First of all, I didn't see the article discuss substantive issues regarding both copyright and privacy rights in recording a teacher in class (or even fellow students) without their explicit knowledge and consent. Presumably the judge addressed the issue, but my suspicion is that the student anticipated the teacher's provocative statements. I think that there is a heightened risk of an adversarial relationship developing between teacher and students and the potential abusive use of excerpts out of context.
Second, one could argue that the teacher has academic freedom and free speech. But I disagree; I think the teacher is abusing his power in the classroom, creating an unprofessional hostile learning environment. There is an unequal relationship, and a student risks possible grade retribution in contradicting his teacher's rant. Perhaps the judge established some link between between Corbett's provocative trashing of religion in America and European history. It's one thing to engage in the Socratic method or to be a impartial arbiter in a debate among members of a class; what I heard was judgmental in nature: e.g., he called talk show hosts O'Reilly and Hannity "liars"; he said religious people pray "to the spaghetti monster". There are other polemical comments e.g., about conservatives wanting to keep women barefoot and pregnant because it's God's will.
I personally don't care about Corbett's boorish opinions, but in my opinion, his diatribe violates professional ethics. He's an adult; he should know better. It is his responsibility to be a role model and to maintain a civil, respectful, tolerant demeanor in that classroom.
Third, I think the judge's decision is baffling. He thinks Corbett's description of creationism or intelligent design as "superstitious" violates the establishment clause but his characterization of God as "the spaghetti monster" and calling believers "fools" do not constitute antipathy towards religion? Actually, creationism or intelligent design is not presented as religion per se but poses as a critique of the theory of evolution. As I mentioned in a prior post, I reject teaching creationism or intelligent design in public schools (or private schools), and I'm Catholic.
I do think the judge's decision was correct, but I disagree with his reasoning. I do think a lot the statements the student referenced were not indicative of hostility to religion per se but judgments about believers and their motives.
Finally, as for Mr. Farnan: I do not think what Dr. Corbett did was professional or fair-minded. That being said, one of life's lessons is learning to deal with people whom disagree with you or disagreeable people. I don't think an atheist teacher, employed in a public school, should be using classtime, paid for by taxpayers, to impose his personal political opinions on a captive class of students. I do not think the general public or the students in Corbett's class find his boorish opinions an infringement on their ability to practice their religion. If I had been in Mr. Farnan's place, I would not have filed a lawsuit; on the other hand, I may have filed a complaint with the school administration over Dr. Corbett's creating a hostile learning environment and wasting classtime venting his personal opinions.
