Astronomer Martin Gaskell has sued the University of Kentucky for discrimination based on religious faith when, in 2007, they bypassed him in favor of someone else to head their observatory. According to the NYTimes, the lawsuit alleges that Gaskell was denied the position on the basis of his religious beliefs. Martin and his wife have been long-time members of ASA. Though we do not have access to all relevant documents and evidence in order to make a judgment on the legal merits of this particular case, we at ASA are deeply concerned about the tendency toward, and the perception of, religious discrimination in hiring for scientific positions and in funding of research grants. We support Martin in his effort to clear the record in his case.
Several issues come to mind. First is the influence of faith as a factor in hiring decisions for science positions. In the case of private institutions whose mission involves a commitment to a statement of faith, a hiring decision in their science department might justifiably begin with a faith position. But regarding the credentials for a scientific position in a public institution or any other private laboratory, neither religious faith nor atheistic convictions should be a factor. It is not always easy to distinguish the real reason for a hiring decision and we must strive to eliminate any discrimination on the basis of religion.
Another issue is the potential influence of ideology or background beliefs of scientists on their work in science. ASA member Jitse Van Der Meer wrote an insightful article called Ideology and Science on this topic. He notes that whereas scientists do bring background beliefs to their work, the aim is always to achieve a scientific result independent of that ideology. The consilience of results from diverse background beliefs contributes to the confidence that the scientific work is in the right direction. Accordingly, an evangelical doing science correctly would achieve the same result as a Muslim or an atheist. The criterion of a good scientist should not be their religious belief itself but how those beliefs influence the science. Unfortunately, many evangelicals have been prone to advocate a modification of scientific results in order to meet their ideological preferences. Often they attempt to justify their approach by the perception that mainstream scientists have modified their science to meet atheistic preferences. Neither is correct.
There is an ever present tendency for profiling. We hear a lot about racial or ethnic profiling and here we may have indications of religious profiling. Widely disseminated media reports in the past decade or more have described evangelicals who have denied standard scientific methodology or scientific results based on their interpretation of the Bible. Whether it is the age of the earth or the validity of evolution, their skepticism is identified with evangelicalism. It is hard for the secular community to appreciate the nuances of the spectrum of opinions within evangelicalism. It is easier to profile all evangelicals as advocates of non-mainstream science.
We must stand against religious discrimination of any kind, as appears to have been the case with Gaskell. No decision of hiring for a scientific position or of funding of scientific research grants should be based on religious beliefs but on the qualifications of the individual alone. Being “potentially an evangelical” has no bearing on one’s scientific merit. Similarly, mainstream scientists are not to be portrayed as atheists whose lack of belief in a creator influences their science. The few who do attempt to alter their science to match their beliefs should not taint the vast majority of honest scientists whether they are evangelicals or atheists. Whatever statements Gaskell may have made in the past about issues beyond his field of expertise, it is abundantly clear that his own science is stellar and that he was the best candidate for the job. We urge a fair resolution of his case and a deeper understanding by everyone that being evangelical does not mean their science is distorted.
|
|||||
Faith-Based Hiring?23 comments to Faith-Based Hiring? |
|||||
|
Copyright © 2012 ASA Voices - All Rights Reserved |
|||||
Terry, yes I agree, that was why I asked him. Indeed, based on an internet search alone and no other information, I think I would have drawn the same conclusion you did.
Randy, yes, the creationist version of microevolution did cross my mind.
The main reason I said anything at all about this is because the matter under discussion was about how Martin Gaskell was brazenly misrepresented by the University of Kentucky and even by the New York Times (which I am subscribed to for my English news). It would be kind of ironic to do the same ourselves after seeing that.
Unlike the clear ambiguities in the RTB statement, which really did require clarification, Gaskell was very clear, and they still grossly misrepresented him. The chances are, the NYT just copied some statement that the university had made, but they should have said “according to informed sources…”, if the reporter didn’t have the document in hand. Frankly, in old school, a reporter should investigate the source before quoting.
I keep wondering how Gaskell’s statement could become so distorted and quotation still be cited in good faith. Perhaps the secretary didn’t even go to the original document but just copied the little blivet in the google search fragment.
