Blatant discrimination against a Christian
When is it ok to decline to hire a particular person for a scientific job and hire someone else instead? James Hannam says not when the particular person in question is a creationist. For why? For because that is a religious belief, and it is the particular person’s right to have a religious belief and that right is trampled on when someone else is given the job as director of the student observatory at the University of Kentucky. Martin Gaskell was the best guy for the job as any fule kno and so it was no fair to give that job to someone else.
[T]he mere fact he was sympathetic towards creationists and kept an open mind about evolution appears to have disqualified him from being director of the observatory.
Well how mean is that?! Just because he was towards creationists and gave them hugs when their cats ran away from home? Or was there possibly maybe a little more to it than that?
In the notes for a lecture he gave at the university in 1997, Gaskell claimed, in clear disagreement with scientific facts, that evolution has “significant scientific problems” and includes “unwarranted atheistic assumptions and extrapolations”. This suggests a lack of understanding of the nature of scientific theory in general, and evolution in particular.
Oh what do you know, Lawrence Krauss, you’re just splitting hairs. Nobody needs to understand the nature of scientific theory in general just to run a poxy little observatory. Don’t be such a fussbudget. Hannam explains why.
None of this can justify religious discrimination. Liberals stand for a pluralistic society where people can both hold and express a wide variety of beliefs, some of which others might find absurd or distasteful. That means the proper forum for disagreements is open debate, not private emails between members of an academic selection committee.
That’s right! In a pluralistic society observatories should be run by tenth-level ayurvedic detoxxers or thetan-flavored scambolic sorcerers or professional qualified certificated layers on of hands. Anybody! It’s more interesting that way! And the way to figure it all out is to fight in public, not figure out which people to hire in private between people who know something about the job that has to be filled. A crackpot in every job! That’s the liberal dream.
Should a candidate be denied a position as a professor of theology at a religious college because he is “potentially” (the vital email’s word) an atheist? The committee seems not to have searched for evidence in Gaskell’s job history that he would be unable to direct an observatory in a scientific manner, but leapt to the conclusion that his beliefs about creationism implied that he would not be able to. Does their cluelessness bout how to conduct a job search suggest it was a mistake to make them administrators? Well, yeah.
NCSE has a collection of documents related to this case. Gaskell’s lecture notes do, indeed, reveal pure batshit apologetics. The question is whether this was relevant to the search. Personally, my conclusion is that 125K is cheap for these folks to get out of the mess they had gotten themselves into.
Sometimes, the dicks have the upper hand. Whaddya gonna do?
But, Biologos and the Templeton Foundation keep telling me that science and religion are compatible. Gaskell must not be religious.
Well, those notes are disturbing (in that Gaskell’s critical faculties were clearly suspended for religious reasons during the writing of a large part of them). The bible validated by archeology? And Kentucky still couldn’t come up with a reasonable explanation of why they didn’t hire him. Good thing they don’t run the basketball team.
That was damned funny, O!
Sadly, there is a certain type of liberal-the mushy, ‘inclusive’, objective-knowledge-is-imperialistic type-that is maddeningly close to your parody. And that type has too many members; we’ve been watching them hijack the meaning of “liberal” for years. Oh hell, why am I telling this to the woman who wrote “Why Truth Matters?” Because I like to complain, that’s why.
When I grade my exams at the end of the semester, it often occurs to me that I am blatantly discriminating against the ignorant (against those students who failed to master the subject matter).
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Skeptic South Africa, Rational Humanist. Rational Humanist said: Blatant discrimination against a Christian #humanism #atheist http://tiny.ly/YBss […]
Presumably you’re just going for comedic flair here, but I have to echo some comments in response to Dawkins’ posts on this issue because the quoted section seems to reveal an assumption underlying your pov that is obviously wrong; namely, that anyone with religious belief must be fucking nuts and incapable of scientific thought. Don’t mistake me, I’m fully on-board with the idea that religion and science are incompatible as viewpoints or methods of understanding (if religion can be called the latter) but it’s something else entirely to say that individual possession of religious beliefs indicates a deficiency of reason.
I would never say that a believer is applying their rational capabilities to their religious beliefs, but it’s quite easy for an individual in today’s society to genuinely hold religious belief and yet otherwise be a reasonable human being. I won’t judge the intelligence of an adult Suri Cruise as quickly for believing in “thetan flavored scambolic sorcerers” as I will someone who grows up in a secular home because background and immediate social milieu make a difference in what a reasonable person is capable of believing.
Additionally, you don’t state explicity whether you want to focus on Gaskell in particular or the general case; unfortunately, there are particulars of Gaskell’s case (that he publicly spoke about or advocated for his views – impacting credibility or respectability required by the University) that are not intrinsic to the question of discrimination for religious belief. I think the discussion would benefit if you did.
My favorite part of the article was the remark about Lawrence Krauss being a “neo-atheist sympathiser”. Yay! I can has blacklist?
BenM —
Your reading skills are appalling.
Neo-atheist sympathiser….bah, they’re rubbish. Join the atheist-neo sympathisers.
