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.

[f.Christian]

Dear ms captain .. ... ..

I'm just a foot soldier in the army // kingdom -- of love // truth !

[Alamo-Girl]

So am I, f.Christian, so am I. Hugs!!!

[general_re]

It is an interesting defense however to keep moving the discussion away from discrimination on religious grounds and related constitutional rights --- and back to the mechanism of the discrimination, i.e. the requirements for a letter of recommendation. IOW, the mechanism is moot - it could have been requirements for a position on the cheerleading squad, or to use the soda vending machine or anything.

No, because we're talking specifically about whether any policy about letters of recommmendation is inherently discriminatory. The only relevant policy is the policy, if any, regarding those letters - you cannot simply substitute one policy for another on the assumption that all policies are equivalent. Discussions of any other policy are absolutely, 100% irrelevant.

And the fact that you're stuck with is that Texas Tech's "official policy" on letters of recommendation cannot possibly be construed as discriminatory. Why? Because there is no such policy. They have no policy on letters of recommendation, no guidelines, no formal rules governing such. The only university policy that can be said to exist is the informal policy of "let the professors individually decide for themselves on whose behalf they will or will not write letters".

There's a distinct lack of governance here, on the part of the university. They make no attempt whatsoever to regulate or govern the content, form, or issuance of letters of recommendation. Why? Because when a professor writes such a letter, he writes it for himself, on his own behalf, expressing his own opinion, not the opinion or position of the institution. Forget about Dini being an agent of the state - the university implicitly denies this contention that Dini is even acting as an agent of the university when he writes those letters, let alone acting as an agent of the state.

There is no policy regarding letter of recommendation. Letters of recommendation are not mentioned in any description of the official duties of a professor that I can find. The upshot is, when Dini writes a letter, he writes it as a free agent, not as an agent of either the state or the university; hence, he cannot be construed as a government agent WRT the civil rights laws.

I know you disagree strenuously with this interpretation, but I must say that I can find virtually no legal support whatsoever for your preferred interpretation, and several practical reasons not to adopt it now. IMO, despite its roots in the Drug War, SCOTUS accidentally stumbled on an eminently sensible doctrine in Smith - not that it matters, since Dini has the luxury of being a private actor.

So, I think we will have to agree to disagree for now. Even though it doesn't seem to be happening right now, I think that eventually you will come to understand that I am right.

Hugs!

:^)

[gore3000]

That said, it seems to me that there is a rather dramatic distinction to be made here. The arguments being advanced for colorable prosecution of Dini are premised in part on Dini's supposed obligation to write positive recommendations for any student who objectively meets some "constitutional" set of criteria. Thus, the demand is in effect that Dini speak out in praise of students irrespective of his personal opinions of them. Isn't that what you are really asking of Dini here?

All anti-discrimination laws forbid people to exercise their prejudices. In this case it is an atheist prejudice against people who refuse to bow their heads to the materialist/atheistic god of evolution. It's that simple. Dini is there to teach not to abuse his power to discriminate against those who do not share the same faith as him. This is religious discrimination no matter how much rhetoric you folk wish to use to try to avoid the fact.

As I have said this is abuse of power. He is there to teach, the students are there to learn. He is going way past his duties and trying to subject others to his anti-religious views. He was not appointed king, he was not appointed tyrant, he was appointed teacher. The duties of a teacher is to expand the minds of his students, to teach them to learn, not to indoctrinate them. That is why he is a bad teacher and does not belong in front of a class regardless of his andy other qualifications he may have.

He is also not a scientist. A man with a closed mind is not a scientist. That is why they say - those who can't teach - and he is even a lousy teacher.

[longshadow]

beware of blue flatuence placemarker.

[PatrickHenry]

flatuence placemarker.

Echo placemarker.

[f.Christian]

Zombie science // zombie teacher . . .

Evolution is -- full on -- brainwashing (( redacting // deleting conservatism )) and . . .

indoctrinating // programming LIBERALISM // lies // bias all through America // society ! ! !

All unashamedly on the FR too ==== "fraud // curruption" ==== UNADULTERED tyranny !

[Lurking Libertarian]

1148 placemarker.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post and detailed explanation! However, I agree that we will have to agree to disagree.

Evidently, your position is that the case is about letters of recommendation - whereas mine is that the case is about a) constitutional rights and b) discrimination.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see where it goes.

Thank you for the excellent debate. Hugs!!!

[Always Right]

There's a distinct lack of governance here, on the part of the university. They make no attempt whatsoever to regulate or govern the content, form, or issuance of letters of recommendation. Why? Because when a professor writes such a letter, he writes it for himself, on his own behalf, expressing his own opinion, not the opinion or position of the institution.

Let's see, the professor likely uses school letterhead, probably writes them useing school resources such as computers and office space, posts his bigoted policy on the schools website, the professor uses his school title as authority to write the recomendation and and the university has been made aware of his policy. I think it is nuts if the university thinks it can declare its innocense because it has a hands off policy. The university can not knowly allow such discriminitory practices by its employees especially using school resources and directly effecting its students. It boggles my mind. No business or other public institution could get away with such utter nonsense.

[PatrickHenry]

It boggles my mind. No business or other public institution could get away with such utter nonsense.

