Brian,

I am going to go out on a limb and argue that faculty should have absolute freedom in the creation and contents of recommendation letters. Including not writing such letters for 'improper' reasons.

I think a faculty member should have the absolute right and freedom to discriminate in making recomendations based on the sex, religion, age, sexual orientation, etc. of the student.

Professors are private citizens, and recommendation letters are the result of the choice of a private citizen.

As for the specific case: I agree with the profressor. Creationists have no place in the medical field.

"Brian and Tim, I don't think that the professor is attemptintg to weed out anyone. He says nothing about 'allowing' such students into his class, or treating them unfairly. He is asserting his right, privilege, and duty to be selective in his recommendations.

This professor believes that a belief in a scientific fact/idea/wild ass guess is necessary, and so will only recommend students if they have this believe.

Whether or not this is 'objectively' true, it is a reasonable belief. What the religious nut jobs are attempting is to require this teacher to ignore his own principles. How is that fair, proper, or legal?"

I didn't comment about the plausibility of the lawsuit, because I have no idea how letters of recommendation will be treated by the courts. It appears that Texas Tech is a publicly funded university. As such, presumably there are legal limits to who he can and cannot discriminate against, even in recommendation letters. I doubt, for example, that if he said "I will never give recommendation letters to Catholic students" that he would be on shaky legal ground. Whether or not requiring students to overtly reject creationism rises to that level remains to be seen.

It was the content of his message that I disagree with (and is at odds with the typical academic nonsense about academic freedom). Saying that a creationist can never be a good physicians is right up there with idiots who claim that pro-lifers are unqualified to be gynecologists. It's interesting how academia likes to mouth these phrases about academic freedom and diversity until someone comes along who disagrees their sacred cows.

Edited by author 02-01-2003 02:12 PM
Sounds to me like the "rabble-rousing" is coming from an entirely different source than the prof. Why does he ask that question? Why not check out his reason, in the page titled "How to Get a Letter of Recommendation" from his university web page: http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/letters.htm

Here is a part of that:
"Good medicine, like good biology, is based on the collection and evaluation of physical evidence. So much physical evidence supports the evolution of humans from non-human ancestors that one can validly refer to the "fact" of human evolution, even if all of the details are not yet known. One can deny this evidence only at the risk of calling into question one’s understanding of science and of the method of science. Such an individual has committed malpractice regarding the method of science, for good scientists would never throw out data that do not conform to their expectations or beliefs. This is the situation of those who deny the evolution of humans; such a one is throwing out information because it seems to contradict his/her cherished beliefs. Can a physician ignore data that s/he does not like and remain a physician for long? No. If modern medicine is based on the method of science, then how can someone who denies the theory of evolution -- the very pinnacle of modern biological science -- ask to be recommended into a scientific profession by a professional scientist?"

Re: aha: "Religion has evolved for very good reasons."

Nice line.

Tempest in a teapot indeed. This lawsuit is a big red herring. I'm certain everyone can see that. As for whether the good professor ought to set this question (we all know it's his right to), well, I just don't see how it helps and what it achieves. What, exactly, is the point of this question? I suspect the professor of rabble rousing, if you know what I mean.

One of the more interesting bits about this tempest in a teapot is that Professor Dini has not required his students to believe in anything. It was the complainants who manufactured that "requirement" to advance their discrimination case.

Give a truthful, forthright, scientific answer to the question, or get a clue.

You do have to love the First Amendment implication of the complaint though. What, are they going to compel Dini to give the guy a recommendation?

I sent an emailed message to the professor saying 'Good For You.'

The student is an idiot.

I don't say that bc of the evolution vs. creation business, but because of the whole notion that she can force a professor to write a recommendation letter for her. (Although I'm sure the case is probably really motivated by politics, to be fair.) Having served on a graduate admissions committee, I can say that not all letters submitted by professors are positive.
The fact that the professor declines to write the letter, rather than saying he'll write a letter, and then sending a bad one is a GOOD thing, if you're the student.

"Miss Smith has demonstrated a poor understanding of the most basic principles of biology and the scientific method" is really not something you want the people on the admissions committee to read in your application packet...

Religion and faith have nothing to do with science. Religion is a belief-system. Science is about testability. The so-called science of "creationism" was an attempt during the 70s to "scientifically" disprove the idea that humans have evolved from animals. Creationists distorted the existing data and morphed it, so that its interpretation just happened to agree with certain parts of the bible. Creationism, though, was bad science--it never went through peer review, was not repeatable, etc. The beast of creationism is still lingering, so it's the job of scientists to remind us that this is bullshit. Hell, you can believe whatever you want, just don't call it science if it's not testable.

>"The professor shouldn’t be so harsh."

