Posted on 02/03/2003 3:53:13 AM PST by 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.
It's a popular creationist argument against TOE, and wrong. Besides, those lawyers are shooting themselves in the foot if they claim Dini is acting according to his beliefs.
I completely agree.
Besides, those lawyers are shooting themselves in the foot if they claim Dini is acting according to his beliefs.
I hope they are shooting themselves in the foot.
Of the eight justices concurring in Thomas, only one remains on the court - Justice Stevens. The sole dissenter in Thomas is currently the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court - William Rehnquist. From his dissent (cites and footnotes removed):
The decision today illustrates how far astray the Court has gone in interpreting the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment. Although the Court holds that a State is constitutionally required to provide direct financial assistance to persons solely on the basis of their religious beliefs and recognizes the "tension" between the two Clauses, it does little to help resolve that tension or to offer meaningful guidance to other courts which must decide cases like this on a day-by-day basis. Instead, it simply asserts that there is no Establishment Clause violation here and leaves the tension between the two Religion Clauses to be resolved on a case-by-case basis. As suggested above, however, I believe that the "tension" is largely of this Court's own making, and would diminish almost to the vanishing point if the Clauses were properly interpreted.Just as it did in Sherbert v. Verner, the Court today reads the Free Exercise Clause more broadly than is warranted. As to the proper interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause, I would accept the decision of Braunfeld v. Brown, and the dissent in Sherbert. In Braunfeld, we held that Sunday closing laws do not violate the First Amendment rights of Sabbatarians. Chief Justice Warren explained that the statute did not make unlawful any religious practices of appellants; it simply made the practice of their religious beliefs more expensive. We concluded that "[t]o strike down, without the most critical scrutiny, legislation which imposes only an indirect burden on the exercise of religion, i. e. legislation which does not make unlawful the religious practice itself, would radically restrict the operating latitude of the legislature." Likewise in this case, it cannot be said that the State discriminated against Thomas on the basis of his religious beliefs or that he was denied benefits because he was a Jehovah's Witness. Where, as here, a State has enacted a general statute, the purpose and effect of which is to advance the State's secular goals, the Free Exercise Clause does not in my view require the State to conform that statute to the dictates of religious conscience of any group. As Justice Harlan recognized in his dissent in Sherbert v. Verner, supra: "Those situations in which the Constitution may require special treatment on account of religion are . . . few and far between." Like him I believe that although a State could choose to grant exemptions to religious persons from state unemployment regulations, a State is not constitutionally compelled to do so.
Willing to bet that Rehnquist has fundamentally changed his mind in the last twenty years, are you? ;)
Einstein believed in a creator (the 6,000 year test is your standard, not the Professors) and that alone is in conflict with the Professors standards. You can not believe in a creator and accept completely the theory of evolution, therefore Einstein would absolutely not get a recommendation letter. The greatest thinkers are usually quite eccentric and skeptical, and to limit those to who fit yours or the professors mold is as closed-minded as any religious fanatic. Nothing 'absolutely ridiculous' about my point, but absolutely dead on.
You could not be further from the truth. There are many, many Christians who acknowledge the reality of evolution. In fact, Creationism is a uniquely American phenomenon. Europeans do not have debates over evolution. Were Einstein familiar with this debate, I doubt he would have found it interesting. Are you saying that only Creationists are true Christians?
If they cannot understand what you say, even after you repeat yourself several times, how can they understand the theory they try to defend?
Point taken. My first assumption in a failure to communicate is that I haven't mastered the language required. But when that failure is only with a select few, I'm at a loss for a next step.
Hummmm, you know many practicing physicians who are Christian Scientists?
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:27
And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand. - Luke 8:10
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. - I Cor 2:14
Certainly many Christians accept many aspects of evolution, but not neccessarily to the level that this Professor inisists upon. You can believe in some elements of evolution, but still not believe than man evolved from apes. Or maybe you don't accept the Big bang theory, or that all life evolved from a single cell organism. Where can you draw the line and still get an acceptance letter? Is that particular belief really neccessary? The letter of recommendation should be based on knowledge and character, not some belief system. It is my belief that the best scientists are skeptics.
Horsefeathers. The overwhelming majority of people who accept evolution also believe in a creator. Evolution does not demand that there be no God, despite what you might have heard in Bible school.
And what do you mean by "completely"? These students apparently didn't accept it at all. That is the standard. Who else has been denied recommendation by the professor? Where's your evidence that the professor denies letters of recommendation to all students who believe in a creator?
Funny, but somehow I tend to think she isn't quite as naive as she is pretending to be...
My function on this forum for years has been to check sources, find information (including statutes and case law) - and gather archives.
I am an open book. Is there something you think I should disclose?
The court would have to conclude that the relevancy of evolution to biology is a reasonable test for writing a letter.
The defense might use the rationale you mentioned to justify discrimination, but unless it is raised in a petition or counter-petition the court will not rule on it. If the only issue raised is discrimination based on religion, that will be the only issue addressed. The court does not rule on issues that are have not been pled, and may choose not to rule on parts of a pleading if they are found moot.
Dini is a Catholic, according to the press, which means he himself believes in a Creator. (Of course, the anti-Catholics will just use this for another round of Catholic bashing.)
It just occured to me that creationists are forever claiming that more and more biolgists are rejecting evolution. If that is true, than Dini's refusal to write a letter can hardly be much of an impediment to this student. Why doesn't he just find a creationist professor of biology to do so, from among the hundreds, or maybe thousands, of creationst biologists out there?
Willing to bet that Rehnquist has fundamentally changed his mind in the last twenty years, are you?
It doesn't matter. That's where the Supreme Court decision in Landgraf comes into play. Federal civil statutes cannot be applied retroactively without specificity by Congress.
In other words, and especially if this were a criminal matter and not a civil one (ex post facto) - the laws in force at the time of the alleged misconduct are the laws that will apply in court.
Interpretation of the law is guided by legal precedent. The precedent in this case would not favor Rehnquist's view when he dissented in Thomas v. Review Board.
The only thing that can change this legal calculus is if the case at hand is appealed all the way to the Supreme Court and the court overrules itself. And that very, very rarely happens.
Do I get three guesses?
Just go to the professors web site, he specifically states that you must accept the scientic explaination for the origion of humans.
Even if one's personally believes in the efficacy of psychic healing? Or if one believes himself to be a Clear? Or if one believes that Orgone energy is the basis of healing? Or if one believes that baboon hearts are as useful as chimpanzee hearts in a transplant "because all creatures are created at once in their present forms"?
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.