Notice the irony when a religious person uses the language of liberalism? If you’re so interested in discrimination and equality, then feel free to junk your bigoted ignorant religious beliefs that contradict those same liberal values. You want to wave your finger and accuse a secular society of hypocrisy, when you don’t even comprehend what discrimination means. What next? Allow poor students to pass their exams because otherwise it’s discrimination? Do hospitals discriminate against healthy people? Are you completely barking mad James Hannam?
It’s time for everyone to lay their cards on the table. Are you for the People’s Atheist Front or the Atheist People’s Front? I can’t remember which one I’m in.
I’m not that big on revealed truths personally. Particularly ones that are contradicted by reality.
The problem isn’t belief, which is covered by secularism’s defence of freedom of conscience. The problem is privileging that belief over one’s job when those beliefs clash with the requirements of that job. That is a matter of competence, and competence is a reasonable criterion to evaluate job applicants on.
Apparently, competency is not a big requirement for The Guardian.
That’s a tad deceptive. Actually, Gaskell is laying out a kind of BioLogos argument explaining why Christians shouldn’t be taken in by creationism.
No, I’m afraid that the folks at the University of Kentucky made a personal judgment that you and I might make about this guy: I don’t trust a scientist who’s that Christian. Thing is, though, that they had no right to bring that personal judgment into the decision-making process. I’ll say it again: I think they’re lucky to have gotten away that cheap.
Well, I’d say given the costs of litigation regardless of who is at fault, the University made a sensible (from a business perspective) decision to cut their losses. But I’d like to see the specific law that regulates which candidates may or may not be hired by a university. I remember being turned down for jobs without getting an explanation or receiving compensation. Why is UoK different?
It’s clear from the depositions that the appearance of Modern Astronomy, The Bible, and Creation had a dramatic impact on deliberations. Gaskell contends this reveals religious discrimination, and I’m inclined to agree.
People want “significant scientific problems in evolutionary theory” to be “significant scientific problems with evolutionary theory.” It ain’t.
No doubt, but I didn’t say that. The issue isn’t Gaskell’s individual possession of religious beliefs.
There is an issue even with individual possession of religious beliefs though, at least potentially. What if an interviewee for an academic job avows belief in Santa Claus, or elves, or the immortality of Elvis? Not ironically but for reals? That would throw something of a spanner into the works, wouldn’t it? Academics are generally expected to know how to think properly, broadly speaking. That usually includes not believing obviously silly magical stuff – that inclusion is implicit because it’s generally not necessary to spell it out. Religion however is different. Well why is it?
I get the point, but it wasn’t for University of Kentucky to be asking why. From a litigation standpoint, it just is, and they know that. They weren’t arguing that religious discrimination ought to be allowed, they were arguing that their actions didn’t constitute religious discrimination. And, in my opinion, they were losing that argument.
Sorry. I didn’t mean to shout!
Chris Lawson –
Thank you for your substantive reply to my post. I feel appreciated and not belittled because you have engaged me in discussion. It seems OB didn’t want to be as gracious as you.
Ophelia –
Well, this is why I asked for clarification on whether you wanted to talk about Gaskell, or the more general case, the first line of your post, “When is it ok to decline to hire a particular person for a scientific job and hire someone else instead?”
You are correct, you didn’t say that, but please correct me if I have misinterpreted your implication that “tenth-level ayurvedic detoxxers or thetan-flavored scambolic sorcerers or professional qualified certificated layers on of hands” ARE indications of a deficiency of reason. For you or I to believe them it would be. If I were Indian, and grew up there, it probably would not indicate a deficiency of reason if I were a tenth-level ayurvedic detoxxer (I assume, knowing nothing about it really).
I think that I already gave you my answer to your final question in the second paragraph of my post. Religion is different, as you recognize. For instance, it’s very easy for a person in our society to believe that a cracker literally is the son of God. If you want to talk obviously silly magical stuff, that has to rank at least as high as Santa Claus; there’s just as much evidence for both. But, I would be far more likely to discriminate against a Santa Claus truther applicant than a Catholic, and for good reason. Being a Catholic or a creationist is not as indicative of not “know[ing] how to think properly” because things besides reason impinge upon the beliefs of most people all the time.
Well I don’t think it is for good reason. Understandable reason maybe, but not good.
Being a creationist here and now, in the 21st century, 150 years after Darwin, certainly is indicative of being poorly educated or miseducated.
I don’t know if the examples are very common, but Francis Collins for one says he believes in theistic evolution, what I would call a variation of creationism. I would not say he’s poorly educated or miseducated. If he left the NIH and applied for an assistant professorship of genetics at the UoK, would they be justified saying no?
Of course they would.
I don’t know if you’re interpreting me ungenerously or not, so let me be more precise. Open position, pay not an issue, no personal conflicts with others in department, etc. Is your response still the same?
Well, whaddya know? Just got an AAUP email announcing a new document, Ensuring Academic Freedom in Politically Controversial Academic Personnel Decisions. Right in the middle of the email, in bold type,
So do we treat religion the way we would any other ideology, or do we not?
