Replies

On the letterhead issue, I started out not thinking it was a big deal - but after running several searches found where it appears as evidence in a number of lawsuits. Not only that, but I also found government manuals that advised employees not to use letterhead because of legal implications. I also found something - not sure it it was a statute or a regulation - that said a letterhead is the same as a signature.

If you wish, I'll go find all those sources again. I didn't put the information here because the subject changed to immunity which I am still investigating.

Guards in a prison system tried the qualified immunity defense unsuccessfully. But in the past few years the Supreme Court has been ruling in favor of state's sovereign immunity (11th amendment.)

In any case, I don't think any claim of 11th amendment immunity would prevail over other constitutional claims. But I'm still checking.

So please let me know if you want the scoop on the letterhead. Hugs!

So please let me know if you want the scoop on the letterhead.

No need. The case won't hinge on the letterhead issue (and we don't know what letterhead Dini actually used). It's one of those factual details that the plaintiff will try to make into a smoking gun if it's present, but if it turns out that the professor used his own letterhead, the plaintiff will ignore it as being of no consequence.

The more significant issues, once the plaintiff gets past his "no standing" problems, are: (1) the role, if any, of such letters in the professor's official state-financed duties; (2) whether the professor's insistance on accepting evolution is commendable academic rigor, or actually constitutes a form of religious discrimination; and (3) notwithstanding the answer to #2, the professor's freedom to use such a criterion -- acceptance of human evolution -- as a factor in his decision to recommend a biology student. We've thrashed these points out before. If I see you across the barricades, I'll lean over and give you a smooch.

I think the fact that this is posted on his official university provided web page kind of makes the letterhead point mute. His Bio Page is kind of interesting. It states, "While at Notre Dame, I decided to end my 14-year stint with the religious order" which kind of flies in the face of everyone saying what a devote Catholic he is. It goes on to state "I am especially interested in improving education in high-enrollment biology courses, in the design of innovative investigative laboratories and in the "evolution versus creation" controversy." Here he admits there is a controversy and his recommendation policy is an obvious attempt to cleanse the debate.

To me this guy is such a clear cut bigot with a vendetta against creationist and is will to abuse his power to advance his agenda. I would be embarrassed if our legal system did not slap this guy around a little bit. Either get rid of the non-discrimination laws or apply them equally.