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.

[Nebullis]

That's why students go to professors they get along with.

Exactly. And this professor is upfront about his policy. He's not denying any students an opportunity for future studies.

[MEGoody]

"The professor isn't telling them to change their personal beliefs."

Actually, when this first surfaced (and this still appears to be the case), the prof WAS requiring the students to say they BELIEVED in evolution. If they do not believe in it, then yes, he is requiring them to change their beliefs in order to get a letter from him.

It is one thing to require the students to be able to receive good grades and so forth. It's a whole other thing for this prof to be even ASKING about what someone believes. It is not his place to ask.

[MEGoody]

"Science is not religion."

Define science.

It would seem to me that science is the study of the matter and energy based upon what is observed or can be tested/ repeated in a lab. Observations have been made of changes in bird beaks, and of one type of evening primrose turning into another type of evening primrose. It seems a huge jump to claim that a change in a bird beak means that all life evolved from some common ancestor.

[MEGoody]

"Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."

Such as natural selection. :)

[Doctor Stochastic]

There is nothing in the article that says the student even asked for a letter of recommendation.

[MEGoody]

"Prompted by a complaint from the Liberty Legal Institute, a group of Christian lawyers. . ."

These are undoubtedly the individuals who asked Spradlin to be the 'subject' of the lawsuit and will foot all the bills. This is nothing new. The American Atheists (as well as other groups) do this kind of thing all the time - find a 'victim' and file a lawsuit.

[kittymyrib]

Fine to you, but not for the student who has to "truthfully and forthrightly" tell the professor what he wants to hear. Why is the professor's right not to be compelled greater than the student's right not to be compelled, particularly since he is helping to pay the professor who is discriminating against him? I certainly don't blame this student who didn't want to waste his time and his money dealing with a professor who was prejudiced against him.

[MEGoody]

"A rational judge would order these lawyers to write "My Client Does Not Have A RIGHT To A Recommendation Letter" one thousand times."

You missed the point. In order to get into medical school, such a letter is required. I'd say, a good student actually DOES have a right to a letter of recommendation. Otherwise, the rules for entering medical school need to be changed so that such things are not required.

[Catspaw]

I hope Spradling understands that if he loses that he, not the law firm, will be responsible for all legal fees if he loses and the university and the professor asks the judge to assign them. He's really exposing himself to financial disaster.

[Nebullis]

You seem to be completely blind to a reversal of fortune for a student who runs into a fundamentalist evangelical professor.

Because of the voluntary nature of letters of recommendation this is likely a freedom of association issue.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I say you are cynical. Or maybe better, felical. Meow.

[HiTech RedNeck]

They can indemnify (so tremble! the creationist inquisition is after you!)

[MEGoody]

Once again, Spradling is not 'exposed to financial disaster' as you claim. The groups previously mentioned will be footing the bill.

[stuartcr]

This professor probably has a good reputation, but is hard to get an A from, as indicated by his requirements. I think the kid is trying to get a freebie recommendation.

[Nebullis]

Next up: Peer review. Creationists claim they are being discriminated against for religious reasons when their papers showing evidence of a world-wide flood are rejected by mainstream journals. Should reviewers be allowed to reject submissions based on bad science?

[Catspaw]

"Footing the bill" for the lawsuit is not the same as having costs and fees (including legal fees) assigned if he loses. "Footing the bill" means they'll pay for the filing fee, service fees, depositions, and other costs (postage, copying, legal fees from the law firm who's representing him) directly related to the law suit. Unless he's going it spelled out in writing that the law firm will pay any costs and fees assigned by a judge if he loses the law suit, he and not the law firm are liable.

[HumanaeVitae]

It's amazing that none of the 'rationalists' on this thread have noticed the glaring flaw in their logic here:

Faith in God is just that, Faith. It is not something that can be proved by regression analysis, slide rulers and so forth (although the Shroud of Turin has yet to be explained by you people). And because Faith is not empirically provable, it is derided and disregarded as 'superstition' by the pro-evolutionists on this thread.

Evolution's great conceit is that it is scientifically valid; it can be tested to be true. Scientifically valid things expose themselves to 'falsifiability', or rigorous testing which may eventually show whatever doctrine is being tested to be false.

The good professor in this article seems to want to have it both ways: evolution is superior to teleolgy (the design argument) because it is scientifically provable, i.e. it is falsifiable. But if you want to gain the skills necessary to be able to potentially falsify the doctrine of evolution, he stops you from doing so. In other words, evolution is superior to creationism because it's scientifically valid; but if you want to use the scientific method to test evolution--and thus challenge it's valitity--we're going to stop you because we know it's true, and it doesn't need to be tested.

Imagine a university professor denying a Ph.D. to Einstein because Einstein thought Newtonian physics to be flawed and incomplete. And considering Einstein's theory on the speed of light being constant was recently very seriously challenged, should the American University system have denied graduate study to Einstein skeptics?

Which doctrine is more faith-based, I wonder?

[Catspaw]

In order to get the freebie recommendation, he would've had to have taken the course in the first place and had gotten an A. I can't imagine going to a prof for a letter of recommendation if I hadn't taken the course.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

Because of the voluntary nature of letters of recommendation this is likely a freedom of association issue.

The complaint was filed by the law firm to the Department of Justice. The term complaint is usually associated with criminal misconduct (e.g. violation of civil right) though, presumably, it could be a violation of a civil statute, like terms of funding.

My point is that the complaint was not brought by the professor nor was it brought ignorant of federal law.

IMHO, the free association defense will not work if the DoJ finds there is probable cause for a criminal violation of civil right - point being whether the professor denied the student a right under the law because of the student's religious beliefs.

If it were a race issue, it would be more clear.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Evolution's great conceit is that it is scientifically valid; it can be tested to be true.

And Religion's great conceit is that cannot be tested?