the students themselves provided they are presented in the 
ordinary course of classroom instruction and it is not substantially 
disruptive to the educational setting. 
 
{¶ 152} The Academic Content Standards as promulgated by the State 
Board of Education and the Ohio Department of Education do not provide a script 
that teachers are required to follow when teaching core requirement subjects.  
Rather, the Ohio Department of Education explains that in standards-based 
instruction,  
 
teachers start with the state standards as the basis for classroom 
instructional planning, rather than starting with a textbook or other 
classroom materials.  Teachers select a unit of instruction that 
meets the standards, benchmarks and indicators and use the 
January Term, 2013 
57 
 
standards to determine how the unit shall be designed, assessed, 
delivered and evaluated. 
   
Ohio Department of Education, What Does Standards-Based Instruction Look 
Like?, http://ims.ode.state.oh.us/ODE/IMS/Lessons/FAQ/planning_standards_bas
ed_instruction_what_does_it_look_like.asp (accessed Sept. 3, 2013).  Several 
teachers at Mount Vernon Middle School testified that they were given “wide 
latitude” in planning their classes.  One teacher explained that this allowed lesson 
plans to include “[w]hatever * * * would enhance that standard and * * * would 
help the students be successful in learning the concept.”  Thus, Freshwater too 
enjoyed wide latitude in the realm of academic freedom to teach his classes in the 
manner he felt most effective and had the discretion to supplement the lessons 
with handouts and movies. 
{¶ 153} Importantly, teachers in public schools have a First Amendment 
interest in choosing a particular pedagogical method for presenting the material in 
the official curriculum to students.  The United States Supreme Court first 
recognized the academic freedom of teachers in a series of cases arising from 
efforts to purge Communists and subversives from college campuses.  See, e.g., 
Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 250, 77 S.Ct. 1203, 1 L.Ed.2d 1311 
(1957) (“Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and 
to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization 
will stagnate and die”); Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 112, 79 S.Ct. 
1081, 3 L.Ed.2d 1115 (1959) (“When academic teaching-freedom and its 
corollary learning-freedom, so essential to the well-being of the Nation, are 
claimed, this Court will always be on the alert against intrusion by Congress into 
this constitutionally protected domain”). 
{¶ 154} In Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of State of New York, 385 
U.S. 589, 87 S.Ct. 675, 17 L.Ed.2d 629 (1967), members of the faculty of a state 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
58 
 
university challenged state laws that disqualified those who advocated the 
overthrow of government by force, including members of the Communist Party, 
from teaching.  The court held that the laws chilled the exercise of First 
Amendment rights by not clearly informing teachers what conduct was 
prescribed, and it stated:  “Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding 
academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to 
the teachers concerned.  That freedom is therefore a special concern of the First 
Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the 
classroom.”  Id. at 603.  The court emphasized that “ ‘[t]he vigilant protection of 
constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American 
schools.’ ”  Id., quoting Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 487, 81 S.Ct. 247, 5 
L.Ed.2d 231 (1960). 
{¶ 155} Although these prior cases dealt with academic freedom in 
universities and colleges, the court in Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 107, 89 
S.Ct. 266, 21 L.Ed.2d 228 (1968), applied this precedent to a state statute that 
barred school teachers from teaching evolutionary theory.  Relying on Keyishian 
in holding the statute unconstitutional, the court explained,  
 
The State’s undoubted right to prescribe the curriculum for its 
public schools does not carry with it the right to prohibit, on pain 
of criminal penalty, the teaching of a scientific theory or doctrine 
where that prohibition is based upon reasons that violate the First 
Amendment.  It is much too late to argue that the State may impose 
upon the teachers in its schools any conditions that it chooses, 
however restrictive they may be of constitutional guarantees. 
 
January Term, 2013 
59 
 
{¶ 156} Thus, as the Supreme Court of Colorado observed in State Bd. for 
Community Colleges & Occupational Edn. v. Olson, 687 P.2d 429, 437 
(Colo.1984),  
 
a teacher in a public educational institution has a constitutionally 
protected First Amendment interest in choosing a particular 
pedagogical method for presenting the idea-content of a course, as 
long as the course is part of the official curriculum of the 
educational institution and the teaching method serves a 
demonstrable educational purpose. 
 
