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.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

The case won't hinge on the letterhead issue (and we don't know what letterhead Dini actually used).

I don’t think it will be brought up in court unless Dini uses the “acting in my personal capacity” defense.

The more significant issues, once the plaintiff gets past his "no standing" problems, are:

As I see this case, the plaintiff (student or the United States or both) has two issues to try and standing as follows:

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.

In the 1972 Amendments to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress, acting under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, authorized federal courts to award money damages in favor of a private individual against a state government found to have subjected that person to employment discrimination on the basis of [427 U.S. 448] "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."{fn1fn11} The principal question presented by these cases is whether, as against the shield of sovereign immunity afforded the State by the Eleventh Amendment, Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974), Congress has the power to authorize federal courts to enter such an award against the State as a means of enforcing the substantive guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the effect of our decision in Edelman was to foreclose Congress' power. We granted certiorari to resolve this important constitutional question. 423 U.S. 1031 (1975). We reverse.

Wood v Strickland

While, on the basis of common law tradition and public policy, school officials are entitled to a. qualified good faith immunity from liability for damages under § 1983, they are not immune from such liability if they knew or reasonably should have known that the action they took within their sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the student affected, or if they took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of such rights or other injury to the student. But a compensatory award will be appropriate only if the school officials acted with such an impermissible motivation or with such disregard of the student's clearly established constitutional rights that their action cannot reasonably be characterized as being in good faith

United States as plaintiff.

If the DOJ intervenes with regard to equal protection, they may do it under 42 USC 2000h-2:

Whenever an action has been commenced in any court of the United States seeking relief from the denial of equal protection of the laws under the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution on account of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, the Attorney General for or in the name of the United States may intervene in such action upon timely application if the Attorney General certifies that the case is of general public importance. In such action the United States shall be entitled to the same relief as if it had instituted the action

A publicly funded institution through its agent, a professor, cannot have a policy which discriminates among students making the same request for a letter of recommendation - such that targeted (or all but a targeted group of) students are not treated equally because of their religious beliefs

Student as plaintiff.

The student can bring a civil action for deprivation of rights under 42 USC 1983:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia

United States as plaintiff.

The DOJ may be involved under 42 USC 2000c-

Whenever the Attorney General receives a complaint in writing –

(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.

Here are the “issues” as you see them and my comments:

(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)

In court she alleged that university officials either "knew or should have known" that Professor Young "exhibited bizarre, disturbing, sexually harassing, and gender-discriminatory behavior toward students." The professor moved to dismiss the claim, but the court ruled that the student made a potentially supportable claim of discrimination and sexual harassment. While she could not sue the school in federal court (except under Title IX), because it was protected by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, she could sue the professor individually under the Civil Rights Act and under New York's Human Rights Law.

As you said, we’ll see where this goes – but the more I look at it, the more I think the DOJ will find merit to pursue it if the university/professor do not voluntarily change the requirement.

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.)

[Alamo-Girl]

Jeepers! Thank you so much for that information!

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.

[PatrickHenry]

A-Girl, we are so far apart on this I'm just amazed. The way I see it, if the DOJ comes down on Dini, he's going to be another Galileo -- persecuted by the authorities for sticking to his scientific principles and refusing to bend. Now let's just wait and see what happens; and for the sake of our cyber relationship, let's give it a rest.

[f.Christian]

Marvin Olasky . . . writer (( link // thread )) -- of this article ...

"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

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post! I agree with Olasky!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post! It's fine with me to back-burner the discussion with you! Consider it done.

[f.Christian]

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

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

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

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

[f.Christian]

The darwinian dichotomy (( darloserian )) . . .

evolution is a dead branch of science - - -

going to the fire // ash heap of history ! !

[Alamo-Girl]

I'm sorry; I jumped to the wrong conclusion. After doing a bit of search on the subject, it appears to me that Dini did not necessarily quit the Catholic church when he quit the order he was associated with. Whether he is still Catholic or active, I don't know.

You might be interested in the Press Release from the lawfirm handling the student (emphasis mine):

The U.S. Department of Justice opened an official inquiry of Texas Tech, responding to the Liberty Legal Institute’s complaint about religious discrimination at the school. Currently, a Tech professor refuses letters of recommendations to students who do not affirm a personal belief in evolution.

“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 appears this thread has developed a good understanding of how they are approaching this case, state issues, etc.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

[Always Right]

I'm sorry; I jumped to the wrong conclusion. After doing a bit of search on the subject, it appears to me that Dini did not necessarily quit the Catholic church when he quit the order he was associated with. Whether he is still Catholic or active, I don't know.

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.

[Youngblood]

Its funny how two people can read the same thing and get totally different meanings from it!
I've only read the piece you've quoted, but to me he is praising the fact that people are exposed to different opinions and encouraged to think for themselves while at college. That doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. Its good to have one's opinions and values questioned. When they're questioned, you're forced to defend them, which encourages you to think critically about both them and opposing opinions. There's nothing wrong with that.

[Always Right]

No doubt there is some truth to that, but several places that seem quite revealing. For instance when he says, 'They will base their actions on what they know to be true, rather than on what they wish to be true.' To me this is a very humanists outlook of someone that has no faith. Also the part about where he discusses how it is difficult to talk to your family and friends after completed college education, makes his idea of college more of a cultist indoctronation than an education.

[PatrickHenry]

End-of-session placemarker.

[Lurking Libertarian]

End-of-session-placemarker placemarker.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your views!

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.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Dini not being a Christian changes ...

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.

[Doctor Stochastic]

“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.”

It would seem that Kelley Shackelford is arguing that Creationism is a religious belief, contrary to some Creations who disavow that claim.

[Doctor Stochastic]

For instance when he says, 'They will base their actions on what they know to be true, rather than on what they wish to be true.' To me this is a very humanists outlook of someone that has no faith.

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?