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.

[general_re]

I don't think the walk is so short from enacted law to state actions.

Historically speaking, it's not far at all.

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.

Ah. But because they single out no specific creed or sect, and apply to everyone equally, they are facially neutral, even though the burden may appear to fall most heavily on certain varieties of fundamentalist Christianity - this is precisely analogous to holding laws criminalizing peyote use, without also carving out a religious exception, as Constitutionally permissible, even though the burden appears to fall most heavily on certain Native American sects. Because neither that law nor Dini's actions formally target a particular religion or sect - there is no suggestion anywhere that he only requires this affirmation of students who belong to some particular religious persuasion - they are permissible by the logic of Smith.

As the reasoning in Smith (and Rehnquist's dissent in Thomas) goes, the fact that a law creates some burden upon a religious group does not mean that the legislature or the courts must carve out exceptions for those religious groups, if that law is neutral on its face. The state may create such exceptions, if it so desires - it is not required to create such exceptions, however. Dini could, by this logic, create an exemption to his requirements for fundamentalist Christians, if he so wished, but he is not required to provide such an exemption.

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

Wouldn't help in this case. This is Dini's policy, not the university's. The university apparently has no formal institutional policy on letters of recommendation, preferring to leave such things to the discretion of individual professors. Which I strongly suspect is also the case at virtually every institution of higher learning in this country - I would be very surprised if you find even a single college or university that has a formal, campus-wide policy regarding the circumstances in which letters of recommendation can or should (or should not) be issued by faculty.

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!

I admire your confidence, anyway. It's a deal ;)

[Nebullis]

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.

Sure. I didn't say that there isn't anything that can constitute abuse of power.

An oath to uphold the law does not negate the latitude inherent in interpretation and judgement. A latitude that is within proper use of power. Without it, justice appointments wouldn't be such a contentious issue. Surely, you must be aware that politics and religion guide such interpretation and judgement.

[PatrickHenry]

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.

Yes, I can remember my early days in kindergarten. I had a "cherished belief" in Santa Claus. By golly, don't you know it, by the time that government school was done with me, I had to give up my cherished belief. How horrible!

I suppose that was a bit simplistic. I'll put it another way -- students go to school to learn, and they are not supposed to end up with exactly the same information as when they started. School is not a place where the student is patted on the head and kept in ignorance. He should be exposed to the intellectual treasures that we in the West have accumulated over the long and dreary centuries. And by God, if he wants to take a course in biology, he should have some idea going in that it's not a course in Genesis. If this student doesn't like it, he should go to a bible college (which it seems he has done) and remain isolated from the things we have learned since the bible was written.

This insolent, arrogant, and ignorant student is trying to control the conduct of the faculty! He wants to dictate to his professors how they should decide things. I say, let him find a school -- and there are many -- which is more congenial to his educational preferences.

[Always Right]

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.

If Dini had stated it as you, there would be no problem. But unfortunately, Dino crossed the line and instead of insisting on a 'serious understanding', Dino insists the student accepts the theory of evolution as fact for all spieces, specifically humans. It is acceptable to have a Biology student thoroughly understand the theory of evolution, it is not acceptable to make a student reject his religious beliefs. If this would go to the US Supreme court, Dini would lose. Of course there are several US Distric Courts where Dini would prevail, but I don't think Texas Tech is in one of those districts.

[Always Right]

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

Did you read the Professor's web page? It is very clear that any explaination for the origion of humans that deviates from scientific theory is unacceptable.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post and your explanations!

We shall have to agree to disagree. I see as much difficulty in applying Landgraf to case law as applying Smith (enacted law) to Dini/student.

This is Dini's policy, not the university's.

According to the article, the university is standing behind Dini on this. IMHO, that makes them an equal target.

I did find a zero tolerance provision for religious discrimination in Texas Tech's Medical School Student Handbook (pdf)

The "big brother" university (Texas University) has this to say:

In accordance with federal and state law, the University prohibits unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, age, disability, citizenship, and veteran status.

and with regard to admissions:

Admission to the University of Texas at Austin is open to all candidates on the basis of academic preparation, ability, and availability of space in the program chosen, without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, gender, age, disability, citizenship, veteran status, or sexual orientation.

[Lurking Libertarian]

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

You: Did you read the Professor's web page? It is very clear that any explaination for the origion of humans that deviates from scientific theory is unacceptable.

I don't think you understand the concept of "theistic evolution."

[Nebullis]

According to the article, the university is standing behind Dini on this. IMHO, that makes them an equal target.,

I suspect that Dini's policy falls under academic freedom. Using your reasoning, researchers who do research in human evolution in substance, specifically exclude creationist research wannabes from their labs.

[Lurking Libertarian]

From the Talk Origins FAQ page:

Q5. Does evolution deny the existence of God?

No. See question 1. There is no reason to believe that God was not a guiding force behind evolution. While it does contradict some specific interpretations of God, especially ones requiring a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, few people have this narrow of a view of God. There are many people who believe in the existence of God and in evolution. Common descent then describes the process used by God. Until the discovery of a test to separate chance and God this interpretation is a valid one within evolution.

