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]

Post 402 includes a link to an article - and an excerpt- that indicates the student did in fact get a letter of recommendation from Lubbock Christian University. So the issue that remains is whether Professor Dini and Texas Tech are willfully infringing on students' constitutionally protected freedom of religion.

[Under the Radar]

I think you are being deliberately dishonest, AG, in this instance. You piously insist that you do not think this professor should be prosecuted by the federal government, yet you gleefully pound your shoe on the table, insisting that this case is 100% analagous to racial discrimination.

Even after you have been repeatedly shown that this student had other means to achieve his goals, and indeed was not harmed at all, you insist that the professor and Texas Tech discriminated against him. Since it suits you in this case, you use the arguments and rhetoric of Marxists to make your point, blithly ignoring the potential for damage applying the Establishment clause to a case like this may bring.

Even after you have been told repeatedly that this, were it to actually become a federal case, will harm our side, you persist in blind and slavish devotion to the cause of your pet interest group. It was this kind of willful shortsightedness that was so indicitive of Clinton's enablers, and it pains me greatly to see it here on FR.

So long as it isn't your ox being gored, you are A-Ok with the crushing power of the federal government being used to serve your cause. You want special rights for Creationists. You want them exempted from the normal standards that apply to everyone else. You make the false claim that creationism=Christianity, smugly ignoring the fact that a large number of Christians are not in fact Creationists.

This class-based special-interest-driven approach is in no way Conservative, and I think that a strong argument can be made that this is not Christian.

[cinFLA]

He could quite truthfully and charitably say something like "this student understands very well the evolutionary theory of biological origins, and is a good scientist in XXX and YYY and ZZZ areas of biology" [not related to evolutionary theories of origins] and leave it at that.

Something like "this student fails to accept the basics of biology and scientific methodology".

[Nebullis]

If the only issue raised is discrimination based on religion, that will be the only issue addressed.

That's correct. Relevancy is inseperable from a discrimination issue.

[PatrickHenry]

Post 402 includes a link to an article - and an excerpt- that indicates the student did in fact get a letter of recommendation from Lubbock Christian University. So the issue that remains is whether Professor Dini and Texas Tech are willfully infringing on students' constitutionally protected freedom of religion.

Thank you. I had somehow overlooked that post, and it's useful information. Because the student has obtained a recommendation -- although not from Dini -- it appears that he is unharmed. He can go on to a career in "creation science" if he likes, and live happily ever after. Because he is now (or should be) a happy camper, I don't know why he is pushing what seems to be a religiously-motivated vendetta (or is it a witch-hunt?) against Dini; and I don't think the DOJ should be harrassing Dini for his scientific beliefs. It smacks too much of the Galileo affair.

[bondserv]

RadioAstronomer, I can appreciate the questions you have regarding the resurrection accounts. They are definitely something that you need to decipher to extract the entire occurrence.

Three of the Gospel writers wrote their accounts from interviewing the participants or from second hand telling of the account.

But if you lay out all of the data points there are no contradictions existing.

Matthew 28: Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the sepulcher. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled the stone back and sat upon it. His appearance was like lightning, and his rainment white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men.

The Angel associated with the stone, earthquake and the guards passing out is referred to by the word behold in the same verse which is tied to these events. The passage is not saying the ladies beheld the angel moving the stone, or witnessed the angel causing the guards to pass out. The ladies (of which only two are mentioned but not with exclusive terms) came to the tomb at dawn.

Mark 16: Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, brought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen. And they were saying to each one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?” And looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back; for it was very large. And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed.

Mark's passage further details how many ladies were there, also it tells further that the ladies did not witness the rolling away of the stone consistent with the "behold" not applying to Matthew account. Mark's account also takes us into the tomb where the young man sitting on the right side is mentioned.(also not in exclusive terms the other angel may have been on the left side but not mentioned in Mark's account).

Luke 24: But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices which they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body. While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel; and as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead?”.