{¶ 157} The academic freedom of teachers also extends to the teaching of 
controversial subjects.  It is recognized that “teachers at public institutions may 
not be forced to surrender their rights to speak out on controversial issues as a 
condition of their employment.”  2 Rodney A. Smolla, Smolla and Nimmer on 
Freedom of Speech, Section 17:32 (2013); accord Dube v. State Univ. of New 
York, 900 F.2d 587, 597 (2d Cir.1990) (explaining that the denial of tenure or 
promotion in retaliation for controversial teachings viewed by some observers as 
racist violates the First Amendment).  In accord with the principle, the Seventh 
Circuit Court of Appeals noted in Zykan v. Warsaw Community School Corp., 631 
F.2d 1300, 1305-1306 (7th Cir.1980), that local school boards may not place “a 
flat prohibition on the mention of certain relevant topics in the classroom,” forbid 
“students to take an interest in subjects not directly covered by the regular 
curriculum,” or take actions “guided by an interest in imposing some religious or 
scientific orthodoxy or a desire to eliminate a particular kind of inquiry 
generally.” 
{¶ 158} More recently, in C.F. ex rel. Farnan v. Capistrano Unified 
School Dist., 654 F.3d 975 (9th Cir.2011), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
60 
 
considered a claim that a teacher violated the Establishment Clause by making 
controversial comments in class that were hostile to religion in general and to 
Christianity in particular.  The court noted, “we are aware of no prior case holding 
that a teacher violated the Establishment Clause by appearing critical of religion 
during class lectures, nor any case with sufficiently similar facts to give a teacher 
‘fair warning’ that such conduct was unlawful.”  Id. at 987.  And holding that the 
teacher lacked notice that the comments might violate the Establishment Clause, 
the court explained: 
 
The Supreme Court has long recognized the importance of 
protecting the “robust exchange of ideas” in education, “which 
discovers truth ‘out of a multitude of tongues.’ ”  Keyishian v. Bd. 
of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603, 87 S.Ct. 675, 17 L.Ed.2d 629 
(1967) (quoting United States v. Associated Press, 52 F.Supp. 362, 
372 (S.D.N.Y.1943)).  “Teachers and students must always remain 
free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and 
understanding * * *.”  Id. (quoting Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 
U.S. 234, 250, 77 S.Ct. 1203, 1 L.Ed.2d 1311 (1957)) (internal 
quotation marks omitted) * * *.  This academic freedom will 
sometimes lead to the examination of controversial issues.  * * * 
In broaching controversial issues like religion, teachers 
must be sensitive to students’ personal beliefs and take care not to 
abuse their positions of authority.  * * *  But teachers must also be 
given leeway to challenge students to foster critical thinking skills 
and develop their analytical abilities.  This balance is hard to 
achieve, and we must be careful not to curb intellectual freedom by 
imposing dogmatic restrictions that chill teachers from adopting 
the pedagogical methods they believe are most effective. 
January Term, 2013 
61 
 
 
(Citations omitted.)  Id. at 988. 
{¶ 159} However, the academic freedom of teachers is not without limit.  
Local school boards are vested with the authority to establish the curriculum and 
the responsibility to ensure that teachers do not “stray from the established 
curriculum by injecting religious advocacy into the classroom,” such as by 
teaching creationism in violation of the Establishment Clause.  Webster v. New 
Lenox School Dist. No. 122, 917 F.2d 1004, 1007 (7th Cir.1990); accord Edwards 
v. California Univ. of Pennsylvania, 156 F.3d 488, 492 (3d Cir.1998) (holding 
that academic freedom did not permit professor’s classroom tools to inject 
religious ideals in curriculum materials in contravention of university dictates); 
Piggee v. Carl Sandburg College, 464 F.3d 667 (7th Cir.2006) (upholding 
decision not to renew contract of teacher who injected her religious views in 
cosmetology classes); Helland v. S. Bend Community School Corp., 93 F.3d 327, 
331-332 (7th Cir.1996) (concluding that substitute teacher could be removed from 
list of approved substitutes for failing to follow lesson plans and discussing 
creationism in a fifth grade science class); Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School 
Dist., 37 F.3d 517, 521-522 (9th Cir.1994) (holding that biology teacher could be 
required by the school board to teach evolution and precluded from discussing 
religion with students). 
{¶ 160} But presenting alternative views on scientific theories as a means 
of challenging students to think critically is not tantamount to promoting religion 
in the classroom, a fact that the Supreme Court recognized in Edwards v. 
Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 594, 107 S.Ct. 2573, 96 L.Ed.2d 510 (1987), when it 
stated that “teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of 
humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent 
of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
62 
 
