Burning Crosses in Students' Arms : Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Profile

Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)

Search

Other Information

Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb

Ed Brayton is a participant in the Center for Independent Media New Journalism Program. However, all of the statements, opinions, policies, and views expressed on this site are solely Ed Brayton's. This web site is not a production of the Center, and the Center does not support or endorse any of the contents on this site.

Ed's Audio and Video

Declaring Independence podcast feed

YearlyKos 2007

Video of speech on Dover and the Future of the Anti-Evolution Movement

Audio of Greg Raymer Interview

E-mail Policy

Any and all emails that I receive may be reprinted, in part or in full, on this blog with attribution. If this is not acceptable to you, do not send me e-mail - especially if you're going to end up being embarrassed when it's printed publicly for all to see.

My Ecosystem Details

« 1 in 8 Teaching Creationism in Science Class | Main | Gorenfeld in Church and State »

Burning Crosses in Students' Arms

Posted on: May 21, 2008 9:30 AM, by Ed Brayton

Remember John Freshwater, the Mt. Vernon, Ohio teacher accused of burning a cross in the arm of a student (among many other things)? The parents still wish to keep the identity of their family secret (and given the harassment of any students not demonstrating for the teacher, I don't blame them), but a friend of mine who knows them has seen pictures of the kid's arm has given me this description of what he saw. I reprint this with the permission of the parents:

I saw a photo of the burn on the boy's arm, and it's very clearly a 1st (and maybe 2nd) degree burn. The pic I saw was taken four days after the incident and it's still red and inflamed. The upright of the cross is roughly 6" tall on his forearm, and the crosspiece is around 2"-3". It ain't teeny tiny. The father has more pics taken sooner after the incident.

Two things to be noted. First, the person who saw these pictures has emergency medical training, so his diagnosis of a 1st or 2nd degree burn is not just a wild guess. Second, the parents and the student who was burned are Christians themselves but they are appalled by Freshwater's behavior and they want him gone.

By the way, here's a description of the device used to burn the cross:

The make and model of the device alleged to have been used to burn crosses on the arms of students in December is BD-10A, manufactured by Electro-Technic Products Inc. The company describes the device, which is a variation on the Tesla coil, as a hand-held unit which generates a high voltage at a high frequency.

Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

Comments

That is just so fucking creepy. The man should not be allowed near children. If your friend is correct and it really was a second degree burn, I'd say that's downright criminal.

Posted by: Wes | May 21, 2008 9:56 AM

Has the family filed suit against the teacher, and filed criminal charges for assault? What the teacher did was not just out-of-line, it was a crime.

Posted by: James Hanley | May 21, 2008 10:08 AM

Lighten up, folks. This is a just bored teacher pulling a prank.

;D ( an emoticon which means I am joking!)

Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 21, 2008 10:27 AM

Just taking up the cross daily. The only reason it might not be criminal is because the action is clearly insane.

Posted by: kehrsam | May 21, 2008 10:31 AM

The religious symbolism seems beside the point here. At the school where I work any teacher who burned anything into a students arm would be in deep deep trouble.

Posted by: Cheddar | May 21, 2008 10:34 AM

Whatever. No one is going to really give a shit. It didn't involve sex.

Posted by: Josh | May 21, 2008 10:36 AM

Ah Ginger, we KNOW you're a graduate of Sociopath High :D -DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | May 21, 2008 10:38 AM

Was there blistering? Usually if a burn is 2° degree, there's blistering.

Posted by: Orac | May 21, 2008 11:14 AM

Actually, Wikipedia has a pretty good description of how to distinguish degrees of burns:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burn_(injury)

First degree burns are usually pretty easy to tell from second degree burns. Deep second degree partial thickness burns can be difficult to distinguish from third degree (or full thickness) burns.

Posted by: Orac | May 21, 2008 11:17 AM

They shouldu/l the photos somewhere. Seeing is believeing.

Whatever. No one is going to really give a shit. It didn't involve sex.

Sad but true. Unless he does get in trouble, then it'll be part of the War on Christians(tm).

Posted by: tincture | May 21, 2008 11:34 AM

Ed, you left off this part of the description:

Safety precautions suggested by the company include: "Never touch or come in contact with the high voltage output of this device, nor with any device it is energizing.

So what did this guy think he was doing? Was he too dumb to follow basic safety guidelines, or was this intended as a form of punishment? Either way, it's grounds for dismissal.

Posted by: Taz | May 21, 2008 11:39 AM

Haven't any of you people watched Salem's Lot?
That teacher should be commended for protecting the other children in his class by exposing the little vampire in their midst.