Luke’s account further details inside the tomb where two angels are now standing. (previously at least one was sitting as the ladies were "entering" the tomb in Mark's account) The angels do not explain to the ladies where Jesus is, only saying “Why do you seek the living among the dead?”.

John 20: Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. So she ran, and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “they have taken the lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” Peter then came out with the other disciple, and they went towards the tomb. They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first; and stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in.

John's account only mentions Mary Magdalene but not in exclusive terms. It further details how she ran to tell John and Peter the body was gone.

Hopefully you will now agree with me that there is no disparity among these accounts. I have walked you through the data logically and rationally (with no God said its true or I just believe kind of magic). We are confident that if you took a little time checking a little more carefully you will see the truth.

The greatest scholars for over 2000 years have believed in the Bible because of their own personal study. Don't rely on what someone else told you check it for yourself.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your honesty and directness!

You piously insist that you do not think this professor should be prosecuted by the federal government, yet you gleefully pound your shoe on the table, insisting that this case is 100% analagous to racial discrimination.

I am not at all gleeful over what has happened here. It makes me very sad.

Though I would never - on fundamentalist Christian grounds, I Corinthians 6:1-8 - take a bigot to court, this student has a case. The Department of Justice doesn’t waste its time on silliness. I’m trying to get the people on this thread to understand that it is serious and cannot be dismissed with a simple hand wave.

The irony is that the scientists who post here would probably never write a webpage like Dini did laying out requirements that even mention a student’s “cherished beliefs” much less make a disavowal of the same a condition for recommendation to a publicly funded facility. But the more the scientists here aver that Dini was justified to discriminate against the student based on religion, the more apparent it becomes that the DOJ may need to intervene. Personally, I would rather the scientists discuss this amongst themselves here and at Texas Tech and come to grips with the law.

Since it suits you in this case, you use the arguments and rhetoric of Marxists to make your point, blithly ignoring the potential for damage applying the Establishment clause to a case like this may bring.

Again you accuse me of Marxist methods. I refer lurkers to to the official Marxist website. The Marxist doctrine is based on dialectical materialism. It is the polar opposite of God based beliefs.

Once again, referring to above Scripture, the Word does not support an earthly special class or favored treatment for Christians. And a little sidebar with the student’s pastor might go a long way to convince the kid that he would be in greater obedience to the Word by suffering the injustice than by trying to fix it.

Nevertheless, the kid – and a lawfirm – believe that unlawful discrimination has occurred and they are so intent upon prosecuting it, they have filed a complaint with the DOJ which also considers it serious enough to pursue. The government has a special interest to make sure that any publicly funded institution abides within the law. Whether or not you or like the law is completely beside the point.

Christianity is not just my ”pet interest group” - it is the first description of who I am.

[Nebullis]

...I don't know why he is pushing what seems to be a religiously-motivated vendetta (or is it a witch-hunt?) against Dini...

That's a good question.

There's another strange thing about this student that has me wondering about his motivation. He was unwilling to provide a scientific understanding of human origins in to Dini in person, but was intent, at first, on getting an A in the class. As this was an introductory biology class, he would have had to affirm, in writing, evolutionary theory on the tests. What's the difference?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post! I'm glad the information was helpful to you!

Indeed, the fact that he was able to obtain a letter from another school limits his damage claim to costs of transfer, time lost, mental anguish. But that's if he files a lawsuit personally.

My guess is that the lawfirm sees this as a landmark case (witch hunt as you called it) - to enforce the anti-discrimination laws.

[Always Right]

This class-based special-interest-driven approach is in no way Conservative....

Since when is it conservative to have state organizations advanced people based on their religious beliefs? Exactly what special right is it to be fairly judged on your knowledge and character and not on your religious beliefs?

[Nebullis]

Nevertheless, the kid – and a lawfirm – believe that unlawful discrimination has occurred and they are so intent upon prosecuting it, they have filed a complaint with the DOJ which also considers it serious enough to pursue.

