Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Professor's Snub of Creationists Prompts U.S. Inquiry
New York Times ^ | 2/02/03 | NICK MADIGAN

Posted on 02/03/2003 3:53:13 AM PST by kattracks


LUBBOCK, 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.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 541-560561-580581-600 ... 1,201-1,202 next last
To: BMCDA
Uh, I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense.

I guess you have no problem basing promotion or advancement on ones religious beliefs.

561 posted on 02/04/2003 11:21:33 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
Are you involved in this case? Are you Micah Spradling?
562 posted on 02/04/2003 11:22:45 AM PST by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 552 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Everything you said is true; however, the Supreme Court hears very few of the cases brought to it. Four justices would have to agree to revisit their previous ruling. I have not seen reasons given when they decline to hear a case, which is the most typical result.

They won't hear an argument on this issue. The lower courts will rule that this action is permissible by virtue of the fact that it is facially neutral, as per Smith, and SCOTUS will decline to hear the case beyond that. Dini wins. Not that it matters, as DOJ will review the complaint and decline to involve itself in such a matter, and thus the student and the legal foundation will be left to pursue a suit on their own.

But, in case it does find its way into a courtroom, how much are you prepared to spend when you lose this bet? ;)

563 posted on 02/04/2003 11:29:41 AM PST by general_re (You can't go home again, unless you set $HOME.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
Judgements for prioritization and investigation are informed, within the framework of the law, by political and religious considerations.

You are a lot more generous in your interpretation than I am. The only considerations for prioritizing and investigating that I can see are with regard to national security and official public policy!

To me, it was an insult to the Constitution and a gross abuse of power when the Clinton DOJ proceeded to use the powers of the government to prosecute gun manufacturers. Ditto on prosecuting tax cases against political enemies. Ditto on not prosecuting political allies. And so much more!

I would be absolutely horrified if the Bush DOJ did such things.

564 posted on 02/04/2003 11:30:50 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 556 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Thank you for your post and your analysis of this case!

But, in case it does find its way into a courtroom, how much are you prepared to spend when you lose this bet?

Our bet is if it goes to trial, and if it does I expect the student (or the USA depending on how the case is brought) to prevail.

As to the how much, a 4 lb. box of Godiva costs about $125. Lobster at my favorite place is about $150. Can you find some food "bet" thingy in that ballpark?

565 posted on 02/04/2003 11:37:52 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 563 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
Are you involved in this case? Are you Micah Spradling? ~ Nebullis Woody.
566 posted on 02/04/2003 11:43:23 AM PST by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 562 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Since when is being an Hispanic a religious conviction?

If a person's religious beliefs contradict established scientific knowledge then I don't think this person should receive a promotion for a scientific field since no empirical evidence can change their convinction.
So if you can't reconcile your religious beliefs with established scientific knowledge you're not a good scientist because you dismiss certain correlations not on scientific but on religious grounds.

567 posted on 02/04/2003 11:45:01 AM PST by BMCDA (The dog ate my tag line)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 561 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; general_re
Wait a minute! Chocolate! I'd like to be in on this bet, as well. (That's not gambling, is it?)
568 posted on 02/04/2003 11:50:16 AM PST by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
No, as a resident of Lubbock and a grad of Texas Tech, I like to watch and see what wonderful insanity some people try to make us swallow in the name of medical advancement.

Ah, it's close to home, is it? Even those of us not near like to watch and see the wonderful insanity.

569 posted on 02/04/2003 11:52:09 AM PST by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 566 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
LOLOL! As far as I'm concerned, a food bet is not gambling. It's more like "congratulations, you were right!"

And it's plenty ok with me if you want to take the same bet. I'll owe you a 4 lb box of Godiva chocolates if the student loses the case in court. If he wins, you owe me. If it never goes to court (or if they settle out of court?) then the bet is off.