By Grace we proceed,
Wayne
Wayne, the quote Terry attributed to me was actually the reporter for <i>Science</i>. So, this shows that it can be done right. Sadly, the corporate media — and even the elite corporate media such as the NY Times — is often more interested in conflict than the truth. They are not even reporters any more but just he said/she said stenographers. We see this also in how they report complicated science issues such as global warming.
The lawsuit got settled out of court.
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20110118/NEWS01/301180074/Astronomer+at+heart+of+evolution+controversy+settles+suit+against+UK
Here’s another source that quotes Jennifer Wiseman:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/01/19/religious_discrimination_lawsuit_ends_well_for_christian_researcher
In the coming weeks, I think we may gain more insight into this case. It is a very important one for all of us.
Randy
Here’s some quotes from the article Randy cited.
“It has become clear to me that there is virtually no way Gaskell will be offered the job despite his qualifications that stand far above those of any other applicant,” Troland wrote. “…[T]he real reason we will not offer him this job is because of his religious beliefs in matters that are unrelated to astronomy or to any of the duties that are specified to this position.” Outreach in the field of biology, he noted, does not fall within the responsibilities of the observatory director. Four days later, Troland was Gaskell’s lone champion as the committee endorsed a different applicant by a 4-to-1 vote.
“This case is a serious reminder to us all that public academic and research institutions need to be free of discrimination, including religious discrimination and bias, in hiring and in their environment,” wrote Jennifer Wiseman, director of the dialogue on science, ethics, and religion at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in an e-mail to Inside Higher Ed.
“This is especially important for the health of the scientific enterprise. Excellent scientists represent a wide range of cultural backgrounds and religious beliefs, and a diverse faculty working together can be a great benefit to students, science education, and research achievement.” (Wiseman emphasized that the AAAS did not have a position on the settlement and that her views are her own.)
But Paul Z. Myers, an associate professor of biology at the University of Minnesota at Morris (and keeper of the popular blog Pharyngula), said the Kentucky search committee was within its rights to consider how members of the biology faculty would feel about the university hiring to a high-profile position an astronomer whom they considered hostile to their views and methods. “I wouldn’t want to hire a biologist that’s going around on the side saying that the world is flat,” Myers said. “…Collegiality is a significant factor in employment decisions here.”
I have a couple of perhaps naive questions and an observation. How can any theory propose purposelessness as a explanation for something we observe? Isn’t the theory of evolution based upon mechanisms that direct selection, even if it isn’t theistic?
Where did all this intellectual fear come from? I find myself being both relieved and excited when another researcher finds holes and gaps in my thinking. This allows me to advance my science, to refine my research and make new discoveries. Why are the advocates of evolution so afraid that members of another scientific arena might find weaknesses in their arguments?
Perhaps responses motivated by fear are more prevalent in the field of evolutionary biology and fear makes it difficult for biologists to celebrate the incredible diversity of beliefs and perspectives they find in their science. Good ideas hold up well under scrutiny and and testing. Maybe the energy the UK biologists put into their suppression of competing ideas is proportional to their fear that they can not defend against them. With all the evidence that supports evolution, I find it astonishing that this is the case.
Good questions, Scot. Let me take a stab at a few thoughts. I think “purposelessness” needs to be separated into two different buckets. One is at the metaphysical, final cause, level and the other is at the direct, physical cause level. I’m afraid too many people assume they are identical. In evolution, the physical causality we observe is such that the direct cause of a genetic change is not influenced by the consequences of that change. In other words, the impetus for making the change doesn’t come from the result of the change. In that sense, it is “purposeless.” But in the higher order scheme of life, we certainly believe that God’s creative and sustaining role involves a purpose. Perhaps a related scenario of random “purposelessness” would be how a specific sperm out of hundreds of millions was the one that resulted in your or my embryo being formed. From a biological perspective there was no particular reason or an intent to form you or me precisely the way we are, it was just the only sperm that won the motility race. Yet, we say that God fashioned us and knew us from the beginning. So I think of evolutionary “purposelessness” as a reflection of the lack of feedback from the end result to the initial causation, not a metaphysical statement of ultimate purpose.
Regarding your question about intellectual fear, it does seem odd. On one hand, a rapidly growing field like evolutionary biology should welcome lots of new ideas and critical examination of existing ideas. On the other, they seem to object to new ideas. I suspect one reason is that the field of evolutionary biology has attracted far too many amateur, or even incompetent, participants. It’s such a publicly discussed field with so many implications that opinions come from everywhere. Understandably, they tend to accept critiques from published peer-reviewed literature but are quick to reject opinions from diverse external sources. And rightly so, I believe.
