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

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

[Dudoight]

I cannot believe this dichotomy exists. In my opinion creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. But, the point of this article should be 'Does Spradling have a legimate right to sue'...having never enrolled in the prof's class. Too many people have too much time on their hands.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Except that getting such letters is "REQUIRED" in order to get into medical school. Students who would take a lot of their biology courses from him, but don't believe in evolution BEWARE because time spent with this particular professor will be USELESS in terms of showing themselves "letter worthy."

[Catspaw]

Why would someone pursue getting a letter of recommendation from a professor when the student hadn't taken a class from this professor? Surely this was not the only professor in the university that writes letters of recommendation. Why couldn't the student had asked a professor with whom he had taken a class to write a letter of recommendation?

[HiTech RedNeck]

When a scientist writes a recommendation or other opinion, he puts his credibility as a scientist on the line.

He could quite truthfully and charitably say something like "this student understands very well the evolutionary theory of biological origins, and is a good scientist in XXX and YYY and ZZZ areas of biology" [not related to evolutionary theories of origins] and leave it at that.

[Catspaw]

He could quite truthfully and charitably say something like "this student understands very well the evolutionary theory of biological origins, and is a good scientist in XXX and YYY and ZZZ areas of biology" [not related to evolutionary theories of origins] and leave it at that.

How would the professor had known this if the student in question never took the class?

[HiTech RedNeck]

The problem seems to be that he is refusing up front to do so and thus discriminatory. This won't be an easy legal battle and could have been set up more powerfully with a student who actually has vested a lot of time in his courses, but it has at least as much logical merit as the prof's position.

[steve-b]

A rational judge would order these lawyers to write "My Client Does Not Have A RIGHT To A Recommendation Letter" one thousand times.

[steve-b]

Because unless you know of some video tape showing the evolution of species, this theory is a matter of faith.

I didn't know that Johnny Cochran ("Does the prosecution have a video tape of my client assaulting Ms Smith and Mr Goldman?") lurked here.

[Crusher138]

I think this whole silly business boils down to did the Professor give recommendations based on an individual's religion?

Since religious belief is constitutionally protected, this becomes a rather sticky point.

One could argue, rather spuriously, that a Professor in a medical school that publicly stated that he would not give a homosexual a recommendation because the lifestyle is not healthy nor conducive to a career in healing, would be similarly at risk for a lawsuit. While not constitutionally protected, many would feel that the Professor SHOULD be sued, that such criteria, while having some legitimate value, blatantly discriminates.

Let's say the original Professor in question discovers that his student attends a nearby fundamentalist Christian church. Does he disqualify him on that knowledge? What about other religions that believe in Creation - Jews, Muslims, and Hindus all have the universe being created by a Devine Being. If you practice any of those religions, are you automatically disqualified to be a physicist in this Professor's view.

Another point to consider is how important is this recommendation to their future job prospects?

I guess my point is if the "left" is going to bring silly discrimination lawsuits for barely tenable reasons, why should we be surprised if the "right" begins to bring their own?

[general_re]

Ha. You probably also believe that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. But I remind you that you have no videotape to support this theory, and therefore it is purely a matter of faith on your part. Hence, I demand equal time in the nation's history classes to promote my theory that the Declaration of Independence was, in fact, authored by the inhabitants of Planet Seven...

:^)

[Physicist]

I think this whole silly business boils down to did the Professor give recommendations based on an individual's religion?

Since religious belief is constitutionally protected, this becomes a rather sticky point.

I don't see it as a sticky point at all. The relevant Constitutional question here is the professor's First Amendment rights. The right to speak freely comprehends a right not to speak. His reasons for not speaking are immaterial, let them be ever so bigoted. The court cannot compel him to speak when he chooses not to.

[Physicist]

I demand equal time in the nation's history classes to promote my theory that the Declaration of Independence was, in fact, authored by the inhabitants of Planet Seven...

But they already do teach that.

[kittymyrib]

My point is that if you believe as Pres. Bush does when he quoted this from Isaiah 40:26,"Lift your eyes and look to the heavens. Who created all of these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing," you should not be discriminated against by a government- employed instructor who has a different belief about origins.

[general_re]

...counting from the outside inwards...

Someone's always gotta be a wise guy. Unless you have videotape of such a counting, I reject this faith-based theory of yours ;)

[ODDITHER]

Let's see, if I understand the definition of a theory, it means an explanation based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, which has been confirmed by verifiable fact (and the absence of incompatible fact).

The difference between fact and theory is that a theory has not be undeniable proven or refuted by fact.

Creation and Evolution should have equal standing within the scientific community. The outrage, should be that a professor used belief in a theory, to rate whether a student should be given a letter of recommendation. The whole reason the scientific community keeps advancing, is that students are trying to prove or disprove theories.

[steve-b]

Precisely. If the professor were a state agent providing a service that is supposed to be available to all citizens as a matter of right or upon meeting certain objective criteria (e.g. issuing driver's licenses or CCW permits), then he would not have such discretion. As it is, he does.

[Catspaw]

Had the student in question signed up for the class for credit, rather than sitting in on two classes and looking at a website, then had the professor either flunk him because the student believes in creationism, or, if he had gotten an A, refused to write a letter of recommendation based on the student's belief in creationism, the student would've had a leg to stand on.

Letters of recommendation are done on a voluntary basis by a professor. The professor can pick and choose whom he decides to write letters of recommendation. However, the student in question didn't even reach that threshold. He didn't take the class. I can't see where he's been actually harmed.

This is frivilious litigation.

[dinasour]

One of the techniques that I have seen conservative commentators use against liberals is to "put the shoe on the other foot".

Okay, should a Professor at a Baptist Theological Seminary be required to give a letter of recommendation to a Wiccan?

Should a physician at a Catholic teaching hospital be required to recommend an abortionist?

Life is not fair. It has never been fair, and it isn't up to the government to make it fair.