Posted by: Sigmund | May 21, 2008 12:14 PM

I don't understand how this issue got framed as the trivial one of Freshwater having a Bible on his desk (IANAL, but ISTM that displaying items of personal significance in an employee's personal workspace should by default be allowed, unless there are compelling reaons like safety to forbid it). Deliberate injury to a student should be a no-brainer: immediate suspension pending investigation, most likely followed by dismissal and assault charges.

The fact that the parents are keeping quiet for fear of backlash is appalling (the fact that it's a concern, I mean). This community is seriously insane.

Posted by: Eamon Knight | May 21, 2008 12:38 PM

6"? Jesus. I thought we were talking about a couple of centimetres.

Posted by: Ginger Yellow | May 21, 2008 12:43 PM

Wow, my chemistry teacher in High School had one of those devices. My friends and I always used to screw around with it (in a relatively safe way), but even if put it to our own skin it hurt like hell after just a short while. I can't imagine having anything burned into my skin with it. And, best of all my teacher was an incredibly devout Christian and he never once thought it would be a good idea to burn crosses into our arms. So clearly this guy is WAY over the edge...

Posted by: Robert Ward | May 21, 2008 12:45 PM

Just for Ginger's benefit 2 to 3 inches is around 5.08 to 7.62 cm. -DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | May 21, 2008 12:50 PM

That teacher should have been fired on the spot, in my humble opinion. Anything used to cause harm (even inadvertly) is literally a weapon.

Posted by: NaomiRuth | May 21, 2008 1:15 PM

Orac asked

Was there blistering? Usually if a burn is 2° degree, there's blistering.

The device used, referenced in Ed's link in the OP, generates a high voltage, low amperage, high frequency output. Its specs say that it produces 10,000 to 50,000 volts at 500 kHz. The "500 kHz" is key. A burn produced by such a device could cause non-trivial deep tissue damage without significant visible superficial signs, or so they warned us when I was a Navy missile technician. So from a surface examination from a photo it would be tough to ascertain whether (and how much) deep tissue damage occurred. It would produce an RF burn rather than a a burn produced by a hot object like a soldering iron.

If there was visible surface inflammation four days after the event it was damned sure a 1st degree burn, and depending on how much deep tissue damage occurred it could be 2nd degree.

Posted by: RBH | May 21, 2008 1:24 PM

If it had been an Islamic symbol, he'd be in Gitmo by now.

Posted by: MH | May 21, 2008 1:50 PM

So, maybe I'm missing somethign here but, if I follow correctly, a teacher used an electric brand to burn a student and he hasn't been arrested on assault charges, why? And there are students defending the teacher and harassing the sensible people who are all WTF about this?

I woke up in Bizarro world again, didn't I?

Posted by: Keith | May 21, 2008 4:31 PM

Thanks to your friend and the parents for making this information available. I agree that charges should be laid. There's more than a few teachers out there who love the feeling of complete authority they hold over the hapless students they teach, but even the majority of those don't go this far... it is criminal assault (imho, ianal) and a horrible example to be setting. Particularily by the school board who don't appear to be reacting to this or the bullying that resulted from it in an appropriate manner.

Again, thanks and good wishes to your friend, the parents and the student who is caught up in the turmoil.

Posted by: kodiak | May 21, 2008 4:46 PM

What's truly bizarre for me is the fact that the shape burned into these kids' arms requires them to be burned twice. They get burned once, and then allow themselves to be burned again.

I can't get kids to stay in their seats if someone farts.

Posted by: BaldApe | May 21, 2008 5:55 PM

I'm a little skeptical that the device mentioned can even produce such burns in a reasonably short period of time. Has any sort of test been done? You'd think in a month's time they could at least have tried it out on a pig carcass or something.

Posted by: DaveL | May 21, 2008 7:09 PM

Jeff Medkeff has used this device for its intended purpose, and has this to say:

It is basically a Tesla coil, packaged up in a nice, convenient flashlight-like enclosure. They are used industrially to test for pinhole leaks and to test welds, but if you have a very rarified gas inside a glass container, you can use it to ionize the gas and cause it to give off pretty colors. The principle is exactly the same as the neon sign advertising Alaskan Amber at your local pub, and this application of the device is often used to demonstrate ionization states and excitation emission in a physics class. If you've used this kind of device for instructional purposes, you will certainly have noticed the smell of ozone surrounding its use.
I have used this device instructionally, and in a moment of carelessness, I once burned myself with one. My forearm made contact with the electrode of the device for about half or three-quarters of a second - this necessarily being an estimate. This experience wasn't too painful at the time, on the order of getting a good strong static shock after shuffling your feet on the carpets. But it did leave one hell of a welt that got more and more painful over the course of the next three or four days. My recollection is that the small wound stayed painful for a week or so. Eventually the welt that was raised went down, scabbed over, and after about two weeks, the scab fell off. I had a red mark that persisted for about two or three months. It was by no means a pleasant experience.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 21, 2008 7:28 PM

From Blake Stacey's quotation:

But it did leave one hell of a welt that got more and more painful over the course of the next three or four days. My recollection is that the small wound stayed painful for a week or so. Eventually the welt that was raised went down, scabbed over, and after about two weeks, the scab fell off. I had a red mark that persisted for about two or three months. It was by no means a pleasant experience.