{¶ 161} The record includes testimony from several teachers and reveals 
that Freshwater began the school year by teaching his students the scientific 
method and encouraging them to think critically and to distinguish between 
scientific hypothesis and established fact.  Teaching students these critical 
analytic skills serves a secular purpose, not a religious one, and notably, the 
school district curriculum recognized that it is beneficial for science students to 
learn how to critically analyze aspects of scientific theory, including the theory of 
evolution.  At the time Freshwater taught science, the Academic Content Standard 
for Grade 6-8 science required students to be able to “[e]xplain why it is 
important to examine data objectively and not let bias affect observations.”  
According to prior standards for life sciences, by the time students completed 
tenth grade, they should have understood “how scientists continue to investigate 
and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.” 
{¶ 162} Also, the Mount Vernon City School District Bylaws and Policies 
allowed teachers to address controversial issues that arose while teaching the 
curriculum, and an administrative guideline for that policy directed teachers to 
“help students use a critical thinking process * * * to examine different sides of an 
issue.”  Evolution is a controversial topic, as Freshwater’s fellow eighth grade 
science teacher, Elle Button, recognized when she testified that students in her 
class “would question greatly the validity of the theory of evolution.”  Freshwater 
permitted his students to raise these questions and also to debate among 
themselves evolution, intelligent design, and creationism, but he did not 
participate in those debates.  Notably, special education teacher Kerri Mahan, who 
observed these debates in Freshwater’s classroom, testified that the students led 
the debates and that Freshwater stepped in only when necessary to maintain 
decorum. 
{¶ 163} Further, the evidence vindicates Freshwater’s teaching methods 
because it demonstrates that his students learned evolutionary theory as mandated 
January Term, 2013 
63 
 
by the official curriculum.  Notably, among the building’s three eighth grade 
science teachers for the 2007-2008 academic year—the last year Freshwater 
taught at Mount Vernon Middle School—only Freshwater exceeded the state goal 
of 75 percent of his students passing the science portion of the Ohio Achievement 
Test.  Even more striking is the fact that 89 percent of his students passed the life 
science section, which assessed, among other topics, students’ knowledge of 
evolutionary theory.  In contrast, the students of the other two eighth grade 
science teachers achieved passage rates of 76 and 67 percent on this section. 
{¶ 164} Deborah Strouse, the school district’s achievement coordinator, 
explained that this passage rate shows that Freshwater “did teach the indicators” 
contained in the Academic Content Standards.  Similarly, Mahan, who also served 
as the school achievement coach for education, agreed that the Ohio Achievement 
Test is “a good indicator of what the kids are actually learning” because the test is 
based on the standards.  Mahan also suggested that Freshwater’s approach to 
teaching critical thinking skills in science may have benefited his students on the 
Ohio Achievement Test because the test assesses “abstract thinking, synthesis, 
[and] evaluation.” 
{¶ 165} In addition to this objective evidence, Mahan, who regularly 
attended Freshwater’s classes for almost six years with her special education 
students, remembered him teaching the evolution section in the textbook.  And 
Andrew Thompson, an intervention specialist who also attended Freshwater’s 
classes, disputed the media’s portrayal of Freshwater as “a crazy science teacher 
who the rest of the staff did not care for or respect” and expressed the opinion that 
Freshwater taught evolution effectively. 
{¶ 166} Further, the record shows that Freshwater did not teach students 
creationism or intelligent design, either as a substitute for or an alternative to the 
theory of evolution.  The best evidence in the case is Freshwater’s own testimony:  
“I do not teach intelligent design. * * * I teach evolution.  I do not teach ID or 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
64 
 