Randy
The distinction between physical purposelessness and metaphysical purposelessness definitely helps, but it doesn’t completely address my question. Evolutionary theory, as I understand it, suggests that certain adaptations succeed in preserving a species and others do not. Survival itself then seems to be at least a kind of physical “purpose” in the sense that it directs the process of evolution. Some physical adaptations to environmental change do not succeed. So one could say that the physical “purpose” of any adaption would be to survive changes in environmental conditions, or perhaps even create an advantage, and that the nature does feedback by eliminating creatures with adaptations that fail.
This perhaps isn’t exactly the same thing you described, but how can there be an evolutionary progression without a purpose? Could we say that a physical purpose isn’t the same as a metaphysical purpose, that we need not presuppose conscious purpose on the part of the individuals in the system for the system to evolve?
I still struggle to understand exactly why opinions that come from outside the field generate so much fear within it. Of evolutionary biologists I’ve known, more than two-thirds would not embrace atheism. Some say they must remain silent about their beliefs for fear of professional reprisal, yet they make discoveries based upon evolutionary theory along side other evolutionary biologists. If their work pushes the science forward, why would their philosophical or religious beliefs matter? In what sense does the success of evolutionary science depend upon ontological, cosmological or theological beliefs? Do some biologists think they can get more grants if they suppress the beliefs of others, or do they think that various beliefs will damage their science? I’ve been reading the some of the history of science work of Nancy Frankenberry recently and it appears to me that the religious faith of an individual might actually be helpful because it allows for more diversity of scientific thinking.
Frankenberry, N. (2008). The faith of scientists in their own words. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rich,
If I go on what you have written, it seems that PZ Myers also didn’t read the original document from Martin Gaskell. He should also reflect that part of true “collegiality” is reflected in a “diversity of opinions”, not just “like mindedness”. Thank you Rich for posting the link to Gaskell’s original document under question!
It would be hypocritcal of me to claim that I am without sin here. Indeed, it is even possible my own criminal record on this offense is much greater than Myers’. Moreover, we should also remember the direct and indirect insults that some Christians have hurled on Myers’ intelligence . Indeed, what some have inflicted on many people on this list. It surely slowly taints a man’s impression of people.
The take home lesson for everyone (Myers included) should be to remember James 1:19
“Understand this, my dear brothers and sisters: You must all be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to get angry.”
Or Zeno of Citium
“We are given two ears but a single mouth, in order that we may hear more and talk less.”
Too rarely do I remember and obey such wisdom.
by Grace we proceed,
Wayne
OK,
I finally looked up Myers.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/martin_gaskell_was_not_expelle.php
yes, you have a point about sending out resumes to 100s of places and getting rejected by most. However, though cited, it doesn’t look like he actually read Gaskell’s article. Gaskell lists various views, he only says he believes a few of them.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/dawkins_on_gaskell.php
Yes, a review for a potential professor should be based on their publications. However, he is distinguishing between what he believes and what he does for a living as a scientist, as all scientists should. It is important to remember that our public image is what students will see. We do, as teachers have great responsibility to help students to think seriously and be conscious of different points of view. However, that would also apply to Myers and Dawkins who have a clear public persona that people will follow. Should they also be rejected from work for their views? Just like us, Myers and Dawkins just could happen to be wrong, after all.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/gaskell_confirms_my_opinion_th.php
he cites the Gaskell’s article, but I still cannot understand how this makes him a “crank”. As far as I can tell, Gaskell is trying to find some middle ground where religion doesn’t interfere with science. He also cites nothing in the article that actually holds Gaskell acountable to the attribution.
A criticism that might stick is what he says of Jerry Bergman. I’m not familiar with Jerry Bergman, and maybe what Myers says is true. Unfortunately, many of us end up reading stuff unaware of some other matters about the author. Moreover, such documents on matters of perceived (or real) discrimination do have the problem of “he said” where human relations are very complex. There is no way to know for sure the true intentions of other human beings completely.
Still, the evidence does not show that Myers actually critically read Gaskell’s writing, he cites what the New York Times cites — a statement completely out of context. It is also a document largely colored by his personal beliefs and opinions. Let us remember James 1:19.
by Grace we proceed,
Wayne