Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Professor's Snub of Creationists Prompts U.S. Inquiry
New York Times ^ | 2/02/03 | NICK MADIGAN

Posted on 02/03/2003 3:53:13 AM PST by kattracks


LUBBOCK, 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.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 1,201-1,202 next last
To: kattracks
The central question that is not being discussed is the question posed by the professor:

"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?"

I think we need a better definition of "properly practice" since I personally know people in the science and education fields that are at least successfully practicing while not accepting this most important theory.

201 posted on 02/03/2003 12:25:23 PM PST by tobiasjodter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Under the Radar
Thank you for your post and for sharing your views!

However this will turn will depend on who is doing the prosecuting (the student or the DOJ) and whether it is civil or criminal in nature.

If it is a civil matter with the student bringing a case, he will have to establish damages and the state (representing the professor) will have to establish a compelling interest of so great an importance as to override the student's first and fourteenth amendment rights. I believe the student would prevail.

If it is a DOJ criminal case against the professor, all the rules change and the professor must show that he did not discriminate against students for their religious beliefs. Again, I would say the DOJ would prevail.

It could be brought on both sides simultaneously. So, all in all, this will be interesting to watch!

202 posted on 02/03/2003 12:29:30 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Under the Radar
Is a complete sentence // thought for you only evolution lies ?
203 posted on 02/03/2003 12:31:16 PM PST by f.Christian (( Orcs of the world : : : Take note and beware. ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
Thank you for your post!

I'm counting my money already.

LOL! Actually though there have been shocking jury awards for something as minor as finding a Penthouse magazine in the pilot's cabin.

204 posted on 02/03/2003 12:32:41 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
If it is a DOJ criminal case against the professor, all the rules change and the professor must show that he did not discriminate against students for their religious beliefs.

Oh, good Lord, so he has to prove himself innocent. I'm moving to Iran, so I can get a fair trial.

205 posted on 02/03/2003 12:33:31 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Under the Radar
utr...

I need verbs, perhaps, or an adjective or two. It must be my lack of faith.

fC...


Originally (( adverb )) the word (( adjectives )) liberal (( subject )) meant (( verb )) social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change

Lack of thinking // HONESTY ! !


206 posted on 02/03/2003 12:33:44 PM PST by f.Christian (( Orcs of the world : : : Take note and beware. ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
LOL! Actually though there have been shocking jury awards for something as minor as finding a Penthouse magazine in the pilot's cabin.

The can of worms this case will open if the student prevails will make a lot of people extremely rich. With luck, I'll be one of them :-))

207 posted on 02/03/2003 12:35:57 PM PST by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Oh, good Lord, so he has to prove himself innocent.

Isn't that the usual Democrat tactic? Don't we all remember the "investigation" of the October Surprise that went on forever until Bush (I) had to prove he hadn't flown to Paris in an SR-71 on the eve of the election? BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA.

208 posted on 02/03/2003 12:38:33 PM PST by balrog666 (If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything - Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
With regard to legal precedent, we might first turn to the Supreme Court decision in Thomas v. Review Board.

That case is a far-fetched association for this situation. You haven't even shown that affirmation of a scientific theory is a burden upon religious freedom.

Professional favors can't be compelled.

209 posted on 02/03/2003 12:42:21 PM PST by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Indeed, it does seem rather one-sided.

Even more one sided is the requirement that you fully accept something you do not believe(which may also be correct) in order to be considered a scientist. Einstein did not "believe" in certain aspects of physics -- "God does not play dice". I guess he should not have received a letter of recommendation until he set his mind right.

210 posted on 02/03/2003 12:42:29 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
It seems to me that the "intolerate" ones are the fundamentalist evolutionists on this board. Just "listen" to their comments.
While I happen to agree that the earth is more than 6,000 years old, I do believe in intelligent design.
211 posted on 02/03/2003 12:43:14 PM PST by BnBlFlag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Isn't that the usual Democrat tactic?

On advice of counsel, I decline to answer on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me.

212 posted on 02/03/2003 12:44:25 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
The student will not get the chance to establish damages, as he has no standing to sue at this point. Therefore there will be no civil suit.

I must admit I am appalled at how breezy you are that the federal government may get involved in this as a criminal matter. I wonder how copacetic you will be the next time a Democrat is in charge, and things don't go your way.

213 posted on 02/03/2003 12:49:06 PM PST by Under the Radar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
If things go crazy and the professor is ordered to give a letter of recommendation, he can just write a one-line letter saying: "I recommend this student in accordance with the enclosed mandate," and then attach a copy of the federal order. Everyone will understand.

Were you ever in the armed services? Yup. Get a stupid order, go through the specified motions.

214 posted on 02/03/2003 12:49:49 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor; Under the Radar
Thank y'all for the posts! Since you both raise the same issue... Indeed, there are two reasons I suspect the DOJ may be investigating this as a criminal matter.

The first is that the lawfirm filed a complaint - a word generally used for raising probable cause issues.

The second is that discrimination (the term used in the article) can be prosecuted under Title 18 (criminal federal law). Unless it were a conspiracy to violate civil rights, I don't believe the professor is facing any hard time. But if the courts find the practice unconstitutional, it could have far reaching ramifications in qualifying students for medical school, etc.

RWP, I don't believe the professor used a threat of physical force to intimidate the student. The threat was to "willfully interfere with" his enrolling in a public school, if he didn't disavow his religious beliefs.

215 posted on 02/03/2003 12:50:35 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Thank you for your post!

Oh, good Lord, so he has to prove himself innocent.

You are correct. The burden of proof is on the DOJ to show that the professor has discriminated against students on the basis of religion. The professor only has to defend himself against the charges.

216 posted on 02/03/2003 12:54:39 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
The first is that the lawfirm filed a complaint - a word generally used for raising probable cause issues.

You're getting ahead of yourself, A-Girl. Look at the DOJ website. A "complaint" in such cases consists of no more than a letter to the DOJ setting forth a gripe. No filing fee. No judges. The DOJ looks into it to see if there is anything there that they want to get involved in. In other words, there is technically no litigation, and no government activity being contemplated -- other than a review of the letter which the student's lawyers sent in. Not yet a big deal.

217 posted on 02/03/2003 12:55:39 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Preserve the purity of your precious bodily fluids!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
The threat was to "willfully interfere with" his enrolling in a public school, if he didn't disavow his religious beliefs.

This is wrong. The professor disqualified himself from participation. A willful interference would be something like a negative letter. (In this business, something less than glowing is not very positive.)

218 posted on 02/03/2003 12:56:00 PM PST by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
Thank you so much for your post!

The can of worms this case will open if the student prevails will make a lot of people extremely rich. With luck, I'll be one of them

I wish you all the best! But remember, this administration is pushing for tort reform and limitation of punitive damages will be on the menu - so you'll need to plead your case cautiously.

219 posted on 02/03/2003 12:56:21 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Under the Radar
If we want the courts to narrowly interpret the law, rather than rely on liberal judges who use a broad brush as this potential litigant is hoping, this lawsuit will be broomed out of court in a heartbeat. I find it more odd that conservatives are pushing perceived discrimination rather than actual discrimination to become case law without reflecting on the long-range implications this case.
220 posted on 02/03/2003 12:56:59 PM PST by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 1,201-1,202 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson