After a school board meeting Tuesday night in which both sides of the evolution debate — the side that understands science and the side supporting Schaefer — made their cases, the end result was that nothing happened.

Superintendent Prentiss Lea said the school board is not going to take action on the teacher’s employment, because the issue has been resolved.

“Regardless of our professional or personal opinions, in this area, there is no gray area,” Lea said. “The teacher in question is a longstanding D128 instructor. We will not be recommending his termination as this is remediable behavior.”

The fact that this teacher has been teaching for a long while is irrelevant. If anything, it just raises the question of how long he’s been teaching Christianity to his students.

Is it “remediable behavior”? Well, we know the school district has already informed teachers that teaching Creationism would not be tolerated… but Schaefer has yet to apologize for what he did or acknowledge that what he was discussing in class wasn’t actual science but rather religion.

Here’s what the superintendent actually said regarding the situation:

The D128 and LHS administration looked in the concern and determined that an LHS Science teacher had referenced and/or taught creationism in Biology classes. The D128 and LHS administration dealt with the science teacher to ensure that creationism is not referenced or taught in other D128 science classes, and finally, clarified the D128 expectation that creationism is not to be referenced or taught in D128 science classes. The issue at hand is not, and I repeat not, whether referencing or teaching creationism in our science classes is acceptable and appropriate. It is not. The United States Supreme Court and several other federal court decisions have found that creationism may not be referenced or taught in public school science classrooms. Regardless of our professional or personal opinions, there is no gray area in these court cases, and D128 must and will, live within the boundaries of the court rulings. The teacher in question is a long standing D128 educator, cooperated fully with administrators looking into this concern, and we will not be recommending his termination as this is remediable behavior.

How çan a problem like this be remediated when the culprit doesn’t even think it’s a problem to begin with?

How can anyone teach science when he obviously doesn’t understand one of the most fundamental scientific concepts?

If teaching Creationism doesn’t do it, what does a science teacher have to do to get fired, anyway?

And why is this superintendent’s response so weak? Yes, the courts have ruled against teaching Creationism. But that’s not the reason it shouldn’t be taught in Science class. Creationism should be left out of the curriculum because it’s not really science; it’s religion, pure and simple. Why doesn’t the superintendent have the courage (and knowledge) to simply admit that?

Of all the people I thought would be upset by this lack of action, I thought atheist activist Rob Sherman would certainly be one of them. He’s the main reason this issue is getting attention in the first place.

But Rob feels Schaefer has been punished enough:

While Schaefer wasn’t fired, the Resolution of Reprimand is very damaging to his career. Most teachers never earn a Resolution of Reprimand from their School Board, so if Schaefer were to ever try to get a teaching job, anywhere else, the Resolution would haunt him for the rest of his working career. In addition, if Schaefer were to ever again teach creationism in a District 128 science classroom, his career in District 128 would surely be finished.

If Rob accepts the decision of the school board, though, then I don’t see any reason to advocate for further “remediation.” Even after Schaefer was giving students handouts like these during the evolution unit.