Replies

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

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!

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.