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.

[Lurking Libertarian]

This is not a criminal case; there is no allegation that this professor is using "force or threats of force."

[Ichneumon]

All those who think this professor has a legal right to discriminate based on religious beliefs probably also think he has the right to discriminate based on race. Nobody can honestly believe that this guy could legally issue letters of recommendation only to white people. He couldn't. And he won't get away with this stunt either.

He's not discriminating based on anyone's religious beliefs. They can believe whatever they want.

However, in order to get a *science* degree, he's reasonably requiring them to accept the prevailing *scientific* viewpoint. This seems reasonable -- if you want a science degree, you can't be philosophically disposed to reject science.

Similarly, Catholic seminaries ought to be free to refuse to pass anyone who rejects Catholic tenets on, for example, the grounds that they are devout Hindus. That's not discriminating "against" Hindus or "against" someone's religion, that's just saying that you have certain standards for whom you're going to give a degree to, since that degree certifies the person as meeting particular standards of knowledge and practice and outlook.

Should we give geology degrees to people who believe the Earth is flat on religious grounds?

Should we give chemistry degrees to people who reject modern chemistry and subscribe to belief in alchemy?

Should we give medical degrees to people who reject modern medicine and believe that the key to health is the four humours?

[Catspaw]

The threat he posted is documentary evidence for trial. As an analogy, a verbal assault is still an assault

Did the professor threaten him in any way? If so, how? In a criminal prosecution or even civil litigation, the courts are going to expect more specificity.

And actually, a verbal assault is well within the First Amendment. No prosecutor I know would risk his career on charging someone with assault if it was verbal. I can think of only one circumstance where a "verbal assault" would come into play, and that'd be requesting a domestic abuse restraining order. The grounds in my state are violence or a threat of violence. Without any actual violence or proof (like a tape recording) of a threat of violence, the domestic abuse TRO would not be approved by the judge or court commissioner.

[Salgak]

Oh ? Let's look at Dini's page, shall we ??

Criterion 3

If you set up an appointment to discuss the writing of a letter of recommendation, I will ask you: "How do you think the human species originated?" If you cannot truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation for admittance to further education in the biomedical sciences.

Where does religion come into this ? He's a scientist, asking for a scientific answer. He does not care (from evidence shown) whether you are Christian, Muslim, Wiccan, or a member in good standing of the First Congregational Church of Elvis.

If, as you put it, "his her ability to spit out relevant phrases and answers to questions relating directly to the science would be in order. ", then they could do as many students do when speaking to/writing for their professors: providing an answer tailored to the prof's predjudices. It's the only way to get through some classes, especially in "language arts" and "social sciences". Oh, yes, and the Schools of Education as well. But instead, this vegetable that walks like a man, and prays like one too, claims "religious discrimination". Sorry, I'm not buying it, and neither will the courts. . .

[Alamo-Girl]

The difference between Christianity and Islam is as great as North and South.

Christ teaches us to love our enemies; Islam teaches to hate and to kill their enemies.

Christ teaches us to honor our government; Islam teaches to become the government.

Christ died for our sins; Islam wants you to die for it.

And the list goes on...

[f.Christian]

Just calling evolution a theory is an overstatement . . . only an idea // mood // feeling - - - an ideology === perverse oddity ! ! !


To: f.Christian

Conjecture masquarading as science might be more appropos - I agree.


71 posted on 01/21/2003 12:04 PM PST by Havoc ((Evolution is a theory, Creationism is God's word, ID is science, Sanka is coffee))


Main Entry: 1con·jec·ture
Pronunciation: k&n-'jek-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin conjectura, from conjectus, past participle of conicere, literally, to throw together, from com- + jacere to throw -- more at JET
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete a : interpretation of omens b : SUPPOSITION
2 a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork c : a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

If the Attorney General "punted" it to the White House or the Congress it would be for them to clarify the interpretation of the statutes in question by writing new law or amendments. He might see this is necessary to avoid unintended consequences of undirected new case law that could result from a successful prosecution.

[Alamo-Girl]

Other than what is in this article, I do not know what the allegations are. I've already addressed your issue at post 244

[Salgak]

Then I ask you the question again:

Should your faith require you to commit an act of treason, would you do it ?

[f.Christian]

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

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

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

[lasereye]

This obvious flaw indicates you're basically an airhead.

As does your inability to make a rational argument without resorting to namecalling indicates that you have no argument.

That's my honest opinion. It's not like I'm calling you some kind of expletive, casting aspersions on your sexual proclivities or something like that.

[Lurking Libertarian]

From Prof. Dini's website: If you set up an appointment to discuss the writing of a letter of recommendation, I will ask you: "How do you think the human species originated?" If you cannot truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation for admittance to further education in the biomedical sciences.

You: Where does religion come into this ? He's a scientist, asking for a scientific answer. He does not care (from evidence shown) whether you are Christian, Muslim, Wiccan, or a member in good standing of the First Congregational Church of Elvis.

I partly agree with you. He is not demanding that the student be an atheist, or even a non-Christian; the article quotes students who are Christian evolutionists who had no problems with this professor.

That having been said, I would feel more comfortable if Dini had insisted that a student "comprehensively and coherently articulate a scientific answer to this question" rather than "truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question."

[Salgak]

Pardon me, but what the heck are you trying to say ? We have a nifty tool for communications, it's called "The English Language". I suggest you try it. And loosen up that tin-foil beanie: it's apparentely cutting of the circulation to the language centers of your brain. . .

[lasereye]

The only conceivable case this belligerent, litigious bozo could have would be if the professor had gone out of his way to write a negative letter to torpedo the student's chance of getting into graduate school. All that the professor has done is to remain silent, and to decline to write a letter. The creationoid is an abnoxious fool, trying to use the legal system to force his non-scientific belief system on the world.

On whom is his lawsuit trying to force his belief system? Even if the professor was compelled to write a letter of recommendation, it wouldn't mean he was being forced to agree with creationism. The only belief it would conceivably be imposing on the professor is that someone could not believe in evolution and be competent to pursue further studies. Surely you can understand the distinction. I'm not taking a position on the legal merits of the suit - a separate issue.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

Did the professor threaten him in any way? If so, how?

The professor threatened the student that he would not get a letter of recommendation, which is required for medical school, unless he disavowed his religious beliefs.

I know you'd like to think of this as something other than a threat. But it is a threat.

As an analogy - consider how you would feel if you were counting on my co-signature for a home loan and had already made arrangements in your life for that home and then I said to you, "I will not sign unless you disavow your religious beliefs."

That would be a threat, but because it was not associated with public funds it might not be actionable by the DOJ. But try the same scenario where I am receiving government money for salary and part of my job is to co-sign such loans. Now the government has a special interest in making sure I do not violate your civil rights.

Or the flip side which is closer to the case at hand, what if the home loan was a government loan?

[f.Christian]

Sharia ==== evobotniks (( capeesh ? ? )) !

[Nebullis]

The threat he posted is documentary evidence for trial. As an analogy, a verbal assault is still an assault.

There's no threat in refusing a favor. As an analogy, it's not a threat to list reasons why I would refuse to give Clinton a BJ.

[Dataman]

My posts merely pointed out the complete hypocrisy of the academic establishment on the question of evolution. This doctrine is taken as a matter of faith, not fact. If it were taken as a matter of fact, Darwinists would have no problem with a bunch of 'dopey' creationists challenging it. For some reason, however, they don't seem willing to have an open debate on the issue...

You have summarized this thread in 4 sentences! Excellent! You're exactly right. If their theory could be established as fact -or even probable- these threads wouldn't be happening.

[Theo]

... and it was known to me that the student believed the universe to be 6000 years old ...

That, as you should know, is known as a "straw man fallacy."

[Nebullis]

The professor threatened the student that he would not get a letter of recommendation, which is required for medical school, unless he disavowed his religious beliefs.

You are in error on two points. One, this professor's recommendation is NOT required for medical school. Two, the request for a favor must include an affirmation of a scientific theory, not a demand disavow a religious belief.

The fact that, often, reality is in conflict with certain religious beliefs is a problem for the student to resolve, not something to punt to the world around him.