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.

[Dan Day]

The article does not blame creationist physicians for the over-medication problem - it blames the whole community:

By the 1960's it became apparent that some bacterial pathogens were developing resistance to antibiotic-after-antibiotic, at a rate faster than new antibiotics could be brought to market. A more conservative approach to the use of antibiotics has not been fully accepted by the medical and agricultural communities, and the problems of emerging multiple-drug resistant pathogens still loom.

You need to read it more carefully. It does not blame the "whole community", it says that it has not been "fully accepted", meaning that some subset of the whole is resisting a more careful use of antibiotics. Guess which subgroup is more likely to deny the problems of forcing pathogens to evolve?

Dini appears to be stating his prejudicial imaginings as fact:

"It is hard to imagine how this can be so, but it is easy to imagine how physicians who ignore or neglect the Darwinian aspects of medicine or the evolutionary origin of humans can make bad clinical decisions. The current crisis in antibiotic resistance is the result of such decisions"....

No, he's absolutely correct. I've met anti-evolutionists, including a Freeper on a recent thread, who flatly denied (he termed it "absolute garbage") the well-established fact that bacteria mutate and evolve resistances to antibiotics (and demonstrating this is done on a regular basis in simple lab experiments). He denied it apparently simply on the grounds that, he believed, even such "microevolution" is impossible, and therefore any resistant bacteria had to be present in the original sample (even though the aforementioned lab experiments flatly disprove this).

A dogmatic anti-evolutionary stance is an anti-scientific stance -- it's the mark of a person who allows his faith-based (not necessarily religious) beliefs to override his ability to accept (and to outright deny) experimental findings and well-established evidence.

There's nothing wrong with being religious and a scientist -- many are. But there *is* something wrong with a person whose faith motivates him into an anti-scientific mindset, and then attempts a career in one of the sciences. It's rather like an atheist trying to be a priest. Either way, their heart and mind are not of the right perspective to do the job properly.

Thankfully, most religious people who go into science have a positive attitude about and understanding of science, and they do fine work. That's not what is being discussed here. But unfortunately there's a small subset of the faithful who become real cranks on the subjects of geology or evolution or other types of science, and are unable to accept the fundamental principles of those fields. The point is that such people are not suited for careers in the sciences which involve those fields.

[Dan Day]

NO, one does not have to be an evolutionist to understand this! Most all creationists believe in evolution within the species...

I'm not sure that "most" is a fair assessment of the number. I've encountered far too many creationists who deny even that.

Even the ones who do accept it have mental blocks against evolution in larger forms, although they have trouble agreeing on *what* amount of evolution is allegedly impossible.

But the point is that a full understanding of the biological sciences requires far more than just an understanding and acceptance of "microevolution" -- evolution of all types bears heavily on almost every aspect of the biological sciences.

[Alamo-Girl]

LOL! No problem! I understand. Hugs!

[Alamo-Girl]

There has been something eating at me all day in discussing the legal issues involved in this case. I’ve finally figured it out!

Dini didn’t make a blind requirement for students, he actually singled out to bait the very ones he targeted for discrimination. Here’s how from his website.

If you set up an appointment to discuss the writing of a letter of recommendation, I will ask you: "How do you think the human species originated?" If you cannot truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation for admittance to further education in the biomedical sciences….

This [malpractice regarding the method of science] 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.

An analogy would be human resources asking a person if they are Hispanic in order to disqualify them from employment.

Another analogy would be caesar saying “If you don’t worship me as your god, you will be fed to the lions” and then asking “who is your god?”

Now compare Dini’s statements to yours at post 604:

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.

By way of analogy, it's the difference between a policy that says "Only Asian-Americans will be admitted to this medical school" and a policy that says "Only applicants with a 4.0 GPA and perfect MCAT scores will be admitted to this medical school." The first policy is illegal and unconstitutional, obviously. But the second policy is perfectly legal and Constitutional, even if it has exactly the same practical effect as the first policy, and results in only Asian-American students being admitted to that medical school.

Policy one: "Christian students must affirm the truth of the doctrine of evolution in order to obtain a letter of recommendation."

Policy two: "All students must affirm the truth of the doctrine of evolution in order to obtain a letter of recommendation."

The law says there's a difference between one and two. Opinions will vary, but at the end of the day, it's the law that matters.

Indeed, it is the law that matters!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

It does not blame the "whole community", it says that it has not been "fully accepted", meaning that some subset of the whole is resisting a more careful use of antibiotics. Guess which subgroup is more likely to deny the problems of forcing pathogens to evolve?

Do you have a source for your implication? A study of the religious beliefs of the physicians v the antibiotics prescribed per patient per diagnosis?