The DOJ is compelled to investigate any complaint. Such an investigation doesn't turn a meritless complaint into the serious issue you are wishing for.

[Always Right]

There's another strange thing about this student that has me wondering about his motivation. He was unwilling to provide a scientific understanding of human origins in to Dini in person, but was intent, at first, on getting an A in the class. As this was an introductory biology class, he would have had to affirm, in writing, evolutionary theory on the tests. What's the difference?

Huge difference. A test is just your knowledge of the theory, the Professor requires you to state what your beliefs to get his recommendation. Since most religions require some belief in a hand of a Creator in the origion of the Human speices, you just about have to be an atheist to past his requirment.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

What's the difference?

On the tests, he is not disavowing a "cherished belief" but answering questions based on the material presented in class - unless, of course, the test asks "what do you believe?"

The letter of recommendation on the other hand is baited to coerce the student to disavow his "cherished beliefs." From Dini's conditions to a letter of recommendation:

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. He makes acceptance of human evolution, despite the student's cherished beliefs, a prerequisite. He accuses them of malpractice for even holding the belief of a special creation for man.

[Alamo-Girl]

The DOJ is compelled to investigate any complaint.

Do you have a source for that statement?

[PatrickHenry]

My guess is that the lawfirm sees this as a landmark case (witch hunt as you called it) - to enforce the anti-discrimination laws.

No doubt. They dream of glory, of a time when "creation scientists" will be accepted --by force! -- as if they were real scientists. When that happens, it will be like it was when Galileo was convicted of heresy, his book was banned, and he was locked away under house arrest for the remainder of his life. Thinking men fled from countries ruled by the Inquisition. They went to Holland, to England, to France. Put pins in a map, one for each citizen of each country who ever won Nobel prize in physics and chemistry. (It has to be for work done in that country, not just for his country of birth.) The pins will not be evenly distributed. Europe and the Western Hemisphere still show the scars from the self-inflicted wound of the Galileo affair. That is the madness which this "student" wishes to unleash in America.

[realpatriot71]

You are misrepresentng my statement - probably intentionally so. A physician does not have to believe in evolution as a means to origins in order to be a good physicain. Evolution happens, gene frequences change and animals adapt to stimulus in their enviroment - genetic change over time for the survival of the species - evolution. Wether this is the mechanism that brought about life on this earth? That's where the deabte lies.

I don't have to believe we evolved from a common ancester with the great apes a few hundred thousands years ago to be a good physicain and understand and treat the "here and now".

Lets try to be a bit intellectually honest here, shall we?

BTW, Dr. Baily (and other good Christian doc's) pretty much "boot-strapped" the cardio-thorasic surgery program at the medical school that I attend, which if you want to take time to look is ranked #1 in nation for this particular program. You tell all the families of the children whos heart's Baily fixed that he isn't a good physician because he doesn't believe in evolution as a source of origins.

get real and take your agenda somewhere else

[Always Right]

Unfortunately, you have it ass-backwards. The inquisisition in this instance is the Professor who is trying to use his state-funded power to surpress any belief in a creator. This case is about religious freedom in the true sense. By this Professors standards Einstein lacked the qualifications to be a scientist.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post! But you need not be troubled.

Truth is not threatened by inquiry; but resistance to such inquiry is prima facie cause for such inquiry.

[realpatriot71]

*rolling eyes*

If you would have followed the entire thread, and perhaps looked at my other comments, you woud have seen that I have stated a number of times that a recommendation is not owed to anyone for any reason. I don't care why you want to discriminate. I wouldn't write a recommendation for someone I didn't feel fit the criteria that I set.

However, the guy is a bigot, but that's not illegal, and if he would have kept his reasons to himself he wouldn't be in this mess. Just a simple observation, nothing more nothing less.

[Always Right]

However, the guy is a bigot, but that's not illegal, and if he would have kept his reasons to himself he wouldn't be in this mess. Just a simple observation, nothing more nothing less.

It is legal to be a bigot, but not on state-funded time using state-funded web sites to promote his bigotry.