Posted on 02/03/2003 3:53:13 AM PST by 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.
If so, evolutionists on FR are the second biggest.
Can I assume that this is a formal charge of hate speech directed at me? If you truly believed that, you should contact the moderators and have me banned for supporting science over superstition.
Name calling is the hallmark of the Creationists as it is with their soul brothers--the PostModernDeconstructionists.
Go back and read my original post. I was asking if you would see a doctor who's religion had him using non standard methods of healing. I will ask you the same question. Would you be so fired up about all this if this student was a Neo-Pagan instead of a Christian.
Who is likely to work harder or more creatively; a person who believes in the basic premises of a project, or someone who thinks the whole thing is in error? When we interview students and employees, we routinely inquire as to motivation. If someone says they want to work in my group because they need a paycheck, but they really don't believe any of it, think I'm going to take them on? Think I should be compelled to take them on?
Not knowing who you work for and the policies of that entity, I have no idea what conditions apply to your hiring.
I will observe however that some of the most highly qualified and sympathetic people I have ever hired have been undisciplined and therefore, a huge waste of time and money. When you own your own company that is a major consideration!
The best indicators I've seen for hard work and motivation have to do with what the kid was doing while in school. Did he work? Did he put himself through school? Does he have roots in the community and financial obligations? Are there periods of unexplained absences? Frequent job changes?
These are the questions that have yielded the most dedicated and hardest working people I've ever had the privilege of employing.
No researcher is going to pick a student who thinks the main efforts of the lab are all a big joke.
How would you know if the student never mentions it?
I completely agree.
Your question was:
The question is whether or not one's personal belief's will have a negative impact on one's ability to be a physician! I suggest that that answer is a resounding "No!"
I simply pointed out that your post was wrong. I could also call it stupid, ignorant, asinine, unintelligent, biased, or - wait, let me pull out my thesaurus - but, nah, I'll let you figure it out.
The article you posted was quite interesting in several respects. I immediately noticed that he omitted to mention the involvement of the Department of Justice. So I went looking for a date on the article, and there was none on the website. Perhaps the article is old. If he was aware of the governments interest in the case and that a formal complaint has been filed, I dont think he would have been so cavalier.
The second thing I noticed was that he omitted to mention the paragraph that I know you noticed, the one that is at the heart of the discrimination based on religion (emphasis mine):
The reporter elevates the term academic freedom while ignoring the actual Constitutionally guaranteed rights of the first and fourteen amendment, freedom of religion and equal protection. Nor does the reporter cite federal law concerning discrimination. Nor does he mention the such civil right violations can be either or both civil or criminal matters.
This was a very biased article. If it had to do with politics, Freepers would have chewed it up in minutes for all the omissions.
And, of course, while you may feel that "compelling interest" is the preferred standard, what I have hopefully imparted to you by now is that the law requires no such showing, so long as the state acts in a facially neutral manner, as Dini has done.
Discriminatory policies that single out groups for special treatment at the outset are illegal - policies that do not single out groups for special treatment, yet have discriminatory results, are perfectly legal.
I vigorously disagree that Dini has acted in a facially neutral manner. He defines precisely the group he singles out for discrimination: students who deny the evolution of humans because it seems to contradict his/her cherished beliefs.
Since he defined the group he was singling out for discrimination, I further assert that he does not additionally have to label them. Indeed, that would be difficult because the people who do not believe in human evolution may be members of many different denominations and non-denominational religious groups.
The compulsion may be indirect and still land him squarely under Thomas v Review Board (emphasis mine:)
It gives a rather good history of the problem of over-medicating and how bacteria acquire resistance.
The article does not blame creationist physicians for the over-medication problem - it blames the whole community:
You're mistaking one example for the totality. So no, it's not the best he can do. Is that the best you can do?
Last I read, anti-resistant bacteria were still bacteria. Just why does one need to believe in evolution to understand this idea?
Because apparently, people who are against the notion of evolution don't understand it well enough to know that it encompasses far more than species-to-species transitions.
I don't know of any creationist or intelligent design proponent who disputes micro-evolution: the mutations of viruses and bacteria that has lead to bacterial resistance. Viral evolution is typically used as "proof" of the theory of evolution.
The rebuttal, of course, is that sure, micro-evolution occurs but that doesn't "prove" macro-evolution, e.g. that a bacteria will become an elephant given enough time and the right circumstances.
Also, I am not aware of anyone (other than Dini) who blames the over-medication of antibiotics on creationist physicians.
Bottom line: when Dini claimed The current crisis in antibiotic resistance is the result of such decisions --- the term such decisions was in reference to his own imaginings:
His whole statement tries to present his imaginings as facts and thus justification for why there should be no creationist physicians.
Yes they are, but that doesn't mean that evolution didn't take place.
Does one have to be an evolutionist to understand this?
Apparently so, given the number of anti-evolutionists who seem to have trouble with the concept.
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.