Posted on 01/30/2003 7:15:04 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-evolution-dispute0130jan30,0,713004.story
Professor's Letter Refusal Causes Probe By LISA FALKENBERG Associated Press Writer
January 30, 2003, 9:50 AM EST
DALLAS -- A biology professor who refuses to write letters of recommendation for his students if they don't believe in evolution is being accused of religious discrimination, and federal officials are investigating, the school said.
The legal complaint was filed against Texas Tech University and professor Michael Dini by a student and the Liberty Legal Institute, a religious freedom group that calls Dini's policy "open religious bigotry."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
I would be quite surprised if the students had not taken several other course in the biological sciences, chemistry, physics, psychology, etc. and could more easily obtain references from the professors who taught those classes.
That said, undergraduate recommendations from a professor whose only contact with a given student was classroom discussions (if any) and grading their papers and exams (if he/she indeed did so, rather than a teaching assistant) are laughable at best. Indeed, what student in his/her right mind would seek a recommendation other than a professor who would be certain to provide a glowing recommendation?
Sadly, the answer to that question appears to be: only the subject pre-med weenies who appear to be providing early evidence that they lack good judgment, social/emotional "intelligence," and the street smarts to resist the temptation of being a litigious pains-in-the-ass for a medical faculty unfortunate enough to have the dubious honor of providing their medical education and training......
The professor is wrong on ethical and pedagogical grounds even if he is within his legal rights. Students pay rather handsomely for the privilege of sitting in class. Professors are well paid for the privilege of teaching. Teachers have certain customary duties toward students, of which writing recommendations (at least for the superior students) is one.
In this day and age, any professor who explicitly refused to write a recommendation for a student because he didn't like the color of his skin would be kicked out the door pronto. I don't imagine the courts would protect him. Ditto for gender discrimination. Other forms of discrimination can probably be gotten away with, but they are contemptible nonetheless.
I've not darkened the door of a college classroom for many a year, but I gather there are plenty of radical professors who give conservative students the shaft because they don't like their politics. That's wrong, as it would be for a conservative professor to sabotage a capable but leftish student. My own experience was quite different. I was conservative. Most of my instructors were quite liberal. We got along very well. I was stimulated by the challenge of opposing views, and I'd like to think the profs appreciated it too. This is how it is supposed to work, and I hope this is still the norm, the horror stories notwithstanding.
Your ability to regurgitate creationist excrement does not reflect in any way on your performance in a biology course.
You are so right. And while we're exposing fallacies, let's call the professor's actions exactly what they are: blackballing.
This is a bad idea, even if this professor is being unfair.
You should not seek honors from people whose honor you do not genuinely desire.
How you interpret Genesis, microevolution, the fossil record, and the meaningof life is not a trivial personal preference like your favorite color.
I --to some degree-- enjoy it when those holding positions such as yours give to the lurkers such sophisticated arguments against creation.
At most, the professor should ask the student to demonstrate knowledge of the theory, not agreement with it.
Since the professor appears to be within his legal rights, all students/parents can do is vote with their feet & pocketbooks.
Nor does one's belief/disbelief in the completely unproven (and always changing to accomodate the lack of evidence) theories of evolution.
“Douglas Futuyma's text (Evolutionary Biology, 3rd edition) he writes: "By coupling the undirected, purposeless variations to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made the theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous."
" Purvis, Orians and Heller, (in Life: The Science of Biology, 4th edition) tell students that, "the living world is constantly evolving without any goals.. . .evolutionary change is not directed."
It's a pattern among these types. You also have to be blind // dense to condone the murder of millions of unborn children, while considering slavery our nation's greatest moral failing.
Apparently it is for the American ornithological community, which has disagreed with you for well over 100 years. Let me remind you. I took exception to the statement 'Biology is biology regardless of evolution.' The two warblers I mentioned were classed as different species before Darwin even came along. They've continued to be classed as different species. You are proposing they are the same species, simply because their being different species causes difficulties for your anti-evolution position. Thus biology isn't biology regardless of evolution. If you're anti-evolution, that causes you to merge what are considered distinct species.
No disagreement on that. A reading of the full article reveals the prof requires anyone desiring a letter of recommendation to give his opinion as to how life originated. These are the basic problems with that:
The letter is granted or refused based on the answering of the question, not on the ability of the student. Imagine asking if the student was gay or not before deciding.
The prof wrongly states that there is a connection between the ability to be a good doctor and belief in evo. This is false. If it were true, all doctors who believed in creation, Jew, Christian or otherwise, should not be licensed.
The student, if creationist, is given the option to lie or tell the truth. If the student tells the truth, he is penalized. Therefore this device --by design-- encourages lying.
Dini is setting himself up a self-appointed judge and jury. This is abuse of power. He has the right to grant or deny the letter and with this I do not disagree. When he ignores the brilliance and/or accomplishments of a student because of his personal bias, he is using his position (a position in a state institution) to discriminate against, as he sees it, religion.
Didn't we all shame the USSR when they used atheism and evolution to keep dissenters from good jobs and schools? Now we are doing the same thing!
First you butt into my field, now you want to change my profile. Sheesh!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.