Professor's Snub of Creationists Prompts U.S. Inquiry

New York Times ^ | 2/02/03 | NICK MADIGAN

[kattracks]

UBBOCK, Tex., Feb. 2 — A biology professor who insists that his students accept the tenets of human evolution has found himself the subject of Justice Department scrutiny.

Prompted by a complaint from the Liberty Legal Institute, a group of Christian lawyers, the department is investigating whether Michael L. Dini, an associate professor of biology at Texas Tech University here, discriminated against students on the basis of religion when he posted a demand on his Web site that students wanting a letter of recommendation for postgraduate studies "truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer" to the question of how the human species originated.

"The central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution," Dr. Dini wrote. "How can someone who does not accept the most important theory in biology expect to properly practice in a field that is so heavily based on biology?"

That was enough for the lawyers' group, based in Plano, a Dallas suburb, to file a complaint on behalf of a 22-year-old Texas Tech student, Micah Spradling.

Mr. Spradling said he sat in on two sessions of Dr. Dini's introductory biology class and shortly afterward noticed the guidelines on the professor's Web site (www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/letters.htm).

Mr. Spradling said that given the professor's position, there was "no way" he would have enrolled in Dr. Dini's class or asked him for a recommendation to medical school.

"That would be denying my faith as a Christian," said Mr. Spradling, a junior raised in Lubbock who plans to study prosthetics and orthotics at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. "They've taken prayer out of schools and the Ten Commandments out of courtrooms, so I thought I had an opportunity to make a difference."

In an interview in his office, Dr. Dini pointed to a computer screen full of e-mail messages and said he felt besieged.

"The policy is not meant in any way to be discriminatory toward anyone's beliefs, but instead to ensure that people who I recommend to a medical school or a professional school or a graduate school in the biomedical sciences are scientists," he said. "I think science and religion address very different types of questions, and they shouldn't overlap."

Dr. Dini, who said he had no intention of changing his policy, declined to address the question of his own faith. But university officials and several students who support him say he is a religious man.

"He's a devout Catholic," said Greg Rogers, 36, a pre-med student from Lubbock. "He's mentioned it in discussion groups."

Mr. Rogers, who returned to college for a second degree and who said his beliefs aligned with Dr. Dini's, added: "I believe in God and evolution. I believe that evolution was the tool that brought us about. To deny the theory of evolution is, to me, like denying the law of gravity. In science, a theory is about as close to a fact as you can get."

Another student, Brent Lawlis, 21, from Midland, Tex., said he hoped to become an orthopedic surgeon and had had no trouble obtaining a letter of recommendation from Dr. Dini. "I'm a Christian, but there's too much biological evidence to throw out evolution," he said.

But other students waiting to enter classes Friday morning said they felt that Dr. Dini had stepped over the line. "Just because someone believes in creationism doesn't mean he shouldn't give them a recommendation," said Lindsay Otoski, 20, a sophomore from Albuquerque who is studying nursing. "It's not fair."

On Jan. 21, Jeremiah Glassman, chief of the Department of Justice's civil rights division, told the university's general counsel, Dale Pat Campbell, that his office was looking into the complaint, and asked for copies of the university's policies on letters of recommendation.

David R. Smith, the Texas Tech chancellor, said on Friday afternoon that the university, a state institution with almost 30,000 students and an operating budget of $845 million, had no such policy and preferred to leave such matters to professors.

In a letter released by his office, Dr. Smith noted that there were 38 other faculty members who could have issued Mr. Spradling a letter of recommendation, had he taken their classes. "I suspect there are a number of them who can and do provide letters of recommendation to students regardless of their ability to articulate a scientific answer to the origin of the human species," Dr. Smith wrote.

Members of the Liberty Legal Institute, who specialize in litigating what they call religious freedom cases, said their complaint was a matter of principle.

"There's no problem with Dr. Dini saying you have to understand evolution and you have to be able to describe it in detail," said Kelly Shackelford, the group's chief counsel, "but you can't tell students that they have to hold the same personal belief that you do."

Mr. Shackelford said that he would await the outcome of the Justice Department investigation but that the next step would probably be to file a suit against the university.

[Doctor Stochastic]

By the way, I find it quite ironic that you libertarians would support this egregious use of state power to stifle scientific dissent here.

Where is any dissent being stifled? No one is stopping the student from stating his views. Unless the student thinks that getting a letter of recommendation is an entitlement to be enforced by the civil rights authorities.

[VadeRetro]

"If you're losing the broad point, argue the specifics."

If you don't have a case, pound the table.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Between the civil rights movement and the establishment cause of the Constitution, the court may issue a ruling that many professors will not like.

The only effect would be that letters of recommendation would become worthless.

[HumanaeVitae]

Maybe not. This is where academic freedom meets the limits of a publicly-funded institution. However, the breathtaking hypocrisy demostrated by this professor--evolution as both faith and fact--should be noted.

By the way, any of you other evolutionists want to challenge the main argument I made? Hello? JennyP, you there?

[Under the Radar]

And thank you for the polite nature of your post.

You said above:

I understand what you are saying, however a recommendation is required for medical school.

In other words, if the voluntary nature of a letter of recommendation can be used as justification and excuse to override a student's civil rights - it would be possible to keep any minority out of medical school.

Between the civil rights movement and the establishment cause of the Constitution, the court may issue a ruling that many professors will not like.

I am not sure if these statements are predictive or prescriptive. If they are predictive, I think they are flawed in that you are not taking into account that the student 1) was never a student of this professors (Catspaw has been making an admirable and sustained point of this over the thread), and 2) there are other avenues available for letters of recommendation other than through this one professor.

If your remarks are prescriptive, then I would like to remind you that Conservatives have traditionally been opposed to using the State's power, specifically as it manifests itself in our court system, to further minority interests. (I use the term "minority" here in contrast to the concept of "majority," as in "majority rules.") The fact that socialists have in fact used our court system in such a manner is no excuse for lauding its use now, just because we happen to like the outcome.

The last point I would like to raise is the issue of academic freedom. Some on this thread seem to believe that college professors should be like fast-food workers: building it "your way." Universities do not abide by a business model, thankfully. The fact that Texas Tech is a public university does not mean that taxpayers get to dictate what faculty may or may not do.

[PatrickHenry]

If things go crazy and the professor is ordered to give a letter of recommendation, he can just write a one-line letter saying: "I recommend this student in accordance with the enclosed mandate," and then attach a copy of the federal order. Everyone will understand.

[HumanaeVitae]

If you don't have a case, pound the table.

Pound away, dude.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your views!

Roll the clock back several decades and let race be the reason posted on the professor's website for refusing a letter of recommendation.

There would be complaints filed to the Department of Justice. The professor's position would be untenable.

In this case, it is religious belief and not race to which the professor objects. The establishment clause guarantees all of us that the government will not prohibit the free exercise of our beliefs:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; And the equal protection amendment further guarantees:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws So neither federal law nor state law can prohibit the student from the free exercise of his religious beliefs.

Perhaps the net result of prosecuting this case will be that medical schools which receive public funding can no longer require nor give consideration of letters of recommendations.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

My statements were predictive - so I'll address this part of your reply:

If they are predictive, I think they are flawed in that you are not taking into account that the student 1) was never a student of this professors (Catspaw has been making an admirable and sustained point of this over the thread), and 2) there are other avenues available for letters of recommendation other than through this one professor. It could also be said that black students decades ago were not discriminated against because there were black colleges they could attend. The rationale didn't work back then either.

I consider myself a conservative, but in no way do I support any form of discrimination - for or against - based on race, gender, age or religion.

[f.Christian]

"They have . . . lost (( link ))---a big one."

"They're like Napoleon's army in Moscow. They have occupied a lot of territory, and they think they've won the war. And yet they are very exposed in a hostile climate with a population that's very much unfriendly."

"That's the case with the Darwinists in the United States. The majority of the people are skeptical of the theory. And if the theory starts to waver a bit, it could all collapse, as Napoleon's army did in a rout."

[Nebullis]

So neither federal law nor state law can prohibit the student from the free exercise of his religious beliefs.

There's no indication that this student's first amendment rights are in any way violated.

Although you say it with assuredness, I wonder if there is legal precedent of this type. I think you are confusing institutional policies with private, individual policies.

[Nebullis]

It could also be said that black students decades ago were not discriminated against because there were black colleges they could attend.

Here, again, you are making a comparison with institutional policies vs. privately held policies. There is a difference and I'd like to see legal precedent instead of this convenient clinging to unrelated race issues.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

With regard to legal precedent, we might first turn to the Supreme Court decision in Thomas v. Review Board. The Court said:

A person may not be compelled to choose between the exercise of a First Amendment right and participation in an otherwise available public program. It is true that the Indiana law does not compel a violation of conscience, but where the state conditions receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or where it denies such a benefit because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs, a burden upon religion exists. While the compulsion may be indirect, the infringement upon free exercise is nonetheless substantial

[Salgak]

The requirements of a given medical school are not binding on Texas Tech, nor on its' professors, as it has NO POLICY on recommendation letters. With no school policy on such, professors may recommend, or not, as they choose.

If you want a certain job, and don't meet the job requirements, is that Discrimination ? No. The professor laid out what he requires if you want him to write you a letter of recommendation. Is he the only biology professor at Texas Tech ? Likely not, as his page mentions an entire biology DEPARTMENT. Was he required to give ANYONE a recommendation letter ? Nope. But if you want a letter from him, which requires effort above and beyond his norm, you have to jump through his hoops. What part of that isn't clear ?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post and the link! Very interesting article!

[f.Christian]

The bottom half of the geologic column (( no fossils )) formed from below . . .

and the top half formed rather quickly from above (( no intermediary fossils )) - - -

uniformism (( time )) // evolution is ==== gone // over // never happened !

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post! You might find this interview with Marcel-Paul Schützenberger interesting.

[Under the Radar]

Because you choose to see people as members of a class rather than as individuals, your analysis is much more in line with Marxist rather than Conservative thought.

It will be interesting to see if your prediction comes about, and Christians get put onto the short list of "protected classes," meaning "a select group of individuals who, by accident of birth, are to be regarded as 'separate and unequal.' It will also be quite ironic if this happens to the cheers of self-styled "Conservatives."

Oh, wait! This has already happened. As Gilda Radner would say, "Never mind..."

[f.Christian]

Creation/God...REFORMATION(Judeo-Christianity)---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc/liberal/govt-religion/rhetoric)...

Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin/ACLU America---the post-modern age of dichotomy (( dead branch -- evolution -- of science ))

[Catspaw]

I consider myself a conservative, but in no way do I support any form of discrimination - for or against - based on race, gender, age or religion.

Neither do I. But what was this student denied? He wasn't denied entry to the university because of his views. He wasn't denied entry to the class because of his views. He wasn't thrown out of the class because of his views. He wasn't flunked by the professor because of his views. Where precisely is the discrimination?