I've met anti-evolutionists, including a Freeper on a recent thread, who flatly denied (he termed it "absolute garbage") the well-established fact that bacteria mutate and evolve resistances to antibiotics (and demonstrating this is done on a regular basis in simple lab experiments). He denied it apparently simply on the grounds that, he believed, even such "microevolution" is impossible, and therefore any resistant bacteria had to be present in the original sample (even though the aforementioned lab experiments flatly disprove this).

I was robbed at gun point by two black teenagers. Does that mean that every group of two black teenagers will rob me at gun point?

A dogmatic anti-evolutionary stance is an anti-scientific stance -- it's the mark of a person who allows his faith-based (not necessarily religious) beliefs to override his ability to accept (and to outright deny) experimental findings and well-established evidence.

Do you have a source for this allegation. A study of religious beliefs v scientific contributions?

Thankfully, most religious people who go into science have a positive attitude about and understanding of science, and they do fine work. That's not what is being discussed here. But unfortunately there's a small subset of the faithful who become real cranks on the subjects of geology or evolution or other types of science, and are unable to accept the fundamental principles of those fields. The point is that such people are not suited for careers in the sciences which involve those fields.

Freedom of religion and equal protection under the law are guaranteed by the Constitution. There are Federal criminal statutes for discrimination based on religion. Federal and state law expressly prohibits discrimination based on religion. How do you justify your position under the law?

[Dan Day]

First, is there any particular reason you respond twice in two different ways to almost every post of mine? How about getting your thoughts in order first and responding all at once?

You indeed appear to be adamant in your determination that you won't even seek a plausible way that the water really is water and then proceed on that hypothesis. Instead you just throw up objections that even a minute's mature considered thought can address, as has been demonstrated on this board time and time again. And then you blame the messenger for pointing this out. There are big issues and debates in Bible scholarship, but your kind of petty complaints don't even come close.

Fascinating -- change "Bible scholarship" to "evolutionary science", and that's a *perfect* description of creationists' failures on these threads when it comes to understanding the field they rail against.

As for Bible scholarship, I've spent more years examining it than you'll ever believe -- perhaps more than you have. The difference is that I'm not trying to "disprove" the Bible, I'm just pointing out that the ultra-literalists have a real problem, because in order to "reconcile" the Bible one has to apply interpretation to it, and that's a fallible human issue. But I already made this point earlier, it appears you didn't give it enough attention.

[NO clarification follows]

You had already bid me goodbye, I saw no point in trying to clarify things for you any further. I did, however, want to point out to other readers that your mischaracterization of my comments was not what I actually said -- and I trust they can compare for themselves and see the difference.

"Did not!" "Did too!"

Just how old are you?

If I am headed to heaven, your good bye means you're headed to...

Wow, the self-righteous arrogant smugness of this statement is absolutely breathtaking -- not to mention the fact that you seem to take a very unchristianlike satisfaction in declaring that I'm bound for Hell. How gleefully vengeful of you.

On that note, I'll bid you farewell (and believe me, I'll not waste any more time on you) with:

Those people who tell me that I'm going to hell while they are going to heaven somehow make me very glad that we're going to separate destinations. -- Martin Terman

[Dan Day]

I was robbed at gun point by two black teenagers. Does that mean that every group of two black teenagers will rob me at gun point?

Of course not. But I was not speaking of a single sample (although I used one as a specific instructive example), I've spoken with literally hundreds of anti-evolutionists through the past several decades. I have a good overview of the ranges and types of their beliefs.

A dogmatic anti-evolutionary stance is an anti-scientific stance -- it's the mark of a person who allows his faith-based (not necessarily religious) beliefs to override his ability to accept (and to outright deny) experimental findings and well-established evidence.

Do you have a source for this allegation.

Absolutely -- decades of experience with anti-evolutionists.

A study of religious beliefs v scientific contributions?

Don't change the subject. I've already stated that a "religious belief" in general is not incompatible with good science. That's not what I'm talking about when I speak of those with a "dogmatic anti-evolutionary stance".

And on *that* subject, yes, I've seen first-hand the scientific incompetence of such people.

"The Germans who poisoned the wells and springs of northern France and Belgium and fed little children poisoned candy were angels compared to the teachers, paid by our taxes, who feed our children's minds with the deadly, soul-destroying poison of Evolution....Evolution and the teaching of Evolution in tax-supported schools is the greatest curse that ever fell upon this earth." -- T. T. Martin, "Hell and the High Schools"

Freedom of religion and equal protection under the law are guaranteed by the Constitution. There are Federal criminal statutes for discrimination based on religion. Federal and state law expressly prohibits discrimination based on religion. How do you justify your position under the law?

