Posted on 02/03/2003 3:53:13 AM PST by kattracks
It's not at all clear that there is coercion to disallow a religious belief, discrimination based on religion, or probable cause here. The only involvement of the Justice Department here is reviewing a complaint letter from a legal advocacy group; the DOJ hasn't said yet if they have found any basis for going forward. I think they won't.
In your original question, you described the imaginary racist student as follows:
If a student says to this professor that he denies evolution because it contradicts his cherished belief that white people are the master race specially created by God to enslave all others, is that student a member of the protected class? If not, why not?
That is a fair description of those who believe like the Christian Identity aka Aryan Nations aka Phineas Priests et al.
Even their beliefs (repugnant as they are to me) are constitutionally protected. They still hold their services and their rallies and the government cannot stop them simply because of what they believe.
If Dini had a student who was a Phineas Priest, he could not demand that the student disavow his beliefs to qualify for his recommendation. That would be an illegal coercion and discrimination per se.
Either refuse the recommendation and get sued by the racist, or write the recommendation (thereby endorsing racism) and get sued by another and equally offended protected class.
The professor could not be sued as you suggest - for permitting free expression of religion is not an endorsement of any religion being freely expressed. Otherwise the entire first amendment would make no sense because the government would be establishing a religion it permits to be freely excercised:
The only involvement of the Justice Department here is reviewing a complaint letter from a legal advocacy group; the DOJ hasn't said yet if they have found any basis for going forward. I think they won't.
I don't know whether the DOJ will prosecute or even if the student will. I wish neither would because I think it ought to be handled as a wrist slap and the kid should stand down on Scriptural basis (I Cor 6:1-8)
But, if it does go to trial, I expect them to win and have a standing bet with Nebullis for chocolates and with general_re for a seafood dinner.
It's not at all clear that there is coercion to disallow a religious belief, discrimination based on religion, or probable cause here.
I imagine the Department of Justice is evaluating the merits at this time. Seems to me the lawfirm involved wants a landmark case to litigate. I would think they could find something stronger than this. But if either party goes to court, I expect it to be after careful consideration and therefore, IMHO - they'll win.
Inapplicable on its face, because this is the unilateral action of one professor, not a "conspiracy" of "two or more persons." Also, the Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase "injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate" to mean only physical violence or legal coercion; mere "psychological coercion" isn't covered. See, e.g., United States v. Kosminski, 487 U.S. 931, 944 (1988).
United States Code, Title 18, Criminal Code Part I, Chapter 13 Civil Rights, Section 245 Protected Activities
Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with …any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin and because he is or has been - (A) enrolling in or attending any public school or public college; …
On its face, this statute requires "force or threat of force." This means physical violence or the threat of physical violence; even having someone arrested and prosecuted in state court isn't covered. Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 223-27 (1975).
Beyond these specific points, there is an overriding principle that, because criminal prosecution requires mens rea (criminal intent), a criminal civil rights prosecution can be used only where the violation of rights is obvious and clear-cut; close, debatable cases are relegated to civil enforcement. The leading case is Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 921 (1945).
I have a meeting in 20 minutes so I'll be brief and give a few reasons why the earth is young:
Because the growth of coral reefs has been measured, no coral formaton need be over 3400 years old
The same with stalagmites and stalactites Radiometric contradictions abound, making it unreliable.
The geologic column exists only in text books. If the earth's layers were formed over millions of years, they should be relatively consistent everywhere.
Human artifacts have been found in layers dating back millions of years.
Human footprints dating back 150 million to 600 million years ago have been found in Utah, Kentucky, Missouri, possibly PA and TX.
Radioactive decay of only uranium and thorium would produce all the atmosphere's He in only 40k years. The atmosphere has not yet stabilized.
Lead diffuses from zircon crystals at a known rate. The rate increases with temperature. Greater depths and temps should reveal less pb in the crystals. If the earth were even a fraction of the supposed geologic age, we should be able to measure a difference in the crystals found in the first 2 miles of the earth's crust. Instead, no measurable difference is found between the crystals near the surface and the crystals deep in the hot earth.
Since you claim to be familiar with the oil drilling business, you may know that gas, oil and water are trapped in relatively permeable rock. The pressure disappears somewhere between 10k and 100k years. There is no possible way for the oil to be trapped for 50 million years.I am talking about serious men (often Christian men) who raise their families based on tests which tell them where the oil, gold, copper, uranium might be due to geological movements of millions of years.
Volcanoes belch a cubic mile of debris into the atmosphere each year. If the earth is 4.6 billion years old, about 10x the earth's volume should have been put into the atmosphere and that's at current rates. Evos claim that volcanic activity was higher in the past.
The rate of continental erosion indicates a young earth.
River sediment transport indicates a young earth
The rate of accumulation of minerals and salts in the ocean indicates a young earth.
Meteorite material is found in relatively shallow earth.
Meteoric dust accumulation indicates a young earth.
The rate of decay of the earth's magnetic fields indicates a young earth.
The rate of cooling of the earth indicates a young earth.
The rate of recession of the moon indicates a young earth.
The accumulation of dust on the moon indicates a young moon.
There are many more reasons such as OOP artifacts but I'm late for the meeting.
87 posted on 02/02/2003 3:33 PM PST by Dataman
.. .. .. 'lifted' (( link )) !
The Supreme Court of Illinois disagrees with you. There was a case very recently (a year or two ago? I don't have the citation) in which a student graduated from law school, passed the Illinois bar exam, and said he was willing to take the required oath (to uphold the U.S. and Illinois Constitutions), but was denied a license to practice law because he was a member of the World Church of the Creator, which teaches that black people are subhuman.
