Posted on 01/30/2003 7:15:04 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-evolution-dispute0130jan30,0,713004.story
Professor's Letter Refusal Causes Probe By LISA FALKENBERG Associated Press Writer
January 30, 2003, 9:50 AM EST
DALLAS -- A biology professor who refuses to write letters of recommendation for his students if they don't believe in evolution is being accused of religious discrimination, and federal officials are investigating, the school said.
The legal complaint was filed against Texas Tech University and professor Michael Dini by a student and the Liberty Legal Institute, a religious freedom group that calls Dini's policy "open religious bigotry."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
Whatever. The fact is the Dini/Texas Tech has retreated to a more defensible position and may be enough to keep the Justice Department from acting. I still have some problems with the professor, but atleast his bigotry is not so obvious now.
Dini's website used to say this:
Why do I ask this question? Let’s consider the situation of one wishing to enter medical school. Whereas medicine is historically rooted first in the practice of magic and later in religion, modern medicine is an endeavor that springs from the sciences, biology first among these. The central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution, which includes both micro- and macro-evolution, and which extends to ALL species. 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? It is hard to imagine how this can be so, but it is easy to imagine how physicians who ignore or neglect the Darwinian aspects of medicine or the evolutionary origin of humans can make bad clinical decisions. The current crisis in antibiotic resistance is the result of such decisions. For others, please read the citations below.
Good medicine, like good biology, is based on the collection and evaluation of physical evidence. So much physical evidence supports the evolution of humans from non-human ancestors that one can validly refer to the "fact" of human evolution, even if all of the details are not yet known. One can deny this evidence only at the risk of calling into question one’s understanding of science and of the method of science. Such an individual has committed malpractice regarding the method of science, for good scientists would never throw out data that do not conform to their expectations or beliefs. This is the situation of those who deny the evolution of humans; such a one is throwing out information because it seems to contradict his/her cherished beliefs. Can a physician ignore data that s/he does not like and remain a physician for long? No. If modern medicine is based on the method of science, then how can someone who denies the theory of evolution -- the very pinnacle of modern biological science -- ask to be recommended into a scientific profession by a professional scientist?
Why do I ask this question? Let’s consider the situation of one wishing to enter medical school. Whereas medicine is historically rooted first in the practice of magic and later in religion, modern medicine is an endeavor that springs from the sciences, biology prominent among these. The central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution, which includes both micro- and macro-evolution, and which extends to ALL species. Someone who ignores the most important theory in biology cannot expect to properly practice in a field that is now so heavily based on biology. It is easy to imagine how physicians who ignore or neglect the Darwinian aspects of medicine or the evolutionary origin of humans can make poor clinical decisions. The current crisis in antibiotic resistance may partly be the result of such decisions. For others, please read the citations below.
Good medicine, like good biology, is based on the collection and evaluation of physical evidence. So much physical evidence supports the evolution of humans from non-human ancestors that one can validly refer to the "fact" of human evolution, even if all of the details are not yet known; just as one can refer to the "fact" of gravity, even if all of the details of gravitational theory are not yet known. One can ignore this evidence only at the risk of calling into question one’s understanding of science and the scientific method. Scientists do not ignore logical conclusions based on abundant scientific evidence and experimentation because these conclusions do not conform to expectations or beliefs. Modern medicine relies heavily on the method of science. In my opinion, modern physicians do best when their practice is scientifically based.
The designated criteria for a letter of recommendation should not be misconstrued as discriminatory against anyone's personal beliefs. Rather, the goals of these requirements are to help insure that a student who wishes my recommendation uses scientific thinking to answer scientific questions.
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.Evolution as Fact and Theory, Stephen Jay Gould.
Oh, come on - was he just being tactful?