I'll let H. L. Mencken respond to that one, since he did it so much more eloquently than I could. Note, by the way, that this passage is part of his first-hand coverage of the "Scopes Monkey Trial", wherein a school teacher was on trial for teaching evolution (gasp), and Mencken was writing specifically of using religion as an excuse to reject the findings of science:

The meaning of religious freedom, I fear, is sometimes greatly misapprehended. It is taken to be a sort of immunity, not merely from governmental control but also from public opinion. A dunderhead gets himself a long-tailed coat, rises behind the sacred desk, and emits such bilge as would gag a Hottentot. Is it to pass unchallenged? If so, then what we have is not religious freedom at all, but the most intolerable and outrageous variety of religious despotism. Any fool, once he is admitted to holy orders, becomes infallible. Any half-wit, by the simple device of ascribing his delusions to revelation, takes on an authority that is denied to all the rest of us.

I do not know how many Americans entertain the ideas defended so ineptly by poor Bryan, but probably the number is very large. They are preached once a week in at least a hundred thousand rural churches, and they are heard too in the meaner quarters of the great cities. Nevertheless, though they are thus held to be sound by millions, these ideas remain mere rubbish. Not only are they not supported by the known facts; they are in direct contravention of the known facts. No man whose information is sound and whose mind functions normally can conceivably credit them. They are the products of ignorance and stupidity, either or both.

-- H. L. Mencken, "Aftermath", The Baltimore Evening Sun, September 14, 1925

[HiTech RedNeck]

This post of yours shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are bent on one main thing: mocking.

[PatrickHenry]

A dunderhead gets himself a long-tailed coat, rises behind the sacred desk, and emits such bilge as would gag a Hottentot. Is it to pass unchallenged?

Beautiful.

[Always Right]

You cannot simultainously hold anything above question and claim the title 'scientist'.

All scientists have their own paradigms that limit them. Western Medicine is too deeply involved in using drugs in covering up symptoms more than actually curing the real problems. I find there are too many scientists that do not questions the established 'facts', with a prime example of those studying things such as global warming. There have been many great contributions to science and medicine by people who believe in creation, and to try to exclude them all is ignorant and bigoted.

[Always Right]

Of course not. But I was not speaking of a single sample (although I used one as a specific instructive example), I've spoken with literally hundreds of anti-evolutionists through the past several decades. I have a good overview of the ranges and types of their beliefs.

So does every bigot.

[general_re]

The reporter doesn't mention the condescension of the words he used, “malpractice, “cherished belief.”

Condescension is neither a crime nor a tort, fortunately for some of us ;)

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.

"Students who deny the evolution of humans" do not comprise a protected class under the law, and may be freely discriminated against. Game, set, match, A-G.

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.

Or even other religions, or no religion at all. You understand perfectly. This is why it is a perfectly neutral policy - it does not single out a protected class for special treatment.

You have to come to grips with the fact that the set of Biblical literalists and the set of Christians are not one and the same. Not even close. Many Christians are perfectly happy to accept the theory of evolution, and would be perfectly capable of truthfully affirming such to Dini, whereupon they would be issued a letter of recommendation - assuming they met the other criteria, of course. Therefore, since there are many Christians who can easily qualify for a letter, the policy is clearly not discriminatory WRT Christians. If it were, no Christians would be able to receive a letter from Dini.

[general_re]

Dini didn’t make a blind requirement for students, he actually singled out to bait the very ones he targeted for discrimination.

Unfortunately for this thesis, Dini failed to specify exactly what sorts of "cherished beliefs" he was interested in snubbing. Presumably, if a student presented with the "cherished belief" that the world was the vomitus of Raven, and humans a particular creation of Raven, rather than having evolved, Dini would also deny that student a letter. Presumably, if a Satanist came forth to insist upon his "cherished belief" that all humans were the literal spawn of Satan, rather than having evolved, Dini would also deny that student a letter.

Of course, there is still a difference between those hypothetical students and this actual Christian student. The hypothetical Native American student can probably expect no help from the Liberty Legal Foundation or the Eagle Forum. And otherwise well-meaning freepers would probably not feel particularly compelled to step up and defend the "religious freedom" of the Satanist. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that if this kid were actually a Satanist who denied evolution, these threads and this extensive discussion of this affair would simply not exist on Free Republic.

And you can bank on it. But don't take my word for it. One, two, three, four threads about Wiccans right here on FR. See how many people who have been defending Spradling's religious beliefs right here on this very thread you can spot attacking the religious beliefs of Wiccans. I won't name names, but I've got two - maybe you can pick out a few more. Ask yourself how deep this noble commitment to the principle of religious freedom really runs. Ask yourself why it is that on those threads, it's almost never the fundies who step up to defend "religious freedom" in those cases - that thankless task appears to be left to the libertarians, of all people....

[Nebullis]

No researcher is going to pick a student who thinks the main efforts of the lab are all a big joke.

A-G: How would you know if the student never mentions it?