That's the kind of thing I meant by an RF burn being different from the burn produced by a hot object like a soldering iron. The flesh is literally cooked to some depth below the surface.

And for those who don't think the boys would stand still for that, think about the psychology of the situation. It's a mixed-sex classroom of middle school kids right around or just past puberty, the air thick with hormones. Get several boys (not just one, but three or four) up in front of those adolescent girls, toss in a subtle challenge to their manhood and courage and competitiveness from a respected authority figure, and they'll hang in for a good long time. I'm sure I could make that happen and I'm no longer a teacher. My wife, who has taught high school kids for 40 years, could do it in a minute.

Posted by: RBH | May 21, 2008 9:18 PM

Yep, he should be not just fired, but arrested, convicted, and forevermore forced to put "assaulted a minor" on every job application he fills out. That is sickening.

Posted by: Carlie | May 21, 2008 10:48 PM

I don't care what was burned onto the kid's arm; what this teacher did was wrong. I agree fully that he needs to be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Posted by: Rev. AJB | May 21, 2008 11:38 PM

Not to be a total creep, but is it assault if the kids agree to be guinea pigs?

I can't get kids to stay in their seats if someone farts.

LOL. You should try zapping them with "The Device" (what is this thing called anyway? Everyone keeps referring to it as "the device". It's a little disconcerting.) Seems to work pretty well for Freshwater. Plus you get the added benefit of getting to virtually Dutch oven your students. All you need to do is come up with some half-assed religious excuse and way to keep yourself from laughing like an evil madman and you're golden!

Posted by: Leni | May 21, 2008 11:46 PM

It's a BD-10A High Frequency Generator manufactured by Electro-Technic Products in Chicago.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 21, 2008 11:53 PM

One can be purchased for $171 plus shipping and handling.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 21, 2008 11:56 PM

A high school student can't even get a tattoo without a parent's permission, for crying out loud. The notion that a kid could consent to be branded by a teacher is absurd.

Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 22, 2008 12:57 AM

I've missed something, somewhere, but why did that teacher burn a cross of any size in a student's arm? Don't get me wrong. I think such behavior from someone calling himself a Christian(and a teacher yet, is totally off the wall, and the guy should (a) be summarily fired and (b) be evaluated by a competent psychiatrist. At once.
Anne G

Posted by: Anne Gilbert | May 22, 2008 2:04 AM

Register him as a sex offender. Not quite following the letter of the Law, but it would certainly be a fitting punishment to have him harrased out of any job and house he moves to in the future.

Posted by: Valhar2000 | May 22, 2008 5:46 AM

I'm curious as to whether the teacher made explicit reference at the time to the shape being a Christian cross -- or if the "cross" was just an "X," the resemblance accidental, and no religious significance intended.

Of course, his motives make little difference if all we're doing is analyzing the incident as an assault. But within the wider context of this whole "freedom of religion" issue, the teacher's mindset here might be relevant. Was he purposefully turning a science demonstration into a demonstration/ordeal of faith?

Posted by: Sastra | May 22, 2008 8:47 AM

I'm curious as to whether the teacher made explicit reference at the time to the shape being a Christian cross -- or if the "cross" was just an "X," the resemblance accidental, and no religious significance intended.

If you go to the original article Ed linked to you'll see that judging from his other actions, it's pretty clear as to his motivations for the shape he chose.

Freshwater agreed to take down the Ten Commandments from the door of his classroom, posters with Bible verses and Bibles on a shelf. But he refused to remove his personal Bible from his desk when students are in the room.
"That Bible is me. I want my Bible on my desk because that is me," he said yesterday. The case has drawn national media attention.

The Bible on Freshwater's desk is one he grew up with. It has a dark green cover and torn corners where his dog chewed it.

R. Kelly Hamilton, one of Freshwater's attorneys, said that Bible is "something he draws personal inspiration from. It just so happens that it's a Bible. For some people it's a personal photograph or a coffee mug."

