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]

So often, your links and quotes are irrelevant to your answers or to the topic, but they are still interesting! I admire Justice Scalia.

Are you saying that prioritizing or investigating a DOJ complaint, based on political or religious interest is breaking an oath of office?<

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your views!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

Are you saying that prioritizing or investigating a DOJ complaint, based on political or religious interest is breaking an oath of office?

It could be because whatever is in the oath of office is a solemn promise to God - if the person is a Christian. It's no small matter if you are Christian because you are asking God to hold you accountable – to guarantee your promise, i.e. the Christian invites disaster if he fails to carry out the oath.

Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. – Matthew 23:20-22

For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation [is] to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed [it] by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which [it was] impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: - Hebrews 6:13-18

So serious is an oath before God, that Christ says not to do it all:

But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. - Matthew 5:34-37 The last sentence observes that people make oaths because of the likelihood of disobedience in the first place. It should be enough to say “I won’t abuse the power of my office.” To say “I swear to God I will not abuse the power of my office” puts the Christian in grave jeopardy for disobedience because God is the enforcer.

[Nebullis]

Are you saying that prioritizing or investigating a DOJ complaint, based on political or religious interest is an abuse of power?

[realpatriot71]

It is legal to be a bigot, but not on state-funded time using state-funded web sites to promote his bigotry.

He's not promoting bigotry, merely stating he will not write a letter of recommendation. To promote bigotry would be to use the website to attack a religious or racial group for instance. He merely states he will not write a letter of of recommendation to anyone who does not believe in the "accepted" science on this subject. I disagree with the man, but I also support his right to not have to give a recommendation to anyone for any reason.

[Nebullis]

I don't think it is an abuse of power or breaking an oath of office. But I think the reason you are hedging this much is because you think the absolute merits of Micah's complaint is prompting an investigation, rather than the political or religious whims of this DOJ. If I'm right, we simply disagree.

[Alamo-Girl]

Are you saying that prioritizing or investigating a DOJ complaint, based on political or religious interest is an abuse of power?

In my opinion, yes it would be an abuse of power. Justice should be blind - both the Department of Justice and all the Judiciary. The proceedings, investigations, prosecutions should be based only on the law as it exists (like it or not.)

[general_re]

It doesn't matter. That's where the Supreme Court decision in Landgraf comes into play. Federal civil statutes cannot be applied retroactively without specificity by Congress.

In other words, and especially if this were a criminal matter and not a civil one (ex post facto) - the laws in force at the time of the alleged misconduct are the laws that will apply in court.

This is true, but not relevant to how the Court might rule on such issues in the future. First, the state of the (statute) law regarding the Establishment Clause and the First Amendment is essentially the same now as it was in 1981, when Thomas was decided - the only applicable legislative initiative in this area since Thomas was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which has already been struck down as unconstitutionally vague in the 1997 case of Boerne v. Flores, and the Religious Land Use Act does not seem applicable.

Interpretation of the law is guided by legal precedent. The precedent in this case would not favor Rehnquist's view when he dissented in Thomas v. Review Board.

Second, this does not implicate Landgraf in any way, shape, or form - the retroactivity requirement explicitly applies to statute law, not case law, else courts would never be able to overrule themselves at all. And it's a rather contentious assertion to begin with - see, e.g., Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith.

The only thing that can change this legal calculus is if the case at hand is appealed all the way to the Supreme Court and the court overrules itself. And that very, very rarely happens.

Essentially, this argument boils down to a tautology, claiming that the Supreme Court cannot overrule itself, unless it...overrules itself. While this is trivially true, as are all tautological statements, it does not illuminate the circumstances of such a decision, or tell us anything we didn't already know. When Rehnquist has clearly telegraphed his disagreement with Thomas in such plain and firm language as in his dissent (and such reasoning has already been adopted by the Court as per Smith), it is not particularly realistic, IMO, to believe that they will set such disagreement aside merely to remain consistent with the precedent set by Thomas.

[Always Right]

To promote bigotry would be to use the website to attack a religious or racial group for instance.

Saying that one is unfit to practice Biology if they do not accept the evolution of humans as fact is an attack. It is a kin to saying a person is unfit to practice Biology if they are Hispanic.

[Nebullis]

The proceedings, investigations, prosecutions should be based only on the law as it exists (like it or not.)

We agree to this straw man. However, prioritization of complaints and the decision to investigate are subjective and do not constitute an abuse of power.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

But I think the reason you are hedging this much is because you think the absolute merits of Micah's complaint is prompting an investigation, rather than the political or religious whims of this DOJ. If I'm right, we simply disagree.

If the DOJ is investigating this on a political or religious whim then it would be totally unacceptable to me. The DOJ should never again become the ideological sword and shield it was during the Clinton administration. That would be a bigger insult to the Constitution than discrimination!

[CCWoody]

Here, xzins, is the investigation to which I alluded.

[Always Right]

If something actually does come of this case, I have a lot of apologies to offer up to those I scoffed at who said that he was the wrong man for the job due to his fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

In my honest opinion this case is a slam dunk based on what the Professor has on his web site. Aschroft would be negligant if it were not pursued.

[realpatriot71]

Wether we like it or not evolution as a means to origins on this planet happens to be the accepted scientific theory. I agree with with you that one does not have to believe in evolution as a means to origins to be a good physician or for that matter a good biologist. In this case it's an academic thing, not a religious thing, although people who don't believe in evolution as a means or origins do so mostly for religious reasons. It's a fine line.

[BMCDA]

Saying that one is unfit to practice Biology if they do not accept the evolution of humans as fact is an attack. It is a kin to saying a person is unfit to practice Biology if they are Hispanic.

Uh, I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense.

[Nebullis]

If the DOJ is investigating this on a political or religious whim then it would be totally unacceptable to me.

As you stated earlier, the volume of complaints is greater than the DOJ resources can handle. Judgements for prioritization and investigation are informed, within the framework of the law, by political and religious considerations.

[xzins]

Awesome, Woody.

How'd you know? (If you can say....if not, understood.)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

Everything you said is true; however, the Supreme Court hears very few of the cases brought to it. Four justices would have to agree to revisit their previous ruling. I have not seen reasons given when they decline to hear a case, which is the most typical result.

My understanding of Landgraf is consistent with yours. I said That's where the Supreme Court decision in Landgraf comes into play. Federal civil statutes cannot be applied retroactively without specificity by Congress.

It doesn't matter what Congress might do today to clarify the law regarding religious discrimination, unless they reach back specifically far enough to catch this allegation. Otherwise, if a civil matter, it will be tried on the basis of the law that existed at the time.

And I agree that a higher court decision impacts everything still on docket, but it does not retroactively effect cases already closed.

[FourtySeven]

Now people think they are entitled to recommendation letters. The dumbing down of America continues.

It only took 3 posts to get to this point, which should have been the end of it on a conservative website/message board, but it's amazing how people's religious convictions can interferre, at times, with their ability to reason, isn't it?

I'm guessing the same religious fervor that seemingly has the ability to even suspend rational thought will also push this thread past 1000 posts, when it should have stopped at yours!

Oh well.

[Under the Radar]

Ain't that the truth?