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.

[HumanaeVitae]

I'm sure we could argue the point into the ground and you'd probably win on technicalities (you seem to be more familiar than I with the particulars), but there is no doubt that modern Leftism owns the "perfectibility of man" thesis; if evolution does not logically lead to the blank slate thesis then it certainly has been fruitfully used by those who subscribe to it...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

Supreme Court case law has full reach. For instance, the Landgraf decision - though it dealt with a civil rights case - is the controlling legal authority for retroactive application of federal law.

[Catspaw]

I simply do not know how far he's going to get with his DOJ civil rights complaint, based on these guidelines--given that there was no actual denial of admission or that he could not continue to attend the university, he's not going to succeed on the DOJ complaint.  And of course, anyone can sue if they can cough up the filing fee.  My estimation is that his chances of sustaining a lawsuit are slim to none.

 

 

U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Educational Opportunities Section

If You Have Been Discriminated Against

The Section's cases are derived from three sources. First, the Section brings cases under statutes for which it has direct enforcement responsibility. Second, the Section brings cases referred by other government agencies. Generally, these are cases that have been investigated by other agencies under statutes for which they have direct enforcement responsibility, and which have not proven capable of being resolved without court proceedings. Finally, the Section has authority to intervene in pending cases seeking relief under the Fourteenth Amendment, and may participate as an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") in cases raising issues important to the federal civil rights laws. Each of these sources is outlined below. If you believe you have been discriminated against, please contact the Educational Opportunities Section by telephone at (202) 514-4092 or 1-877-292-3804 (toll-free), by facsimile at (202) 514-8337, or by letter at the following address:

U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Educational Opportunities Section, PHB
Washington, D.C. 20530

I. Statutes Directly Enforced by the Section

 

A. Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on certain grounds (specified below) by school districts and colleges.

1. Requirements for the United States to bring suit.

 

a. Signed written complaint. Any complaints received and their sources are treated as confidential. The complaint need not provide any legal analysis or use particular language; it only needs to describe the conduct.

 

Elementary and Secondary Schools. Signed by parent or group of parents complaining that child or children as members of class of similarly situated children are being deprived by the school board of the equal protection of the laws.

Colleges. Signed by an individual or parent to the effect that she or he has been denied admission to or not permitted to continue to attend a public college because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

b. The Attorney General must believe the complaint to be meritorious. To enable the Attorney General to make this determination, we may need to contact the person making a complaint to obtain additional information. The complaint should therefore include the address and telephone number of a person who can be contacted to discuss the complaint.

c. The Attorney General must give notice of the complaint to the appropriate school board or college authority.

d. The Attorney General must certify:

Signer or signers of the complaint are unable in the Attorney General's judgment to maintain appropriate legal proceedings for relief.

Persons are unable, either directly or through other interested persons, to (1) bear expense of bringing suit or (2) obtain effective legal representation.

Institution of action would jeopardize the health, safety, employment, or economic standing of (1) such person or (2) such person's property.

Institution of an action will materially further orderly desegregation.

The Attorney General is satisfied that board or authority has had reasonable time to adjust the condition alleged in the complaint.

2. If the above conditions are met, the Attorney General, on behalf of the United States, may file a lawsuit in federal district court against the appropriate parties seeking appropriate and complete relief.

B. Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 ("EEOA").

1. The EEOA prohibits the following practices at the elementary and secondary school levels.

a. Failure to take action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation in a school district's educational programs.

b. Deliberate segregation on the basis of race, color, national origin.

c. Failure to remove vestiges of deliberate segregation or a dual school system.

d. Assignment to other than the school closest to residence within the school district of residence which results in greater segregation on the basis of race, color, sex, or national origin.

e. Discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin in employment, employment conditions, and assignment of faculty and staff.

f. Transfer of students if the purpose and effect is to increase segregation on the basis of race, color, or national origin among the district's schools.

2. The receipt of a written complaint is not required.

3. The Attorney General must give notice to the appropriate agency of the conditions that violate the EEOA, and must certify that the educational agency has not, within a reasonable time after such notice, undertaken appropriate remedial action.

4. The Attorney General may bring a lawsuit on behalf of the Untied States or may intervene in a lawsuit brought by a third party.

C. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Section enforces Title III of the ADA which concerns Public Accomodations and Services Operated by Private Entities. The Disability Rights Section has enforcement responsibility for other ADA titles.

1. A private entity is any entity other than a public entity. Private entities that are considered public accommodations include nurseries, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private schools, and other places of education.