He isn't being harsh. I guess he even gave this student a passing grade, since the student is pressing for a recommendation. But how can a prof recommend someone for a field whose well-established underpinning the student categorically denies as a matter of faith? The prof isn't asking the kid to deny religion (and most religions have no problem with evolution), but he can't use faith to deny scientific findings and get anywhere. The kid should simply go into some other field where his faith won't blind him to basic realities of that field -- biology is not a good fit for him; he won't do well in it and unless he does only rote work of some sort, his work would be a danger to others. And of course demanding a letter of recommendation as some sort of right is, frankly, just bizarre behavior.

Would you expect a physics professor to write a recommendation for a student who doesn't believe in gravity? A geography professor to recommend a student who believes the earth is flat?

Remember, a letter of recommendation is a personal thing. The professor has every right to refuse to write one for a student he can not recommend. The student has absolutely no right to demand a letter from a professor. Given that the student here claims to be pre-med, I'm sure he's taken more than one biology course, and could easily have gotten a letter from a different professor.

Sounds to me like this is someone itching for a "test case" to further the cause of religious fundamentalism.

The professor shouldn’t be so harsh. Religion has evolved for very good reasons. People who believe in dogma, heaven & hell, and the correlation of good & evil (we become good by defeating evil) not only make better soldiers, but they stay in line in the off-season.
It’s just good natural selection:
Follow the rules. Stay with the group. Obey the hierarchy. Don’t ask questions. Do not kill (unless your leader points to evil). You’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists. OK, now you can kill. You will be rewarded in heaven.
People who philosophize and see issues in shades of gray make very poor soldiers, and tend to be pain-in-the-ass liberals in the off-season.
And in a stroke of evolutionary elegance as beautiful as hexagonal bee cells, religious belief not only has evolved to deny its own evolution, but the top of the hierarchy is unavailable for scrutiny. And for the fence sitters, we have the everlasting barbecue in Hell. Lastly, there’s the “God saved my life” movement, which tends to have more members than the “Where was God?” movement. It’s truly a miracle.
Recommend this student for military medical service.

Brian and Tim, I don't think that the professor is attemptintg to weed out anyone. He says nothing about 'allowing' such students into his class, or treating them unfairly. He is asserting his right, privilege, and duty to be selective in his recommendations.

This professor believes that a belief in a scientific fact/idea/wild ass guess is necessary, and so will only recommend students if they have this believe.

Whether or not this is 'objectively' true, it is a reasonable belief. What the religious nut jobs are attempting is to require this teacher to ignore his own principles. How is that fair, proper, or legal?

Wiseanduncanny wrote: "It's simple, if one expects a career in biology/medicine/science/etc., one should be at least able to ARGUE the standpoint of evolutionary theory. To steal an analogy from the MeFi discussion over this, would one expect a priest to write a letter for someone who denounced the existence of God?"

No, it's not that simple because you apparently didn't bother to read the article. As the student says, he would have no problem explaining the evolutionary theory of the origin of the human species. What the student is clearly being asked to do is go well beyond that and assert that his personal religious beliefs are not in conflict with evolutionary theories.

The professor is quite clear that he thinks anyone who doesn't agree with evolutionary theories is not fit to be a physician. As an atheist who doesn't agree with creationism one bit, even I find that absurd. All the good prof. is doing is reinforcing all of the far right misconceptions about evolutionary biology.

This is interesting. From the article:

The professor's web page reads
"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..."
...

Spradling, 22, who plans to be a physician, said he needed a letter of recommendation from a biology professor but, as a creationist, could not "sit there and truthfully say I believe in human evolution."

This gives the lie to "creation science." It seems clear Dini would agree that "creation science" is a contradiction in terms. Spradling, unwittingly, has shown he also agrees. Dini is not explicitly asking for an *evolutionary* explanation, he is asking for a *scientific* explanation of human origins. It just so happens that evolution is the best scientific explanation we've got. Spradling apparently was not prepared to assert that creationism is valid science (which shows some level of intellectual honesty, I suppose).

The man in question is a college professor. His duty is to provide information from which his students can (or cannot) gain knowledge as they choose. They pay for the privilege. If a student meets all the requirements of the class (attendance, grades, thesis) and they grasp what they need to proceed, then they have earned the right to do so. If they take what they learned, and then are irresponsible with it, they won't prosper. They won't get patients, they won't get published, they might skirt the hippocratic oath and get sued.

This really seems like a strange issue to debate. The stauch creationists who believe that laying on hands is enough wouldn't embrace the secular medical teachings anyway. Anyone with a scientific mind and religious convictions would be able to accept, as was already discussed, that God put us here, and now things go from there in a logical fashion.

It really sounds like the professor is causing a stink while doing nothing more than weeding a minute percentage of oddballs who I wouldn't let touch me with a 10 foot stethoscope anyway.