Dr. Johnson Varkey was a biology professor who taught as St. Phillips College for more than 20 years. St. Phillips College is a small community college located in San Antonio, Texas. Dr. Varkey taught Human Anatomy and Physiology since 2004 using the same lesson plans and the school-approved textbook with never any complaints from any students or staff about his teaching. Around November 2022, four students walked out of class due to his claim that human sexuality is result of X and Y chromosomes. In January 2023, Dr. Varkey received a Notice of Discipline and Termination of Employment and Contract Letter in regard to "his "religious preaching, discrimatory comments about homosexuals and transgender individuals, anti-abortion rhetoric, and misogynistic banter" and that his teaching "pushed beyond the bounds of academic freedom with [his] personal opinions that were offensive to many individuals in the classroom" (Dr. Johnson Varkey)". Consequently, he was fired from these accusations.
Another important fact about this case is the fact that Dr. Varkey is an associate pastor in one of the local churches in the area. He is a devout Evangelical Christian, but he made it very clear that he never projects his religion or his beliefs at any time during his time teaching. The Christian ideology believes that the human sexuality is determined by biology. In other words, the Bible believes that humans are meant to be heterosexual. First Liberty stated, "It is preposterous that, after teaching for more than 20 years, St. Philip's College would fire Dr. Varkey for teaching basic, widely accepted concepts of biology from the textbook assigned to him (Dr. Johnson Varkey)". This was not a concern for 20 years until 4 students decided to protest the teachings of Dr. Varkey even with his great professor reviews and no disciplinary actions on his record. This has become a sore spot for society today because now that biology and human reproductive facts are being rejected when it is not the popular opinion. Specifically, they are saying that science is being disregarded and deemed unimportant. This is important to the case because the college is making it clear to Dr. Varkey and others that the free exercise of religion outside of the classroom context is not allowed.
The constitutional issue at question deal with if it unconstitutional to teach basic scientific concepts that are not accepted by everyone. In my opinion, I believe that he was wrongfully fired. This college fired Dr. Varkey because of his faith and his involvement as a pastor which is against the Constitution. Since Dr. Varkey did not discuss his religious beliefs or press them onto his students, he was not violating the separation of Church and State. He was teaching the students very basic human anatomy specifically the genitals on both the female and male, and he was teaching the prenatal development that occurs during a pregnancy. These are scientific facts that are agreed upon in the scientific world. Dr. Varkey was not breaking any law and was unlawfully fired. First Liberty has filed a charge of religious discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for Dr. Varkey for the discrimination of his religion in the workplace. "The laws enforced by EEOC prohibit an employer from treating you differently, or less favorably, because you or a friend, parent, or someone else you associate with holds a particular religious belief (or non-belief) (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)".
Therefore, this case should be looked at more closely. This becomes a fine line of what is actual fact and what is religious belief. It is relevant today because this is becoming very common in many situations. Now, there are many cases where the lessons are being changed to accommodate everyone some without the parental consent. For example, Jennifer Vitsaxaki had no idea about many things that were occurring during school that influenced her daughter. Especially when discussing Church and State, it is not written in the Constitution and has been analyzed as a metaphor. In both of these cases, I think there has been discrimination against any resemblance of faith and made a consequence. Therefore, it is making it hard to even have a religion if you are either a parent or a teacher. This is important because this influences individuals' rights of free exercise of religion. In Dr. Varkey's case, he was fired due to his religious beliefs which is deemed unconstitutional, yet the college still fired him. As we discussed in class, this can become a slippery slope of what is yet to come if this is the trend that we see in the future.
References
Dr. Johnson Varkey - Cases - First Liberty
Religious Discrimination | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (eeoc.gov)
Mead v. Rockford Public School District | ADFMedia.org
9 comments:
I also believe that the professor was wrongfully terminated. However, I am having trouble seeing how this is a religious issue. It seems like he was teaching the scientifically accepted facts about gender and chromosomes. While he may be a pastor outside of the classroom, if he did not bring up his religion in the classroom there seems to be a clear separation. If he had made it a religious issue about sexuality I believe the case would be seen differently, but since he was not preaching but merely teaching science, I do not think he should have been fired.
Abby,
I agree with your holding that Professor Varkey was unlawfully expelled from his job. Additionally, I agree with Devin’s comment that there seems to be a discrepancy in the scientific issue and religious issue of this case. Although Varkey is a devout pastor outside of the classroom and holds intense religious beliefs, he had not brought these beliefs into the classroom and entangled them into his conversation about science. Although these students were offended based on the belief that Varkey was imposing his religious beliefs in regards to sex, offense cannot be the main determinant of whether the actions of the professor were constitutional or not.
I’d definitely like to see how this case is ruled, and whether the unclear religious issue of this case will be addressed.
Abby, this is a very interesting case. I agree with the two previous comments that the main issue at question is not necessarily a religious one. I believe it was wrong for St. Phillips College to fire Dr. Varkey for teaching the very concepts found in the textbooks that they themselves approved and for using his personal religious ties as justification for his termination. The school violated his free exercise rights and failed to offer him an alternative to firing or to even reevaluate the textbooks they previously approved. I agree with your last point that should the court rule in favor of St. Phillips, this could produce a slippery slope. It could also discourage professors who hold religious beliefs from applying in the future for fear that they too could be fired if claims were to be made about them.
While the framing of this issue seems to suggest the Professor was wrongfully terminated, I would believe there must be something else going on here. It would not make much sense for the Professor to be terminated after one report by 4 students about something he had taught the same way for 20 years. I would presume that he talked more about how biology inherently determines sexuality, and invalidating any deviance from that. In my understanding, if this happened, the University has a right to terminate employees that promote something that is different to what they seek to put out, and in this case it seems to be a discriminatory view. In addition, since the Professor claims the teaching had nothing to do with his religion, he should not qualify for any religious exemption here and should not be up for discussion. I may be understanding the facts of the case wrong, but this is how I would rule about the facts in the way I understand it.
Abby,
Thank you for sharing this case and perspective! It's concerning to see a seasoned professor like Dr. Varkey facing such consequences for simply teaching established scientific facts. The allegations against him seem unfounded, especially considering his long history of effective teaching and adherence to academic standards. The issue of religious discrimination in the workplace, as highlighted by First Liberty's charge, highlights the importance of upholding individuals' rights to express their beliefs without fear of reprisal. This case indeed blurs the line between scientific fact and religious belief, and institutions must navigate this delicate balance while also respecting both academic freedom and religious liberties.
Hi Abby,
Great post -- really enjoyed it! I believe that this case underscores the delicate balance between respecting individual rights to the free exercise of religion and maintaining a neutral educational environment. The increasing prevalence of such disputes, as mentioned with Jennifer Vitsaxaki's concerns, signals a broader societal shift and necessitates a closer examination of how personal beliefs intersect with education. In my opinion, the outcome of Dr. Varkey's case may have lasting implications for academic institutions grappling with the challenge of accommodating diverse perspectives while upholding academic integrity.
Abby, this is a really good post. I think there is definitely a very slippery slope when it comes to religion and academic settings, especially surrounding topics of biology and science in modern society. I can not fully take a proper stance upon Dr. Varkey's abrupt end to his career as a professor, as I feel that there is a relatively vague understanding of what actually happened in the classroom. It seems to be a sort of "he said she said" situation. Regardless, it seems to me from this post that the school cared more so about their reputation of offending a small amount of students who seem to disagree with scientific facts rather than protecting a valued member of their organization.
To me, this case looks like a constitutional violation of Dr. Varkey's free exercise of religion clause. I agree with Bella's idea that this incident can potentially make professors with religious beliefs hesitant to teach in higher education, which can cause a potential issue with secular and non-secular individuals in academic settings. Overall, I feel that Dr. Varkey's constitutional rights of freedom of speech and expression as well as freedom of exercise were denied by the school, which greatly impacted his professional career.
Great post! I agree that Dr. Varkey was unfairly treated for merely imparting accepted scientific knowledge. The accusations leveled against him don't seem to have sufficient evidence, particularly in light of his extensive record of successful instruction and devotion to academic standards. I think First Liberty's lawsuit shows the problem of religious discrimination in the workplace and there also seems to be a distinct barrier between his religious beliefs and his work in the classroom, even though he may be a pastor outside of it. It seems the school made a decision in order to satisfy a minority of the students, and fired him as perhaps a PR decision.
Abby,
I agree with the fact that Dr. Varkey was wrongfully terminated. I found it important that you emphasized on the fact that he had been teaching the same lesson from the same school-issued textbook for more than 20 years. This highlights on the idea of precedents and altering societal norms.
Like those before me, I feel that biology – a fundamental course for life itself – is of significant importance and to rid of it would cause more harm than good. However, the topic of “sexuality,” in my opinion, may not be entirely necessary, but again, it is a humanly biological function. I find that it is entirely up to the interpretation and how Dr. Varkey teaches the topic that could rise issue.
Post a Comment