I suppose Pinocchio wouldn't have to mention his nose in an interview, but, by the end of a trial rotation in the research lab, that nose would prevent him from getting through doorways.

[HumanaeVitae]

Sorry I haven't gotten back to you sooner. I knew this would be a 500+ post thread, like all crevo threads. I'll have to read through it before I post my response to you. I'll try to keep it to one post.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

"Students who deny the evolution of humans" do not comprise a protected class under the law, and may be freely discriminated against. Game, set, match, A-G.

But that’s not what I said. In fact, ”students who deny the evolution of humans because it ‘seems’ to contradict his/her cherished beliefs” are a protected class under the law, and may not be discriminated against. Game, set, match, G-E!

Without regard to any of the statutes forbidding discrimination based on religion – and looking only at the first and fourteen amendment – Dini’s requirements coerce a student so situated to disavow their religious beliefs to continue on into medicine.

Braunfeld v Brown

Certain aspects of religious exercise cannot, in any way, be restricted or burdened by either federal or state legislation. Compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship is strictly forbidden. The freedom to hold religious beliefs and opinions is absolute. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 ; Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 166 . Thus, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 , this Court held that state action compelling school children to salute the flag, on pain of expulsion from public school, was contrary to the First and Fourteenth Amendments when applied to those students whose religious beliefs forbade saluting a flag. But this is not the case at bar; the statute before us does not make criminal the holding of any religious belief or opinion, nor does it force anyone to embrace any religious belief or to say or believe anything in conflict with his religious tenets.

Cantwell v Connecticut

The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. On the one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts,-freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the [310 U.S. 296, 304] second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society. 4 The freedom to act must have appropriate definition to preserve the enforcement of that protection. In every case the power to regulate must be so exercised as not, in attaining a permissible end, unduly to infringe the protected freedom.

Discussion

In 1802, President Jefferson wrote a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, in which he declared that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to build ''a wall of separation between Church and State.'' 15 In Reynolds v. United States, 16 Chief Justice Waite for the Court characterized the phrase as ''almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.'' In its first encounters with religion-based challenges to state programs, the Court looked to Jefferson's metaphor for substantial guidance. 17 But a metaphor may obscure as well as illuminate, and the Court soon began to emphasize neutrality and voluntarism as the standard of restraint on governmental action. 18 The concept of neutrality itself is ''a coat of many colors,'' 19 and three standards that could be stated in objective fashion emerged as tests of Establishment Clause validity. The first two standards were part of the same formulation. ''The test may be stated as follows: what are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution. That is to say that to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.'' 20 The third test is whether the governmental program results in ''an excessive government entanglement with religion. The test is inescapably one of degree . . . [T]he questions are whether the involvement is excessive, and whether it is a continuing one calling for official and continuing surveillance leading to an impermissible degree of entanglement.'' 21 In 1971 these three tests were combined and restated in Chief Justice Burger's opinion for the Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 22 and are frequently referred to by reference to that case name.

Although at one time accepted in principle by all of the Justices, 23 the tests have sometimes been difficult to apply, 24 have recently come under direct attack by some Justices, 25 and with increasing frequency have not been applied at all by the Court. 26 While continued application is uncertain, the Lemon tests nonetheless have served for twenty years as the standard measure of Establishment Clause validity and explain most of the Court's decisions in the area. 27 As of the end of the Court's 1991-92 Term, there was not yet a consensus among Lemon critics as to what substitute test should be favored. 28 Reliance on ''coercion'' for that purpose would eliminate a principal distinction between establishment cases and free exercise cases and render the Establishment Clause largely duplicative of the Free Exercise Clause. 29

Or even other religions, or no religion at all. You understand perfectly. This is why it is a perfectly neutral policy - it does not single out a protected class for special treatment.

I disagree. Dini specifically used the term cherished beliefs and qualified it further as to those who do not believe in human evolution. Worse, he set the trap to identify the very ones he chooses to discriminate against, by asking this question first: "How do you think the human species originated?" If you cannot truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation for admittance to further education in the biomedical sciences.”

He is asking the student for a profession of faith – that the student believes in science over his own “cherished beliefs.” This is not unlike Caesar warning that he will fed to the lions any who don’t worship him and then asking “Who is your God?” That is coercion and it is unconstitutional.

You have to come to grips with the fact that the set of Biblical literalists and the set of Christians are not one and the same.

Dini didn’t make a blind requirement for students, he actually singled out to bait the very ones he targeted for discrimination.

You are the one demanding that Dini name a religious denomination - the above Supreme Court cases refer to “religious beliefs.”

Ask yourself why it is that on those threads, it's almost never the fundies who step up to defend "religious freedom" in those cases - that thankless task appears to be left to the libertarians, of all people.

You have never seen me allege that Federal law does not apply equally to all citizens of the United States! And you never will.