Posted on 02/03/2003 3:53:13 AM PST by kattracks
The case won't hinge on the letterhead issue (and we don't know what letterhead Dini actually used).
A publicly funded institution through its agent, a professor, cannot have a policy which overtly coerces a student to disavow his religious beliefs - or affirm a religious belief he does not hold.
Student as plaintiff.
Since the mid-seventies, it has been established that states (and their employees) can be sued for discrimination despite sovereign immunity. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer.
If the DOJ intervenes with regard to equal protection, they may do it under 42 USC 2000h-2:
Student as plaintiff.
The student can bring a civil action for deprivation of rights under 42 USC 1983:
The DOJ may be involved under 42 USC 2000c-
(2) signed by an individual, or his parent, to the effect that he has been denied admission to or not permitted to continue in attendance at a public college by reason of race, color, religion, sex or national origin,
and the Attorney General believes the complaint is meritorious and certifies that the signer or signers of such complaint are unable, in his judgment, to initiate and maintain appropriate legal proceedings for relief and that the institution of an action will materially further the orderly achievement of desegregation in public education, the Attorney General is authorized, after giving notice of such complaint to the appropriate school board or college authority and after certifying that he is satisfied that such board or authority has had a reasonable time to adjust the conditions alleged in such complaint, to institute for or in the name of the United States a civil action in any appropriate district court of the United States against such parties and for such relief as may be appropriate, and such court shall have and shall exercise jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this section, provided that nothing herein shall empower any official or court of the United States to issue any order seeking to achieve a racial balance in any school by requiring the transportation of pupils or students from one school to another or one school district to another in order to achieve such racial balance, or otherwise enlarge the existing power of the court to insure compliance with constitutional standards. The Attorney General may implead as defendants such additional parties as are or become necessary to the grant of effective relief hereunder.
(1) the role, if any, of such letters in the professor's official state-financed duties; I would add that the role of letters of recommendation in granting admission to medical school may be of interest to the DOJ or the court. That would go to damages from the student’s civil case and to public interest in the DOJ’s case.
(2) whether the professor's insistance on accepting evolution is commendable academic rigor, or actually constitutes a form of religious discrimination; and I dispute that will be an issue at all. The point is whether he can require an “truthful affirmation” of a theory which disavows one’s “cherished beliefs.” The argument that “cherished beliefs” does not mean religion will be defeated on the basis of Dini’s homepage, wherein I understand he declares a campaign against creationism and the fact that he is requiring an affirmation (an oath, like a loyalty oath) rather than statement of the theory.
(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. The really big pdf file I linked yesterday from AAUP shows that the courts have ruled academic freedom is an institution right not an individual right and not a constitutional right. Personally, I think this kind of defense – if not very carefully played - could anger the judge by leaving the impression that the professor thinks individual academic rights ought to supercede the constitution.
The best defense I have found for the university and the professor lies with state sovereign immunity. Historically, individual rights (equal protection in particular, but also freedom of religion) have weighed against immunity. But if ever there was a time to press for immunity, this would be it – because this particular USSC, just this term, upheld the eleventh amendment vigorously in Federal Maritime Commission v. South Caroline State Ports Authority. The case did not have a fourteenth amendment issue, but it shows a desire on the USSC to uphold state sovereign immunity.
In this article, AAUP describes the meaning of the state sovereignty issue to professors as plaintiffs The Sleeper Amendment: Sovereign Immunity. But the same issues arise when the university is defendant in a suit brought by a student.
In this 2001 case a student sued a university for gender discrimination by a professor Hayut v. State University of New York (U.S. District Court, New York, 2001)
As for the kid, I’m still hoping somebody will remind him about I Cor 6:1-8. Creationists (to my knowledge) believe as I do that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and thus if he cannot “truthfully affirm” on that tenet, then he should also stand down on I Cor 6:1-8 (especially now we know that Dini is Catholic. They may not agree on the interpretation, but they have the same Savior.)
If he put this on his homepage, I wonder what other anti-Creationist statements will be found in discovery and used to nail him in court...
Dini not being a Christian changes the calculus in my recommendation that the student ought to stand down under I Cor 6:1-8. That passage is oriented to Christians suing one another. As a matter of faith, I still believe it is better to suffer the injury - but the verses read differently when one party is not a believer.