Nice try. But when you make this stuff up on the fly, you run the risk of exposed as an ignoramus. Virtually everyone at some time uses company stationary (or phone facilities, etc.) for personal business. Judges do it. The mayor of my town does it -- and he's really a nutcase! Corporate executives do it all the time. And sometimes their letters or phone calls aren't very nice. But all that is involved, legally, no matter what they do -- even sending out ransom notes or something -- is their own necks, as long as they aren't engaged in the business of their employers while using the stationary (or phone, or whatever). If you have some serious legal authority for your proposition that: "If you do it on company letterhead, the company's responsible, no matter what it is you're doing," I'd really like a chance to look at it. If you use a search engine, try respondeat superior.

[Always Right]

is their own necks, as long as they aren't engaged in the business of their employers while using the stationary (or phone, or whatever).

A student is a customer of the university, not some personal acquantance. The recommendation letter effects the academic future of the student (a paying customer). If the professor stated his criteria was based on race, there is no way the university would be taking such a ridiculous position. No way, never. The arguement that it is just a personal thing will go down in flames, and the case (if there is one) will be decided on wether the court believes this constitutes religious discrimination. Of course your impressive use of name-calling puts so much more merit in your position.

[Always Right]

Virtually everyone at some time uses company stationary (or phone facilities, etc.) for personal business. Judges do it. The mayor of my town does it -- and he's really a nutcase!

And when the judge writes these personal letters on official stationary, does he usually sign it using his/her title within the court system? "Hey Steve, I will see you at the game. Judge Tim Smith, 6th Circuit...."

[PatrickHenry]

And when the judge writes these personal letters on official stationary, does he usually sign it using his/her title within the court system? "Hey Steve, I will see you at the game. Judge Tim Smith, 6th Circuit...."

And that bit of trivia, in your opinion, is the decisive issue in such matters? Suppose it's a physician who is employed by a local hospital, and suppose he signs his name (as almost all physicians do) "Dr. Smith." Does that make the hospital responsible for everything he writes on hospital stationary? I guess I know your answer already. If Dini's conduct ever goes to court, I suspect a legally-trained judge will see things differently.

[Always Right]

It would be so easy to corner the university under questioning.

Lawyer: If a professor had posted on his official university web page that he would only give letters of recomendation to white students, would the university take the position that a letter of recomendation is a personal item.

University Official: We would likely fire professor because racial discrimination is not tolerated on our campus.

Lawyer: So the university's position is that discrimination based on religion is a personal thing but racial discrimination is untolerable.

University Official: Ummmm, Ummmm, well we don't see what Dini did as religious discrimination.

They don't get off the hook on the 'its only personal' arguement, they must win the point wether it is discrimination or not. There is no way around that.

[Always Right]

And that bit of trivia, in your opinion, is the decisive issue in such matters? Suppose it's a physician who is employed by a local hospital, and suppose he signs his name (as almost all physicians do) "Dr. Smith." Does that make the hospital responsible for everything he writes on hospital stationary?

If it is written to a patient and the hospitial has knowledge that the Doctor is breaking the law, you better believe the hospital could be held liable. In this case Dini's alledgedly illegal policy is posted and the university is well aware of it, so the university can't claim ignorance.

[PatrickHenry]

Well, it's all going to play itself out, so let's just sit back and see what happens.

[Alamo-Girl]

On the letterhead issue, I started out not thinking it was a big deal - but after running several searches found where it appears as evidence in a number of lawsuits. Not only that, but I also found government manuals that advised employees not to use letterhead because of legal implications. I also found something - not sure it it was a statute or a regulation - that said a letterhead is the same as a signature.

If you wish, I'll go find all those sources again. I didn't put the information here because the subject changed to immunity which I am still investigating.

Guards in a prison system tried the qualified immunity defense unsuccessfully. But in the past few years the Supreme Court has been ruling in favor of state's sovereign immunity (11th amendment.)

In any case, I don't think any claim of 11th amendment immunity would prevail over other constitutional claims. But I'm still checking.

So please let me know if you want the scoop on the letterhead. Hugs!

[PatrickHenry]

So please let me know if you want the scoop on the letterhead.

No need. The case won't hinge on the letterhead issue (and we don't know what letterhead Dini actually used). It's one of those factual details that the plaintiff will try to make into a smoking gun if it's present, but if it turns out that the professor used his own letterhead, the plaintiff will ignore it as being of no consequence.

The more significant issues, once the plaintiff gets past his "no standing" problems, are: (1) the role, if any, of such letters in the professor's official state-financed duties; (2) whether the professor's insistance on accepting evolution is commendable academic rigor, or actually constitutes a form of religious discrimination; and (3) notwithstanding the answer to #2, the professor's freedom to use such a criterion -- acceptance of human evolution -- as a factor in his decision to recommend a biology student. We've thrashed these points out before. If I see you across the barricades, I'll lean over and give you a smooch.

[Always Right]

I think the fact that this is posted on his official university provided web page kind of makes the letterhead point mute. His Bio Page is kind of interesting. It states, "While at Notre Dame, I decided to end my 14-year stint with the religious order" which kind of flies in the face of everyone saying what a devote Catholic he is. It goes on to state "I am especially interested in improving education in high-enrollment biology courses, in the design of innovative investigative laboratories and in the "evolution versus creation" controversy." Here he admits there is a controversy and his recommendation policy is an obvious attempt to cleanse the debate.

To me this guy is such a clear cut bigot with a vendetta against creationist and is will to abuse his power to advance his agenda. I would be embarrassed if our legal system did not slap this guy around a little bit. Either get rid of the non-discrimination laws or apply them equally.