He had said:
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.He now says:
If you set up an appointment to discuss the writing of a letter of recommendation, I will ask you: "How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species?" If you will not give a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation [rest of sentence deleted].He also had said:
The current crisis in antibiotic resistance is the result of such decisions.Now he says:
The current crisis in antibiotic resistance may partly be the result of such decisions.He had said:
Good medicine, like good biology, is based on the collection and evaluation of physical evidence. So much physical evidence supports the evolution of humans from non-human ancestors that one can validly refer to the "fact" of human evolution, even if all of the details are not yet known.Now he says:
Good medicine, like good biology, is based on the collection and evaluation of physical evidence. So much physical evidence supports the evolution of humans from non-human ancestors that one can validly refer to the "fact" of human evolution, even if all of the details are not yet known; just as one can refer to the "fact" of gravity, even if all of the details of gravitational theory are not yet known.He had said:
One can deny this evidence only at the risk of calling into question one’s understanding of science and of the method of science. Such an individual has committed malpractice regarding the method of science, for good scientists would never throw out data that do not conform to their expectations or beliefs.He now says:
One can ignore this evidence only at the risk of calling into question one’s understanding of science and the scientific method.There's more, but this is tedious. I think he's clearly sticking to his policy, but he's being far more diplomatic about it.
Indeed, the big difference is that he has amended his policy so that he does not run afoul of the Constitution. Those were the points at issue on the thread where we discussed the legal merits, i.e. why the Department of Justice got involved.
Actually there is an important fundamental difference, that is not just being 'more diplomatic': When he changes:
FROM: "How do you think the human species originated?"
TO: "How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species?"
He has CHANGED his position from asking about ones beliefs to asking about ones scientific explaination. It may seem like a small change, but one that makes it legal.
And, because the student has no standing yet to apply for a letter from Dini, I'd guess that everything is now moot.
It really does give the lie to the denial that their efforts to get Creationism into the science curriculum are, in fact, religiously motivated. If Creationism were scientific, they would have no basis to complain about Dr. Dini's scientific criteria, would they?
I see those chocolates slipping away...
And, because the student has no standing yet to apply for a letter from Dini, I'd guess that everything is now moot.
I hope the student stands down now. I don't think the big lawfirm will want to argue such a tortured case after this development. To make a successful civil case now that the discrimination has ended, they would have to show that the student suffered damages by simply having known of the prior policy. He did register in another school and got a letter of recommendation there. There might have been a semester's delay in his education, but I don't know.
Except for emotional distress, these kinds of damages are removed from the act which caused the injury. For instance, if you saw a large dog on a leash and ran from it, fell and broke your arm - it would be a stretch to hold the dog owner/walker liable for the actions you took.
That would be especially true in this case, since the student could have forced compliance by filing a complaint to the DOJ while still enrolled in Dini's class.
Also, emotional distress on its own is hard to litigate. There'd have to be psychiatrists, hospital stays, etc. to make that case IMHO.
In sum, I think the lawfirm was interested in supporting the student because of religious rights (1st and 14th amendments) and to end religious discrimination. Mission accomplished, I don’t think they’ll want to go any further. Just my two cents…
I think you have then missed the point. I can now go into Dr. Dini's office and give a scientific explaination for man's origin. I no longer have to say these are my beliefs. That was the main sticking point all along.
If the wording changes whether this policy is discriminatory or not, this is an easy fix!
Exactly! All along I've asserted the problem was the result of Dini's own words and should be corrected via correspondence rather than in court. Dini could have simply said "To get my letter of recommendation, you must see the scientific issues the same way that I do."
All the rant about "truthful affirmations" "cherished beliefs" "malpractice" and creationist physicians being the cause of bacterial resistance to antibiotics ... was unnecessary, wrongful and ran afoul of the Constitution.
I see those chocolates slipping away...
Indeed, but I'd rather see the right thing be done than to feast on chocolates. I imagine you'd agree with that.
There's always that big smooch I promised you. Almost as good as chocolates.
Oh, so Dini has made it simpler for you to lie.
He may harbor a ocean of prejudice. Many people do. It is not easy for a fat girl to get a job as a receptionist. Rough men sometimes cringe in the presence of tiny babies. I'm sure it was not easy for blacks to be accepted in society even with the law on their side. Likewise, I ran into a ton of resistance when I started in information technology back in the early 60's.
For those of us who have lived through this kind of unspoken prejudice, the key has been to perform so well that there could be no justification or excuse for not hiring, not promoting or whatever.
IMHO, that is where creationist students now stand in Dini's world. If they perform with all their ability - they'll breeze right through it and get that letter of recommendation.
Let me make clear, once again, that I don't think a scientific affirmation, either on a test or verbally, is a disavowal of religious beliefs.
I disagree. An affirmation is an oath and thus runs afoul of the absolute, Constitutionally protected, first amendment right to believe. Some faiths find all affirmations abominable. The professor can require a scientific answer, but not an affirmation.
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.