570 posted on 02/04/2003 11:54:11 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 568 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
You’ve known me for a long time, PatrickHenry, so I hope by now you realize that I am epistemologically zealous when it comes to math and science. I am infinitely more zealous when it comes to the Word. But I have never had a problem reconciling the two.

True. But I sense that this student/professor issue is a bit of a muddle for you at the moment.

With regard to science, my worldview can be summarized by these quotes from Einstein: "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

Did he really say that?

And my favorite…

"The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is."
Yup, that's a good one.

We have a common goal in finding answers to great questions. IMHO, our difference is perspective.

Agreed.

571 posted on 02/04/2003 11:59:03 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Preserve the purity of your precious bodily fluids!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Could you give me a hand here? I don't see how you can use Oregon v. Smith for precedent.

The Smith case has to do with religious exemption from criminal law (which is facially neutral) to qualify for unemployment benefits whereas the above Dini/student case has to do with coercion to disavow one's beliefs.

From Oregon v. Smith (emphasis mine):

(a) Although a State would be "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" in violation of the Clause if it sought to ban the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts solely because of their religious motivation, the Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a law that incidentally forbids (or requires) the performance of an act that his religious belief requires (or forbids) if the law is not specifically directed to religious practice and is otherwise constitutional as applied to those who engage in the specified act for nonreligious reasons. See, e. g., Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 166 -167. The only decisions in which this Court has held that the First Amendment bars application of a neutral, generally applicable law to religiously motivated action are distinguished on the ground that they involved not the Free Exercise Clause alone, but that [494 U.S. 872, 873] Clause in conjunction with other constitutional protections. See, e. g., Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 304 -307; Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 . Pp. 876-882.

(b) Respondents' claim for a religious exemption from the Oregon law cannot be evaluated under the balancing test set forth in the line of cases following Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 402 -403, whereby governmental actions that substantially burden a religious practice must be justified by a "compelling governmental interest." That test was developed in a context - unemployment compensation eligibility rules - that lent itself to individualized governmental assessment of the reasons for the relevant conduct. The test is inapplicable to an across-the-board criminal prohibition on a particular form of conduct. A holding to the contrary would create an extraordinary right to ignore generally applicable laws that are not supported by "compelling governmental interest" on the basis of religious belief. Nor could such a right be limited to situations in which the conduct prohibited is "central" to the individual's religion, since that would enmesh judges in an impermissible inquiry into the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith. Cf. Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680, 699 . Thus, although it is constitutionally permissible to exempt sacramental peyote use from the operation of drug laws, it is not constitutionally required. Pp. 882-890.

The Thomas case was much more on point for the issues in the Dini/student matter:

A person may not be compelled to choose between the exercise of a First Amendment right and participation in an otherwise available public program. It is true that the Indiana law does not compel a violation of conscience, but where the state conditions receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or where it denies such a benefit because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs, a burden upon religion exists. While the compulsion may be indirect, the infringement upon free exercise is nonetheless substantial What am I missing in Smith?

572 posted on 02/04/2003 12:11:55 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 563 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Thank you so much for your post!

But I sense that this student/professor issue is a bit of a muddle for you at the moment.

The muddle is that I am astonished Dini would get himself into this mess and even more astonished that a fundamentalist Christian would prosecute a bigot.

Did [Einstein] really say [Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one]?

Yes he did.

573 posted on 02/04/2003 12:18:15 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 571 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
"You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink."

Apparently, you can also get cranky and evasive when the horse asks for clarification about the alleged watering hole.

574 posted on 02/04/2003 12:24:11 PM PST by Dan Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
And with that good bye. If you have to be "forced" to approach the Bible as a coherent message to be understood

Not at all what I said.

So on that note, good bye indeed.

575 posted on 02/04/2003 12:24:23 PM PST by Dan Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
What am I missing in Smith?

Nothing, except that A) where Thomas and Smith might conflict, Smith prevails by virtue of being the more recent case, and; B) it's a short walk from arguing that legislative action such as criminal or civil law merely has to be facially neutral to be Constitutionally permissible under the First Amendment, to arguing that state action in general must merely be facially neutral to be Constitutionally permissible under the First Amendment. A very short walk - this is not exactly a yawning chasm of interpretation that the Court would be required to cross. And that's all assuming one can make the case that Dini is actually acting as an agent of the state when he sets forth his requirements for a letter of recommendation, which I think is not exactly a slam-dunk in and of itself.

It's not precisely on point, but Board of Regents v. Southworth from a few years ago may be illustrative of the sort of deference the courts are prepared to pay to the notion of academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas in the university. Put it all together, and I think that suing Dini and the university for religious infringement is not a case that is likely to succeed.

But, that's okay. I don't much care for chocolate, but I'll put chocolates for you against a seafood dinner for me, if you like ;)

576 posted on 02/04/2003 12:50:05 PM PST by general_re (You can't go home again, unless you set $HOME.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 572 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
I am astonished Dini would get himself into this mess and even more astonished that a fundamentalist Christian would prosecute a bigot.

Come on, A-Girl. Dini has done nothing, and I don't think he's in any mess at all. A student (not a student of Dini's) is in a snit because Dini's openly announced policy is that to get a recommendations from him (and this applies only to Dini) you need to have a serious understanding of human evolution, and take his course, and get an "A" and be known to Dini. The student doesn't qualifiy under a single one of Dini's criteria. Nor has the student asked for and been refused a letter of recommendation (but of course, he would be, and because I'm not a student of Dini's either, so would I). The student's behavior is little more than a drive-by shooting. I agree that it's not exemplary Christian conduct, but the anti-evolution fervor has him in its grip. He's out to save the world from the nasty eee-vooo-louuuu-shun-ists. I've seen it before.

577 posted on 02/04/2003 1:03:53 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Preserve the purity of your precious bodily fluids!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 573 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Thank you so much for explaining your thoughts on that case. Of course, now I have another to read (LOL!)

I don't think the walk is so short from enacted law to state actions. And the words on Dini's webpage do not appear facially neutral - in fact they seem facially specific because they narrow to deny recommendation - indeed, to besmirch - anyone whose "cherished beliefs" conflict with human evolution.

Perhaps the lesson to this story is that a university's legal counsel ought to review all public policy statements in advance.

I've got a chocolate bet going with Nebullis, so why don't you and I do the seafood? That way, when I win, I can have dessert with my lobster!

578 posted on 02/04/2003 1:07:38 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 576 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
The professor specifically states origination of the 'human species' several times. This indicates that he will not accept any non-scientific belief in the creation of man, and thus rules out any belief in a creator, even a non-Christian belief such as Einstien held.

I don't think the professor would have any problem with any form of theistic evolution.

579 posted on 02/04/2003 1:10:50 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Thank you so much for your post!

Dini has done nothing, and I don't think he's in any mess at all.

Of course, I do not agree with your assessment of Dini's situation. He wrote the conditions and thus is liable for them. The university stands behind him and is also therefore liable for them.

The substance of the policy (within a publicly funded institution) is that it coerces the student to disavow his "cherished beliefs." That can be interpreted as a violation of any such students' first and fourteenth amendment constitutional rights. It is also discrimination based on religion and may even be criminal, even a conspiracy under section 241. It may also be the basis of a civil lawsuit. These are the worst things that could happen; whether or not they happen depend on the DOJ and the attitude of the university (IMHO.)

If the student never existed, or if he has no civil case or never files one, the question would still remain with the DOJ whether that particular policy is discriminatory.

I believe that it is clearly illegal discrimination under federal law, but I wish it would be resolved by wrist-slapping correspondence between the DOJ and Texas Tech attorneys – and that the student would suffer the injury according to the Word and stand down.

580 posted on 02/04/2003 1:28:35 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 541-560561-580581-600 ... 1,201-1,202 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson