Sauron

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...tion%20Dispute

Justice Department Drops Evolution Probe

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department said Tuesday it had dropped its investigation of a complaint by a Texas Tech University student that a biology professor was discriminating against students who did not believe in evolution.

The department said it ended its probe after Professor Michael Dini eliminated the evolution belief requirement in his recommendation policy and replaced it with a requirement that students be able to explain the theory of evolution.

In a complaint filed with the Justice department, a student at the university in Lubbock, Texas, accused Dini of refusing to write letters of recommendation based on their religious beliefs.

Doubting Didymus

The old requirement:

"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"

The Web site now reads: "How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species? If you will not give a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation."

I fail to see how professor Dini's new requirement is different in any significant respect from his old one. I certainly don't see why the Justice department should see this change as grounds to drop their investigation, not that they had any reason to start it.

The only differences I can see:
Professor Dini no longer requires to know what the student actually personally thinks, hence the addition of the word 'scientific' before origin, and the elimination of 'you' and 'think'.

Professor Dini no longer requires that the student must tell the truth. The requirement has become a simple question and answer, like a test. The student may lie through their teeth, and go on to attempt to practice biology without accepting its fundamental core principles. On the other hand, I doubt that Dini had some truthsaying device in place with his old requirement, so I fail to see how removing the qualifyer that the students answer must be true is supposed to produce any effect at all.

Why is the Justice department fooled? There is nothing in Dinis old requirement that isn't still there now, excepting only that he now allows students to lie to him. I am not jumping for joy at this development at all.

Albion

The Justice Department isn't fooled. It's served notice that it's prepared to interfere with teachers who are evil enough not to cave in when a fundy stamps his foot and yells. I should think a number of teachers who might have thought about putting restrictions on writing letters of recommendation for kids whose intent is to get an advanced degree in their quest to destroy Dawinism will be having second thoughts, at least until the present administration is no longer around.

RufusAtticus

It isn't any different. The justice department is just trying to save face with this stupid investigation. Dini's policy never required "belief," that was just a fundy straw-man that the justice department got sucked into.

yguy

The most scientific answer to this question from an academic perspective would be, "I don't know."

But of course, it's not really a scientific answer they're looking for so much as one that shows the proper level of indoctrination.

Doubting Didymus

Sorry, but you are utterly wrong. A scientific answer, as in one you would put on a test, is one that is supported by evidence and the consensus of the scientific community. Evolution is such an answer.

Conspiracy theories are the last resort of people who are unable to back up their opinions with evidence of any kind. It not only unconvincing, it's pathetic.

Jayjay

I'd like to see creationist try get recommendations from Dini (or anyone with half a brain) with an "I dunno".

I concur with the notion that Justice Department had no business investigating this in the first place, and they're using Dini's rephrasing as an excuse to save face. I also think that Dini's choice to change the wording is justified; requiring an "affirmation" of any kind is prone to (deliberate) misinterpretation.

Wounded King

Why would you want a reference from someone who thinks you are an unscientific religious fruitcake? Surely the professor is under no obligation to write the student a good reference?

pz

Oh, right. It's also why we give students tests -- it's not to see how much they know, it's to see if the brainwashing has taken effect.

If you think about it, it's really offensive. It's as if we don't trust the students. Perhaps we ought to just assume that they learn everything we teach in class without trying to evaluate them, and just hand out "A"s for the act of registering. We should also give everyone who asks an evaluation that says they are the best student we ever had.

KC

You are dead-on here. Just the act of saying they were opening an investigation has enough of a chilling effect. They sent the message Ashcroft intended.

KC