The illinois courts, all the way up to the Illinois Supreme Court, held that he had an absolute first amendment right to hold his views, but did not have a right to get a law license if his beliefs gave the bar authorities reasonable grounds to suspect he would not act properly as an attorney (his protestaions that he would not let his racial beliefs interfere with his duties as a lawyer notwithstanding). The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
Personally, I think that case was wrongly decided, but it goes to my point above that there is no way Dini's acts are a clear-cut or per se civil rights violation.
Thank you also for bringing up mens rea. That alone may keep it out of the criminal arena and push it to the civil side. Whereas I can see there was no doubt Dini intended to keep students harboring targeted religious beliefs out of medical school, I doubt it could be proven that he intended to injure the student - financially, emotionally or mentally.
As to the conspiracy requirement of Section 241, I didn't think there was anything there either until a previous Associated Press article mentioned that Texas Tech endorsed the professor's requirements.
You can make a good case that this individual could not lawful perform his job since racial discrimination is against the law. I think Dini's opinion (that a person who is skeptical of the theory of evolution is unable to perform in the field of medicine) is a much tougher sell, and falls short of offering a compelling reason to allow such discrimination.
Indeed, one of the possible unintended consequences of prosecuting this matter is that creationists may be forever barred from practicing medicine.
Another possible unintended consequence is that religious institutions could not refuse to hire a person for his atheist beliefs (a situation already heating up in Europe.) The theory in that instance is that tax exemption equates to public funding.
If the lawfirm wants to press religious discrimination with all the vigor of racial discrimination - they had best buckle up IMHO.
Notwithstanding all those cautions, this case, if tried, will be brought under the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals which is notoriously conservative. So I stand by my chocolate and dinner "bet" that if tried, the US or the student will prevail.
If Dini just signs the recommendation as an individual, you might have a point there. But I am certain Dini uses his title as such and such professor at Texas Tech and can't be just passed off as some personal opinion, but as an authority from the university.
A letter of recommendation is not a right like the freedom of religion is a right! The professor could no doubt find some non-discriminatory, objective reason to decline the letter of recommendation to a student he wasn't comfortable with for any reason as long as he didn't articulate his discriminatory motives.
And in this case, Dini could have declined to recommend students with creationist views for some non-discriminatory, objective reason. But when Dini posted on his website that he specifically has targeted them, that they are guilty of malpractice for holding their views, that he will demand - first off, right out of the chute - a profession of faith in the theory of human evolution, even though it requires they disavow their cherished beliefs ..... he has exposed himself to charges of discrimination!
It would have been so much easier if he had simply said that he will require a comprehensive understanding of human evolution and must feel personally comfortable with the student before recommending him. What hurts Dini is Dini's own words!
With the above ruling in Illinois and the hate crimes legislation, this country is moving closer to making thoughts themselves actionable. This professor is doing the same thing, he would like creationism thoughts to bar anyone from the pratice of medicine.
It's time to choose which way we want this country to turn. I say, back to Constitution - "we may not agree with your beliefs, but we will support your right to have them."
if you don't want your brain/family sterilized---
the shield between state and TALIBAN--religion(evolution/atheism) is gone...
this is... chernobyl---radiation poisoning...
NUCLEAR SOCIAL----ALIEN ANTARTICA // EVO -- AMERICA ! !
Employers get sued all the time for giving opinions of ex-employees. I kind of doubt that policy will protect the university or the professor, even more so that the univerisity is backing the professor on this.
This is not what his website says. You should at least quote his own words, not try to twist them.
I am sorry A-G, but you are simply wrong here. "Students who deny the evolution of humans because it ‘seems’ to contradict his/her cherished beliefs" are not a sect, an ethnicity, a gender, or any other protected class or classes. You admitted as much yourself when you stated that it was impossible to answer the question of which religion was being discriminated against, since those denied letters are drawn from many different religious creeds.
Which religion is being discriminated against, A-G? Which specific protected class do people who are denied letters belong to?
Braunfeld v Brown...Cantwell v Connecticut
A case from 1961, and a case from 1940? Nothing like a few recent precedents, eh?
Dini specifically used the term cherished beliefs and qualified it further as to those who do not believe in human evolution.
A "cherished belief" in the denial of evolution does not comprise a protected class. I don't really know how else to say it.
You are the one demanding that Dini name a religious denomination - the above Supreme Court cases refer to “religious beliefs.”
Yes, the particular beliefs of a particular sect or denomination. Cantwell dealt with the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses - specifically a belief held by all members of that protected class. Braunfeld dealt with the beliefs of Orthodox Jews - specifically, a belief held by all members of that protected class.
Simply declaring that a particular belief is a religious matter does not make these cases applicable, A-G. Even if I really and sincerely believe that recycling is a violation of my "cherished beliefs", and violates the tenets of my particular belief, that doesn't absolve me of the responsibility for recycling under the law. But that's precisely what you're proposing, A-G - anyone can escape any sort of negative consequence they like, simply by declaring their heartfelt opinion that whetever it is, it violates their "cherished beliefs", no matter whether that "cherished belief" actually maps to an entire protected class or not.
Well, okay. I don't think you'll care for the consequences of that sort of reasoning, but who am I to argue? This has great potential for me to benefit, I think.
You have never seen me allege that Federal law does not apply equally to all citizens of the United States! And you never will.
So I note. Would that others were as generous as you ;)
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.