I remember this story breaking and our epic thread, but I didn't realize there was a DOJ investigation. ______________ Bush administration drops probe of Darwinist teacher Wed Apr 23,10:28 AM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The Bush administration has stepped back from another clash over religion's place in society, as the Justice Department (news - web sites) quietly dropped a probe of a university professor who is actively promoting Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. The face-saving retreat became possible after Texas Tech University biologist Michael Dini slightly changed his requirements for issuing letters of recommendation enabling his students to join medical school. "In light of this change, the Department of Justice (news - web sites) has closed its inquiry into the matter," said a statement issued by the department Tuesday. The investigation was launched after a student in Dini's class in Lubbock, Texas, complained he could not hope to obtain a formal recommendation for studying medicine because he believed that humans were created by God. Under rules initially set by Dini, the coveted letters were given to those who got at least one "A" grade in his class, knew him personally through joint work, and could "truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer" to the question: "How do you think the human species originated?" This third requirement was immediately interpreted by critics as a concealed attempt to discriminate against religious students who believe in creationism -- a transgression that could not be tolerated in a state-funded educational institution. But the Justice Department, already under fire for its conservative agenda, apparently had little appetite for igniting another battle between liberals and religious right-wingers over the origins of human life. So in the end, it accepted a small concession from Dini, who had agreed to drop his demand that students "affirm" their personal belief in evolution while continuing to insist that they be able to "explain" Darwin's theory. Otherwise, the Darwinist professor did not give an inch. "If you set up an appointment to discuss the writing of a letter of recommendation, I will ask you: 'How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species?'" Dini states on his updated Web site. "If you will not give a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation." He goes on to explain that modern medicine is rooted in biology and the theory of evolution as its "unifying principle." "Someone who ignores the most important theory in biology cannot expect to properly practice in a field that is now so heavily based on biology," the professor points out.
I was hoping the Bushies would take this to court so we could repeat history with Scopes trial II, the federal version. How about we attack those creationist non-scientists now?
That's not a small concession. He went from requiring they believe in something (or say they believe in it) to now requiring they simply explain it, which is what those of us (on this board, anyway) who thought his policy of requiring students to believe a certain way to be overreaching felt he should do. I don't think it's out of line to require students to show what they've learned to get a recommendation, but it's quite another thing to require they believe a certain way (or at least say they believe a certain way).
Wouldn't the question be, though, whether you can require your students to believe a certain way in order to get special priviledges, etc.? Had Dini won such a case, wouldn't that mean that economics professors could then require students to believe in Supply-Side Economics (not just be able to explain it, but to say they believe in it), or requiring political science or history students to believe that Ronald Reagan was the greatest president in history? The problem that many folks had with this professor was not that he teaches Darwinism or that he believes in it (or even that he teaches it to the exclusion of other "theories" on the origin of man), it's that he required his students to believe, not just explain, something that was at odds with what some students truly believe in order to get a coveted perk. There was no attack on the substance of Darwinism or the professor's right to teach it. It was an attack on his requirement that his students change their beliefs to fit his own. EDIT: Just for the record, I would've been just as offended had the professor been requiring his students to affirm a belief in God in order to get a recommendation. Requiring a student to believe any certain way is going beyond what any student should be required to do. Asking them to acceptably explain something that was taught to them in class, etc. is perfectly acceptable, even if what they learned in class conflicts with their own values, beliefs, whatever.
Fair enough. It just seems it would require some twisted 1984 type dualist thinking to use and apply principles that you really don't believe. edit begin p.s. economics isn't a science. this was prolly already covered, what about anthropology?
Economics is considered to be a social science in some quarters. If a professor required you to believe that, you might be in trouble getting a recommendation from him. I don't think physicians do use and apply the principles of evolution in their daily work (these students were trying to get recommendations for Med School), but I've had many professors who believed something other than what I did but who still required me to answer their way on the tests. While these were not religious beliefs, they were still things that conflicted with my own beliefs. But I still answered the way I was supposed to answer on the exams. Had these professors required me to believe what they said rather than just regurgitate it for a test, I might have been in trouble. This particular debate seems kind of silly because the science supports Darwin. There aren't any real reputable scientists that I know of who oppose evolution at this point in history. But, to me, it was about the bigger issue of requiring students to believe a certain way over simply requiring students to be able to explain and relate what they've been taught. No matter how much there is backing up your belief system, it's still wrong, in my opinion, to require others to believe like you do. If people want to believe something that I think is crazy and that conflicts with all the scientific proof I can come up with, it's not my business to require them to believe otherwise, no matter how "wrong" their belief is. I can try to convince them through debate. I can require them to explain what they've been taught in an educational setting. But I can't require them to change their beliefs for me.
I agree completely. It is not the function of an educator to enforce his beliefs, however evident he may think they are. I would have to see the wording of his 'compulsion', but if that satement was accurate, ie that he compelled students to parrot his beliefs as theirs, than the man should not be an educator. That is exploitation of position.