Q6. But isn't this Deism, the belief that God set the universe in motion and walked away?

While it could be Deism, the Bible speaks more of an active God, one who is frequently intervening in His creation. If the Bible represents such a God in historical times there is no reason to assume that He was not active in the universe before then. A guiding hand in evolution could exist, even in the time before humans came around. Just because people were not there to observe does not mean that there was nothing to observe.

Q7. So if God directed evolution, why not just say he created everything at once?

Mainly because all the evidence suggests otherwise. If God created the universe suddenly, he created it in a state that is indistinguishable from true age. If he did create it that way there must be a reason, otherwise God is a liar. Whatever that reason may be, a universe that is exactly like one that is old should be treated as if it were old.

Q8. By denying creation, aren't you denying God's power to create?

No. Because God did not create the world in seven days does not mean that he couldn't. What did, or did not, happen is not an indication of what could, or could not, have happened. All evidence suggests that evolution is the way things happened. Regardless of what could have happened, the evidence would still point to evolution.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

An oath to uphold the law does not negate the latitude inherent in interpretation and judgement.

I agree. However, I expect the highest integrity out of this Department of Justice!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your concerns!

[PatrickHenry]

Thank you for sharing your concerns!

You are truly a good and sweet person. No one else could tell me to go take a flying leap the way you do. But there will be other threads, other issues, and we will once more find ourselves on the same side.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

Using your reasoning, researchers who do research in human evolution in substance, specifically exclude creationist research wannabes from their labs.

Hardly. A young earth creationist can do research in human evolution and his "cherished beliefs" are not threatened - unless he is first required to disavow those beliefs before he is allowed to do his job.

Jeepers, a researcher might harbor the belief that the entire realm of existence was created last month, complete with memories and evidence - or that it is, or could be, imaginary. That doesn't make him any less capable of doing research.

Would you exclude Einstein because he said Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one?

Science ought not to dictate metaphysical terms and conditions to anyone.

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOLOL! Thank you for the kudos, PatrickHenry! We agree lots of times and your posts are always either informative or entertaining and many times, both. Hugs!!!

[general_re]

In accordance with federal and state law, the University prohibits unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, age, disability, citizenship, and veteran status.

Indeed. Given that Dini apparently requires this of all who seek letters, and does not single out some particular protected class for discriminatory treatment at the outset, this does not really fit well the definition of "unlawful" discrimination. The fact that the effect is to create a burden upon some group does not change the fact that the requirement exists for all.

Because I'm interested in your thinking in this regard, I should inform you that medical schools routinely and automatically deny admission to the blind, hand-amputees, and many other severely physically (and mentally) disabled applicants. However, it is generally illegal to discriminate based on physical or mental disability. Why are the medical schools able to discriminate in such a manner?

[Always Right]

I understand perfectly that it is possible to believe in evolution and a creator, but from reading the professors expectations, I don't think is acceptable to him. He seems to insist that evolution of man is completely explainable by scientific theory and any belief beyond that, which is not explainable by science, will not get you a letter of recommendation. Maybe I am reading too much in to what he says, but if I were a student that is how I would take it.

[PatrickHenry]

I should inform you that medical schools routinely and automatically deny admission to the blind, hand-amputees, and many other severely physically (and mentally) disabled applicants. However, it is generally illegal to discriminate based on physical or mental disability. Why are the medical schools able to discriminate in such a manner?

That's nothing. You should take a look at the West Point requirements: USMA Basic requirements.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

Because I'm interested in your thinking in this regard, I should inform you that medical schools routinely and automatically deny admission to the blind, hand-amputees, and many other severely physically (and mentally) disabled applicants. However, it is generally illegal to discriminate based on physical or mental disability. Why are the medical schools able to discriminate in such a manner?

I would imagine because there is a compelling reason for such discrimination - much like casting a part in Hollywood.

I believe that is a very high bar that Dini cannot clear. In the military, basic training has been adjusted downward so that women can apply. In the medical branches, 4 people are now needed to carry a wounded soldier, when 2 used to be able to do it (women don't have the upper body strength.)

In fire departments, women are part of the crew even though hardly any of them could wrestle a 300 lb man from a second floor window onto a ladder. Ditto for police, etc.

Where public funds are concerned the bar for compelling reasons must be very high indeed because the government has a substantial interest in compliance.

[Always Right]

I suspect that Dini's policy falls under academic freedom. Using your reasoning, researchers who do research in human evolution in substance, specifically exclude creationist research wannabes from their labs.

Dini opinion is that these students because of their belief in a creator are unfit for any scientific job in Biology.

[Right Wing Professor]

You keep repeating this, even though it's been pointed out on numerous occasions that belief in a creator is not incompatible with belief in the theory of evolution. Apparently you belong to a sect which reveres the Prophet Goebbels, who revealed the power of the Big Lie.