creationism.”  He denied attempting to indoctrinate students, nor did he inject his 
personal religious beliefs into his lessons, explaining:  “I do not want creationism 
taught in the schools. * * * [C]reationism is based on faith.  Science is based on 
scientific method.  * * * I wouldn’t want my students or my own personal kids to 
be taught in the schools by somebody that didn’t understand or didn’t—didn’t 
understand creationism.” 
{¶ 167} His students and colleagues corroborated his testimony.  Various 
former students testified that Freshwater had never taught creationism or 
intelligent design in class.  For instance, a classmate of the student whose parents 
threatened to sue the district testified that Freshwater never referred to his Bible in 
class and never said anything about God, intelligent design, or creationism in the 
classroom, and she even noted that Freshwater changed the subject when a 
student brought up a “higher power.”  Three other classmates testified that 
Freshwater did not teach the Bible or his religious beliefs in class, and another 
agreed that Freshwater did not promote creationism or intelligent design.  Mahan, 
who brought her special education students for inclusion into Freshwater’s 
science class, stated that during the six years she attended his classes, Freshwater 
taught evolution without mentioning intelligent design to the students.  
Thompson, who also often attended Freshwater’s classes as an intervention 
specialist, testified that he never witnessed Freshwater teach creationism or 
intelligent design, and former interim principal Keib observed that he never saw 
Freshwater “try to push his faith or his philosophical beliefs on anybody that was 
a student.” 
{¶ 168} And when Freshwater proposed changing the curriculum in 2003 
to adopt an Objective Origins Science Policy, his proposal sought only to 
“[e]ncourage the presentation of scientific evidence regarding the origins of life 
and its diversity objectively and without religious, naturalistic, or philosophic 
bias or assumption.”  (Emphasis added.)  As Freshwater explained, he meant “to 
January Term, 2013 
65 
 
take a tenth grade standard and put it down to the eighth grade standard to 
critically analyze evolution.”  Like the tenth grade standard, his proposal 
distinguished the secular method of critically examining evolution from teaching 
intelligent design, and Freshwater confirmed that he did not intend that the 
proposed standard permit the teaching of religious concepts in science class. 
{¶ 169} Thus, the evidence in this case reveals that the school board has 
misinterpreted Freshwater’s effort to challenge students to think critically about 
evolutionary theory and instead construed his instruction as promoting intelligent 
design from a creationist perspective.  This is a misimpression and contrary to the 
evidence in this case, and it is not a basis to terminate the contract of a teacher. 
{¶ 170} The school board concluded that Freshwater had injected his 
personal religious beliefs into his plan and pattern of instruction.  It apparently 
assumed that he could not fairly present lessons on evolution and stated that he 
“not only injected his subjective, biased, Christian religion based, non-scientific 
opinion into the instruction of eighth grade science students but also gave those 
students reason to doubt the accuracy and or veracity of scientists, science 
textbooks, and/or science in general.”  Yet student scores on standardized tests 
stand as strong, persuasive evidence of the board’s faulty conclusion; those scores 
instead reveal that Freshwater did teach evolution as mandated by the curriculum.  
Moreover, teaching students to question and rethink accepted scientific theories is 
essential to their understanding of the scientific method, the key concept his 
science students learned in eighth grade.  As the United States Supreme Court 
recognized in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 590, 
113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), “arguably, there are no certainties in 
science,” and “ ‘scientists do not assert that they know what is immutably 
“true”—they are committed to searching for new, temporary, theories to explain, 
as best they can, phenomena.’ ”  Id., quoting Brief for Nicolaas Bloembergen et 
al. as Amici Curiae at 9.  Thus, there is nothing unscientific in Freshwater 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
66 
 
challenging students to critically evaluate and question the underlying premises of 
any scientific theory, including evolution. 
{¶ 171} In the last analysis, it is apparent that the board has taken separate, 
isolated instances where Freshwater allegedly made religious statements 
sometime between 1994 and 2008 to demonstrate that he injected his personal 
religious beliefs into his plan and pattern of instruction in the 2007-2008 school 
year.8  In 1994, Freshwater gave students information about a seminar supporting 
the Biblical story of creation, and he also provided several handouts challenging 
evolutionary theory in 2002 or 2003 and in 2006 that the school board viewed as 
promoting intelligent design.  And there is some evidence that Freshwater made 
off-hand remarks of a religious nature, including one reference to views on 
homosexuality mentioned by the school board in its termination resolution.  In 
addition, Z.D. testified that sometime during the 2007-2008 school year, 
Freshwater referred to a “higher being” while discussing the Big Bang theory, 
suggested that the earth would come “to a fiery end” as foretold by the Bible, and 
said that Good Friday “should be called the greatest Friday or the best Friday 
ever.”  But those isolated statements over an extended period of time do not 
establish a practice of injecting religious belief into his regular classroom 
instruction.  As the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals explained in Webster, 917 
F.2d at 1007, “school boards may not fire teachers for random classroom 
comments.”  This is especially true where, as here, the school board has not 
complained about religious statements or displays in classrooms of other teachers, 
                                                          
 
8Many of these incidents are not supported by record evidence.  Administrators recalled that 
Freshwater distributed three “unauthorized” handouts between 2000 and 2007; the content of the 
first is unknown, the second could not be identified, and the problem with the third was that its 
source could not be documented.  And although the board concluded that Freshwater used the 
movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and the video The Watchmaker to challenge evolution, a 
copy of Expelled does not appear in the record, and Freshwater did not show The Watchmaker in 
science class; rather, some of his science students saw it during a meeting of the Fellowship of 
Christian Athletes.   
January Term, 2013 
67 
 
but rather, has targeted this specific teacher only after he became the subject of a 
complaint and the board faced a threatened lawsuit. 
{¶ 172} Teachers enjoy academic freedom to adopt the pedagogical 
methods they believe are most effective and are permitted to discuss controversial 
subjects with students related to the curriculum.  Although local school boards 
have authority to establish the curriculum and may discipline teachers who stray 
from it by injecting religious advocacy in the classroom, they may not prohibit 
teachers from mentioning topics that are relevant to teaching the curriculum nor 
forbid students from considering issues not specifically prescribed by it. 
{¶ 173} Thus, the school board violated Freshwater’s First Amendment 
rights when it terminated his contract based on its belief that he failed to adhere to 
the curriculum and that he was instead teaching creationism and intelligent 
design.  Rather, the evidence demonstrates that he encouraged students to critique 
the theory of evolution to foster their critical thinking skills and to develop their 
analytical abilities, not to inject his religious beliefs into that instruction.  Further, 
monitoring a student-led debate on evolution, providing handouts critical of 
evolutionary theory, and making isolated comments over a 20-year career that 
could be construed as religious does not establish that Freshwater taught 
creationism or intelligent design in the classroom.  To the contrary, the evidence 
shows that Freshwater excelled in teaching evolutionary theory as part of the 
science curriculum for eighth grade students. 
{¶ 174} Accordingly, this record neither demonstrates that Freshwater 
defied direct orders from school administrators, nor reflects that he taught 
creationism or intelligent design, nor shows that he strayed from the established 
curriculum on evolution.  The claim of insubordination is not proven by clear and 
convincing evidence, which is “that measure or degree of proof which will 
produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the 
allegations sought to be established.”  Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 477, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
68 
 
120 N.E.2d 118 (1954).  Thus, the school board lacked sufficient cause to 
terminate his contract.  I would therefore reverse the judgment of the court of 
appeals and order his reinstatement with back pay. 
{¶ 175} For these reasons, I respectfully dissent. 
PFEIFER and KENNEDY, JJ., concur in the foregoing opinion. 
____________________ 
The Law Office of R. Kelly Hamilton, L.L.C., and R. Kelly Hamilton; and 
The Rutherford Institute and Rita M. Dunaway, for appellant. 
Britton Smith Peters & Kalail Co., L.P.A., David Kane Smith, Krista 
Keim, and Paul J. Deegan, for appellee. 
Appignani Humanist Legal Center and William J. Burgess, urging 
affirmance for amici curiae American Humanist Association and the Secular 
Student Alliance. 
Mayer Brown, L.L.P., Charles P. Hurley, Richard B. Katskee, and Scott 
M. Noveck, urging affirmance for amici curiae Americans United for Separation 
of Church and State and Anti-Defamation League. 
Lape Mansfield & Nakasian, L.L.C., and Douglas M. Mansfield, urging 
affirmance for amici curiae Stephen Dennis and Jenifer Dennis. 
Calfee, Halter & Griswold, L.L.P., Christopher S. Williams, Colleen M. 
O’Neil, and Jeffrey J. Lauderdale, urging affirmance for amicus curiae National 
Center for Science Education. 
________________________