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.
Thanks for responding back to my post. Much of my responses come from personal opinion. I don't wish to try and pretend that I speak from any formal theological expertise.
To the first question:
The Bible's claim is to be the message God has given to mankind. God revealed Himself in the Old Testament via Prophets. Then He revealed Himself in the New Testament by becoming a man and relating to us on our level as Jesus Christ.
God chose to use imperfect men to write the message to us. And one of the marvels of the Bible, as we deduced in our prior message, is that God has overseen a perfectly integrated message that requires a comprehensive study of all of the text.
If a person takes bits and pieces of the Bible they risk misunderstanding the context of the passages. As you witnessed in the Gospel accounts of the resurrection, a comprehensive study of the four Gospels revealed many more details.
As to the second question:
We firmly believe that the Bible studied in a comprehensive fashion consistently leads the brightest minds this world has to offer into believing its authenticity. Newton, Galileo, J.R.R. Tolkien, Augustine, Pascal, C.S. Lewis, Simon Greenleaf(famous for establishing evidentiary methods that would be useable in U.S. courts of law)...
In fact Newton attributed the undeniable prophetic accuracy of the Book of Daniel in the Old Testament as the proof text for the validity of Jesus' claims to being God. The Bible is not structured in a scientific way, but can clearly stand to the rigorous attempts by intellectuals for 2000 years to invalidate its authenticity.
The Bible is a message from the Creator of science, therefore any truths revealed therein can be considered scientifically accurate. I have still to find a well-articulated refutation of scientific or historific facts that are contained in the Bible.
This book also transforms lives. Allow me to demonstrate.
If you were walking alone down a dark alley in the inner city and four young men wearing baggy pullovers with hoods pulled up were approaching. You would be concerned. But if you then saw that the men were carrying a large brick in their hands, terror might cause you to run. But if you then realized that the brick was not a brick but were Bibles a palatable relief would flow through your body.
Thank you for your posts! 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 government’s interest in the case and that a formal complaint has been filed, I don’t 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):
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.
The reporter doesn't mention the condescension of the words he used, “malpractice, “cherished belief.” 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:)
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