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.
Think about this for a minute. Have you ever been to a Baptist seminary? LOL
They don't. I believe their position is that they support their faculty's academic freedom. As they should.
Dini doesn't make reference to Creationist physicians. Nor did he claim that Creationists overprescribe. He merely points out that overprescription is a problem and that rejection of scientific evidence of such is also a problem.
Here is the section from Dini's website which I paraphrased:
Good documentary evidence must exist for the court to rule that creationist physicians are a public health hazard and thus the public good is a compelling interest which must override the first amendment guarantee to freedom of religion.
Do you have something that shows perhaps a frequency distribution of physician's religious belief v antibiotic v diagnosis, accumulated by patient?
Not at all, just don't discriminate based on religious beliefs.
Must he be compelled to recommend for advancement those with whom he disagrees adamently?
Whether he personally agrees with a student should not be an issue. The issue should be is the student is qualified, not if the professor holds a similar religious or political or whatever belief.
As long as the academic freedom is a legal act.
let us agree that if the case never goes to trial, neither of us will be declared the winner.
Agreed!
if the case goes to trial, and Spradling is successful in forcing Dini to substantially change his policy upon the final disposition of the case - i.e., once all appeals are exhausted - I will concede you are the winner. I will, as recognition of your predictive powers, send you a $100 gift certificate for Red Lobster, since they're likely to have a restaurant near wherever you happen to be - if not, I will send you a $100 gift certificate for the restaurant of your choice. And in exchange, if Dini is permitted to retain his policy in a substantially unmodified form, you can congratulate me by doing the same. Deal?
If the DOJ brings the case, Spradling may not even be mentioned. With that understanding, I agree! Red Lobster would be fine!
We didn't chat about what to do if it settles. With Nebullis, the bet is cancelled if settled before trial. Post-judgment settlements weren't addressed.
How about, in our bet, should the case be settled at any point after filed - if Dini is forced to discontinue the policy, you pay me - but if he is allowed to continue, I pay you?
We are to some degree, but not as much as our neighbor to the north or our friends in Europe. I am not a huge fan of how discrimination laws are used, but they should provide the same protection for everyone.
Ah, but as part of a settlement he may take down his website. Or he may delete the "offensive" passages and replace them with something more general, like "must have good scientific attitute." And he may still be permitted to adhere to his policy. In that case, how will the bet be decided?
You may note that Dini's policy is not just stated for prospective medical students but also for scientists and others. Important to remember is that there are other, perhaps overriding, compelling reasons, such as academic freedom, that are involved.
I suspect the bar for compelling reason must be high to override a first amendment right. Public health, national security, peace, etc. come to mind - academic freedom might not be as compelling.
At any rate, to show a compelling reason the court will surely require hard evidence - objective statistics, studies, etc. Personal testimony can only apply to the facts of one's own first hand experience and thus does not reach broadly.
No, we are trying to compel the good professor to get his religious preference test out of who he endorses for medical school.
Yes.
I believe, the commander of the space shuttle, Rick Husband, was a devout Christian...perhaps he even believed in the creation theory. Wait, no, he couldn't have, because then he wouldn't have been a man of science.
I Agree.
LOLOLOL! You don't have to win a bet to get a smooch from me. Here you go: ****smooch****
And a hug, too!
Ah, but as part of a settlement he may take down his website. Or he may delete the "offensive" passages and replace them with something more general, like "must have good scientific attitute." And he may still be permitted to adhere to his policy. In that case, how will the bet be decided?
To my understand - if (by whatever method) he is forced to comply with the law, I win.
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.