But it's not just about the Bible on the desk. Freshwater, 51, has been at odds with the school administration on other occasions because he put God into his explanation of how the world began.

In one class, Freshwater used Lego pieces to describe the beginning of the world. He dumped the pieces, then asked students if the Legos could assemble by themselves, said Joe Stuart, 18, assistant editor of the high-school newspaper.

When Freshwater taught students about electrical current, he used a device to leave a red mark in the shape of a cross on the forearms of some students, Stuart said.

"If it were just about the Bible, I don't think people would have a problem with it," Stuart said.

In his evaluations through the 21 years he's worked for the district, Freshwater has drawn consistent praise for his strong rapport with students, broad knowledge of his subject matter and engaging teaching style.

In 2006, he was instructed to remove from his curriculum a handout titled "Darwin's Theory of Evolution -- The Premise and the Problem." A parent had questioned its validity and use in a science classroom.

I also find it interesting that that moron Dave Daubenmire is his spokesman.

Posted by: rev. bigdumbchimp | May 22, 2008 9:05 AM

Ed wrote:

A high school student can't even get a tattoo without a parent's permission, for crying out loud.

I think you missed the point of my question. Would the tattooer be guilty of assault if the kid said it was ok and the tattoer tattoed him without parental consent? Or would it be some other type of charge?

In this case (although maybe not your tattoo example), it seems like a charge related to child abuse makes more sense than assault.

Posted by: Leni | May 22, 2008 2:18 PM

I think that there's a case to be made that burning a student isn't analogous to giving an enthusiastic minor a tattoo, but running with your analogy:

If it was a lesser charge then it's likely that the tattooer's licence to conduct business would be withdrawn (since they had violated the law, which is generally a term that the town/city/area includes in any fine-print when they allow a business to open). There would likely be a fine against the business as well as against the specific tattoo artist up to and including loss of employment and a fine.

I don't see that it's too much to say that those penalties should apply in this case. The teacher should lose his teaching license and be fined (at the least) for harming a student in his care, and the school administrators and board should also be investigated for potential wrongdoing (the article implies that this wasn't just done to one student one time, if it was ongoing then it's more likely the administrators knew there was something fishy going on) and if any are discovered, they should have a price to pay as well. You can't remove a public school, but you can install a whole new set of administrators whose behaviour will stay inside existing laws and regulations.

Posted by: kodiak | May 22, 2008 2:33 PM

There is no consent, regardless of the situation. Minors cannot give consent, by law, and by definition. There are certain exceptions made, and these are expressly defined by law. For example, statutory rape in some states is not automatically rape if the partners are both underage and within two years or less of each others age.

The victim could have begged the teacher to do it to him, until the teacher gave in and did it, but unless there is a "it is ok to burn your students" exception in the code, this still appears to be a crime.

A good lawyer might get a jury to believe otherwise, despite the law though.

Posted by: Xoebe | May 22, 2008 3:23 PM

So why is it taking so long to investigate this? Also, why does the media coverage seem more or less equally split between this and the teacher keeping a Bible on his desk? Am I the only one here who feels like he's taking crazy pills?

Posted by: DaveL | May 22, 2008 5:17 PM

DaveL:

So why is it taking so long to investigate this?

My guess is that it's a combination of him lawyering up and the local school board getting cold feet over your friend and mine, Unwelcome Controversy.

Also, why does the media coverage seem more or less equally split between this and the teacher keeping a Bible on his desk? Am I the only one here who feels like he's taking crazy pills?

No, but my guess is that the editors responsible for that coverage are unwilling to put up with the possibility of a torrent of angry letters accusing them of "bias" by mentioning the possibility that Freshwater just might be a loon.

Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | May 22, 2008 8:01 PM

Blake Stacey wrote:

It's a BD-10A High Frequency Generator manufactured by Electro-Technic Products in Chicago.

No wonder everyone calls it "the device". All it needs is a Transmogrifier function on the reverse side.

(Then again- if it had that we wouldn't be having this conversation. Someone surely would have flipped it over stuffed Freshwater into it before he could even utter the words "Burning flesh cross"...)

Valhar2000 wrote:

Register him as a sex offender. Not quite following the letter of the Law, but it would certainly be a fitting punishment to have him harrased out of any job and house he moves to in the future.

That actually sounds a lot more gratifying to me than charging him with assault.

Posted by: Leni | May 22, 2008 9:13 PM

If it had been a pentagram instead of a cross, the teacher would be dead by now, killed by a raging mob of irate parents, students, and school staff members. But since it was a Fundamentalist Christian who committed the crime, hey, that's fine with the community.....

Posted by: Desertphile | June 19, 2008 1:29 AM