Replies

From the Report

Since the treatment of Dr. Sternberg came to light in early 2005, evidence has accumulated of widespread invidious discrimination against other qualified scientists who dissent from Darwinian theory and/or who are supportive of intelligent design. In November, 2005, for example, National Public Radio reported that it had “talked with 18 university professors and scientists who subscribe to intelligent design. Most would not speak on the record for fear of losing their jobs. One untenured professor at Kennesaw State University in Georgia wrote that talking to NPR would be, quote ‘the kiss of death.’ Another said, ‘There is no way I would reveal myself prior to obtaining tenure.’”77 In another case, the President of the University of Idaho issued a letter forbidding faculty from teaching alternatives to Darwin’s theory in science classes there.78 The widespread hostility of many scientists to criticisms of Darwinian theory makes further violations in this area by federally-funded institutions likely.

The letter

October 4, 2005

Letter to the University of Idaho Faculty, Staff and Students:

Because of recent national media attention to the issue, I write to articulate the University of Idaho’s position with respect to evolution: This is the only curriculum that is appropriate to be taught in our bio-physical sciences. As an academic scientific community and a research extensive land-grant institution, we affirm scientific principles that are testable and anchored in evidence.

At the University of Idaho, teaching of views that differ from evolution may occur in faculty-approved curricula in religion, sociology, philosophy, political science or similar courses. However, teaching of such views is inappropriate in our life, earth, and physical science courses or curricula.

The University respects the rights of individuals to their personal religious and philosophical beliefs, including those persons who may hold and advocate a faith-based view that differs from evolution.

The University of Idaho’s position is consistent with views articulated by the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and more than 60 other scientific and educational societies.

Timothy P. White, Ph.D.
President, University of Idaho

Clues as to the thinking.Council minutes

Response to President White’s Letter on Evolution: Chair Zemetra reported that Research Council had, by majority vote, approved a resolution supporting President White’s public letter on evolution and that the Faculty Affairs Committee had decided not to issue any resolution. The question he had was how Faculty Council might wish to respond, if at all. The ensuing discussion could be best characterized as wide-ranging.

It was not clear to the council as a whole what the president’s letter was responding to. Those councilors who were simultaneously members of the president’s cabinet, and thus in a position to know more of the background, said that it was partly in response to journalists’ mischaracterization of a UI faculty member’s testimony in favor of intelligent design as evidence that intelligent design was taught at the University of Idaho. However, in their view that issue was only a part of what had prompted the president to speak out. Also important were the State Board of Education’s internal debate as to what kind of science should be taught in the public schools and, more largely, the national debate on that subject which had occasioned the testimony of the UI faculty member in Pennsylvania. The president felt the university should be exerting leadership in this discussion.

Some councilors seemed to be in agreement that the implied target of the president’s letter, namely, intelligent design, was not an appropriate subject to be taught in science courses. Faculty-approved curricula in the sciences (and in other areas as well) had taken full account of the evidence in deciding what should be taught. One council member from the sciences made a clear distinction between “teaching” (in the strong “inculcate” sense of the word) and “discussion.” While it was inappropriate, as the president had said, to teach non-evolutionary theories in the sciences (and elsewhere) because of the evidence for evolution, it would be perfectly appropriate to discuss any theory in a science class, just as it would be in classes outside the natural sciences.

There appeared to be universal agreement that the president’s statement had not been intended in any way to put constraints on academic freedom or free inquiry among either faculty or students. However, its brevity made it susceptible to misinterpretation in this way. In the end, while there was a substantial minority of council members who felt the best response to the president’s statement would be no statement at all from the council, the majority seemed to feel that it would be helpful to clarify, and thus support, the president’s statement by issuing a statement reiterating the university’s deeply held strong commitment to academic freedom and free inquiry. A council member pointed out that by issuing such a statement, those faculty throughout the university who felt the president’s memo placed limits on academic freedom and freedom of inquiry could be assured that such was not the case. To this end the chair appointed an ad hoc committee composed of councilors Young (chair), McCollough, and Parrish to draft a possible Faculty Council response along those lines, using perhaps as their basis the text the provost had profitably used his time during the debate to compose