I should have pinged you to my long post to PatrickHenry above.
"Any scientist who jumps beyond the scientific method to issue decrees on things not subject to observation or testing is overreaching."
Dini and all his sympathizers - - - holocaust // inquisition !
Main Entry: ho·lo·caust
Pronunciation: 'hO-l&-"kost, 'hä- also -"käst or 'ho-l&-kost
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French holocauste, from Late Latin holocaustum, from Greek holokauston, from neuter of holokaustos burnt whole, from hol- + kaustos burnt, from kaiein to burn -- more at CAUSTIC
Date: 13th century
1 : a sacrifice consumed by fire
2 : a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially through fire < a nuclear holocaust >
3 a often capitalized : the mass slaughter of European civilians and especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II -- usually used with the b : a mass slaughter of people; especially : GENOCIDE
You might be interested in the Press Release from the lawfirm handling the student (emphasis mine):
“This is open religious bigotry,” said Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel of Liberty Legal Institute (LLI). “Students are being denied recommendations not because of their competence in understanding evolution, but solely because of their personal religious beliefs.”
LLI discovered that Dr. Michael Dini, a professor of biology at Tech, refuses to write recommendations for students who do not affirm a personal belief in evolution. When acting in his capacity as a professor at a state university, which includes writing recommendations, Dini is a state official. State officials are not legally permitted to ask people to deny their religious beliefs.
Some have argued that the professors should have the academic freedom to do whatever they wish in connection to letters of recommendation.
“No professor has the academic freedom to discriminate against students on the basis of their race, sex, or religious beliefs. That’s illegal,” said Shackelford.
LLI first went to Texas Tech officials to handle the discriminatory policy of the professor. When Tech officials refused to remedy the situation, LLI went to the U.S. Department of Justice. The Justice Department reviewed the situation, and now waits for Texas Tech’s response. Shackelford said he is hopeful that Texas Tech will respond quickly to the situation, despite the fact that professors may argue that their academic freedom is at stake.
“I’m still hopeful that we can work with Texas Tech to rectify this situation and protect the students of Texas Tech from further discrimination,” said Shackelford.
It is really hard to tell. Reading his "Teaching Philosophy" page is kind of revealing to his thinking on education and religion. Here's an excerp:
Undertaking a college education is not without risks. These can be as superficial as wasting time and money on a worthless course, or as enormous as losing one’s entire value system. Just because one pays tuition, one is not guaranteed success or happiness. Nor is one guaranteed that his/her most cherished beliefs will go unchallenged. Indeed, many students find it difficult to communicate with friends and family after completing a college education because they no longer share the same beliefs and values. College has introduced them to new knowledge and new ways of thinking. For many, especially those raised by parents who were not college-educated, college is a time of "de-acculturation," wherein one gives up the culture in which one was raised, and subsequent "re-acculturation" wherein one takes on a new culture. My hope for all of my students is that they will become acculturated in "the life of the mind." This means that they will take responsibility for the quality of their education and for the quality of their thinking. They will base their actions on what they know to be true, rather than on what they wish to be true. They will see learning as its own end, not done for the purpose of passing a test or getting a good grade or getting into a particular career. They will dedicate themselves to their own lifelong education.
He really puts down uneducated people throughout the page which is more typical of an atheist liberal elitists than a devote Christian, and seems to think it is a good thing that students lose their value system, which I would take as their religious upbringing. I may be reading things into what he says, but I wouldn't want this guy teaching my child. Then again I am not the one who determines whether this guy is a good Christian or not.
I have known several people who became "intellectual agnostics" as a result of their public education. There is a tendency to believe everything a teacher says. After getting out in the real world, getting "mugged" by responsibilities and finding out that the teachers, like the parents, really didn't know everything after all - some want answers.
Those are the ones that move from being spectators to being players and actually engage in the research and debate. The "intellectual agnostics" I've known who became players, are now Christian.
Where did you get the idea the Dini isn't a Christian? Post 1160 said he dropped out of a religious order. Not all Christians are Monks.
It would seem that Kelley Shackelford is arguing that Creationism is a religious belief, contrary to some Creations who disavow that claim.
You would prefer the converse? You prefer people to base their actions on what they wish to be true rather than what they know to be true?
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.