2. The Attorney General has authority to bring suit in appropriate district court if there is reasonable cause to believe:

any person or group or persons are engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination under Title III;

any person or group of persons have been discriminated against under Title III; and

the discrimination raises an issue of general public importance.

3. Discrimination prohibited under Title III includes

a. Discrimination on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation.

b. Use of eligibility criteria that screen out individuals with disabilities from equally enjoying any goods or services unless they can be shown to be necessary.

c. Failure to make reasonable modification of policies and practices unless it can be shown that such changes would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods and services.

d. Failure to take steps to make sure individuals with disabilities are not excluded because of the absence of auxiliary aids unless it can be shown that such steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods and services or would result in an undue burden.

e. Failure to remove architectural barriers where such removal is readily achievable.

II. Referral Statutes

A. There are several federal statutes for which we have enforcement responsibility upon referral from another government agency. These statutes, generally, prohibit the recipients of federal financial assistance from discriminating on several bases. The statutes are:

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits the exclusion, denial of benefits, and discrimination on the grounds of race, color or national origin in programs or activities receiving federal funds;

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits the exclusion, denial of benefits, and discrimination on the grounds of sex in programs or activities receiving federal funds;

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits the exclusion, denial of benefits, and discrimination on the grounds of disability in programs or activities receiving federal funds; and

Title II of the ADA, which provides that no qualified individual with a disability shall be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.

B. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), which requires that States and local education agencies provide a free appropriate public education to children with disabilities.

III. Intervention and Amicus Participation

A. Intervention

1. Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 permits the Attorney General to intervene in lawsuits seeking relief from denial of equal protection of laws under the 14^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution on account of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The Attorney General must certify that the case is of general public importance, and the Untied States is entitled to the same relief as if it had instituted the action.

2. The Section may also intervene in cases brought under the statutes it enforces where the government has an interest or where a claim or defense has been raised based on a statute or regulation administered by a federal government officer or agency.

B. Amicus Curiae ("Friend of the court"). The Section may file legal briefs or otherwise participate as an amicus in cases raising issues that are important to the Section's work or the general enforcement of the federal civil rights laws as they relate to education.

Return to the Educational Opportunities Home Page

Return to the Civil Rights Division Home Page

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

Only if you believe that a letter of recommendation is an entitlement, sort of like a social promotion.

Again, I return to the Supreme Court decision in Thomas v. Review Board (emphasis mine):

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

The student may be denied medical school, which is probably publicly funded to some degree, for lack of a letter of recommendation which he can only receive from this professor by violating his beliefs.

To use the racial analogy again, a black kid decades ago could have gone to a black school or he could have found a professor that didn't hate blacks to get into a public school. But those facts did not in any way justify or excuse a professor for refusing him on the basis of his race.

Likewise, a professor cannot compel, even indirectly, a student to change his religious beliefs.

[Right Wing Professor]

...and if you beleive the student's rather nebulous claim that his freedom of religion has been violated trumps Dini's robust claim that the first amendment allows him to express a forthright opinion of the student's suitability for medical school, or to decline to express such an opinion.

[tracer]

And what if the good professor decided that he could not provide letters of recommendations for black students based on his own "scientific belief" that they are members of a population that are not intellectually equipped to become good physicians?

His assertions to that effect would have no more basis in fact than his "knowledge" that (a) creationism is a false and unscientific belief and that, by extension, (b) any student who believes otherwise likewise is not intellectually equipped to be a good physician.

I am loath to applaud the intrusion of the state upon the academic enterprise, but I am delighted at the prospect of a self-righteous, bigotted, liberal bastard getting the old Roto-Rooter treatment from the Federal Government which, in case he hadn't noticed, now is increasingly conservative, rational, fair-minded, and likely willing to look into an apparent case of bias by the employee of a Federally-funded cabal that represents itself as being an institution of higher learning.

It's a new day, "Professor," and even "religious fanatics" have a right to equitable treatment when others who hold the "right" world view receive letters of recommendation based on their actual performance in a given class of instruction.

So live with it, and, while you're at it, eat your heart out ............

[Under the Radar]

In Thomas, Burger also wrote:

"The mere fact that the petitioner's religious practice is burdened by a governmental program does not mean that an exemption accommodating his practice must be granted. The state may justify an inroad on religious liberty by showing that it is the least restrictive means of achieving some compelling state interest. However, it is still true that "[t]he essence of all that has been said and written on the subject is that only those interests of the highest order . . . can overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion." Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra, 406 U.S., at 215, 92 S.Ct., at 1533." (450 U.S. 707 at 718).

It seems to me that Texas Tech will be able to slam dunk the question as to whether the state has a compelling interest in promoting in its scientists a belief in the scientific method. Be that as it may, I am not convinced this is the best applicable case from the USSC regarding the First Amendment as it would apply to this issue.

Furthermore, like Catspaw, I don't see where the young man has standing to sue. Had he had any sense, he would have taken the course, professed his believe in Evolution, asked for a recommendation, and only kicked up his heels once he was turned down. As it is, the case is a non-starter. There is no there there.

[BnBlFlag]

You and the "professor" are the close minded bigots. Its amazing that we have so many atheists on this conservative forum. Neo cons and libertarians at best. Reds and pinks at worst.

[HumanaeVitae]

I don't mind that there are atheists here...I just mind the assumption that they have all the answers...

[f.Christian]

I need verbs, perhaps, or an adjective or two. It must be my lack of faith.

Originally (( adverb )) the word (( adjectives )) liberal (( subject )) meant (( verb )) 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

Lack of thinking !

[Catspaw]

Given the broad criteria under which this student is certain to sue, this is opening a can of worms. It means that anyone can sue, not based on any actual discrimination, but a perception of discrimination. If he prevails, I'm gonna be one rich woman.

[f.Christian]

To: f.Christian

fC...

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.

LC...

Now I follow, thank you. Actually, I don't disagree with this at all since I see the left as abandoning the uncertianty of democracy and majority rule for the assurance technocracy and expert rule.

152 posted on 9/10/02 12:17 PM Pacific by Liberal Classic


Rule of monkey // technocrats .. vs .. rule of law // democracy !

[Under the Radar]

Alamo-Girl, now you are interjecting falsehoods, and this does not behoove you. You stated: The student may be denied medical school, which is probably publicly funded to some degree, for lack of a letter of recommendation which he can only receive from this professor by violating his beliefs.

As has been mentioned countless times above: 1) the student wasn't going to get a letter of recommendation from the professor anyway, as he did not take the professor's course; and 2) there is, presumably, more than one professor of the biological sciences at Texas Tech, and aspiring medical students must (one hopes) take more than one class in this field, leaving a plethora of professors from which to choose.

The law does not deal with whay may be, it deals with what is. At this moment, the student has no colorable cause of action.

[f.Christian]

To: f.Christian

Dakmar...

I took a few minutes to decipher that post, and I must say I agree with a lot of what you said.

fC...

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)!

Dakmar...

Where you and I diverge is on the Evolution/Communism thing. You seem to view Darwin and evolution as the beginning of the end for enlighted, moral civilization, while I think Marx, class struggle, and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" are the true dangers.

God bless you, I think we both have a common enemy in the BRAVE-NWO.

452 posted on 9/7/02 8:54 PM Pacific by Dakmar

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post and for the DOJ information!

If he were bringing a civil suit, he would have to show actual damages. His primary damage at this point would be emotional distress.

On the other hand, the DOJ has different rules when prosecuting a criminal matter. I have no idea what legal theory they are considering, but here are some paragraphs from Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 13, Section 245:

Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with... (2) any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin and because he is or has been... (A) enrolling in or attending any public school or public college;

[Catspaw]

If he were bringing a civil suit, he would have to show actual damages. His primary damage at this point would be emotional distress.

Great! I mean I've had store clerks look at me funny because I know they think I'm either native American or Hispanic. Looks like I've got grounds to sue because of "emotional distress."

I'm counting my money already.

[Under the Radar]

With all due respect, Thomas Fleming has been making the argument (I presume) you are making in Chronicles for years. I am glad that you thought well enough of me that you reposted your fan mail to me, but I will stick to those who can form complete sentences. Your message may be sound, but your medium needs an editor.

[Right Wing Professor]

Its amazing that we have so many atheists on this conservative forum.

There are many posters in this forum who are Christian and believe in the theory of evolution. Some are better Christians than you, in that they decline to condemn someone outright for a difference in opinion on a scientific question.

[Under the Radar]

You are honestly considering it reasonable that the DOJ bring a CRIMINAL suit agains the school or the professor in this matter? Please tell me you aren't serious.

[Right Wing Professor]

You didn't, surely, intend to imply Dr. Dini used force or the threat of force in this matter, did you?