Ben M.
On what grounds would an Indian “tenth-level ayurvedic detoxxer” not be considered deficient in reason? It matters not where you grow up today. India, despite its mad religious scene is a highly developed industrial democracy. If you were a villager off the beaten track, you might be forgiven your superstitions, but there’s no more reason for an educated Indian to believe ayurvedic nonsense than there is for an American to be a creationist. In either case these believers in nonsense show a deficiency of reason. You have to go out of your way in the US or India to believe nonsense of this sort. They might know better, but they choose instead to believe foolish things. Why are you defending people like this?
As to Francis Collins. He has apparently determined to keep is mind compartmented. To what extent is this compartmentalisation possible? Collins’ religious education is deficient — his reliance on CS Lewis is enough to show that — and to this extent he displays a deficiency of reason. He will entertain, as a religious believer, beliefs which conflict with science. Just because he can be apparently reasonable with one compartment of his mind, does not mean that he gets to claim to be rational. This is made abundantly clear in his support for Biologos. The real question here is not whether or not his reason is deficient. Of course it is. The real question is at what point irrationality takes over from rationality. The same question arose in the case of Martin Gaskell. He’s a religious nut. At what point would his religious unreason affect his scientific work? As Jesus rather pointedly said, “You cannot serve both God and Mammon.” At some point allegiance to religious beliefs will affect what you think about the world. When is that point reached? This is a legitimate concern of those who are hiring people to teach science.
I’m inclined to think at the point you check Republican at voter registration, but, from an academic freedom perspective, I’m inclined to think that it’s not my call.
I am defending people like this because I would not like living in a world in which a person is slighted or mistreated for their personal beliefs or actions. To come up with a quick defintion of terms: by personal I mean anything that does not gravely affect their interactions with other people. In terms of academic hiring practices, I bet you and I would both agree with Ken’s quote, but differ in our opinion as to what “demonstrably pertain[s] to the effective performance of the academic’s professional responsibilities.” Please read A. Assessing Charges of Indoctrination in the Classroom about halfway down the page. I take issue with A5 a bit, but otherwise agree. There is a huge difference between an advocate of creationism who teaches good science and an advocate of creationism who hands out Answers in Genesis pamphlets before class.
Compartmentalization is not one and the same with irrationality, so I object to saying a person is wholely irrational or that their reason is deficient if they compartmentalize. If the bar for being a reasonable person is that one cannot hold a single irrational cognition, no one would be included. I wholeheartedly agree with you that the real question is “at what point would his religious unreason affect his scientific work,” and that that can impact hiring decisions. But, I do not agree that one can state that any religious beliefs will affect scientific work.
That usually includes not believing obviously silly magical stuff – that inclusion is implicit because it’s generally not necessary to spell it out. Religion however is different. Well why is it?
(Some of the following is merely asserted: I admit it’s not all fact (and don’t agree with all of it, either). In a fit of Wilsonianism, I pass no judgement on the actual beliefs.)
Popularity – Loads and loads of people have suspended their reasoning to maintain religious beliefs. That doesn’t mean it’s right, or less inherently absurd than “silly magical stuff”, but it does mean it’s easier to see how otherwise reasonable people might assume it’s a legitimate, er – thing to do.
Empathy – I think that many people (<a href=”http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3224336&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S1477175600002360″>though not all</a>) feel life’s enough of a bastard that it’s forgiveable to put reason to one side now and then. Religion is an accepted way of expressing this.
Precedence – Eric aks at what point “allegiance to religious beliefs will affect what you think about the world“. It’s perhaps most relevant to think of when they might affect one’s practice. I don’t know, but it’s quite obvious that people can maintain their faith and respect for empiricism (though not necessarily at the same time!). No one’s yet exposed Henry Schaefer’s chemistry. Much as climate sceptics try they haven’t yet discredited John Houghton. Even Christopher Hitchens seeks out Francis Collins’ advice with regards to health.
Then we agree. The point is not that “X’s religious beliefs will inevitably affect her work”; it is that “we don’t know whether or not X’s religious beliefs will affect her work because we don’t know how careful she is to compartmentalize.” Francis Collins doesn’t completely compartmentalize, to say the least. There was reason to think Gaskell wouldn’t. It’s a genuine concern.
Maybe the reply is that universities just have to take that chance. Maybe that’s the only possible reply given the First Amendment. I don’t know. I hope not though.
But we DO have anti-discrimination laws in this country and religious belief is a protected category. Unless an employer can rationally show that the belief is a measurable deterrent to doing the job, he legally cannot use that as part of the selection process (any more than he can use atheism, or sexual orientation).
I work with some highly educated people, including an excellent network engineer who’s a devout Muslim and the manager of an engineering software department who’s a fundamentalist Christian. Both of them have irrational and unscientific beliefs, both of them do their jobs very well. I don’t think run an observatory is that different from running a computer network.
hannam is the apologist who write a book about the so loveable middleages and their loveable caste of priests who adore science, in fact he twist history in such a way that is was the curch who invented science and protect it.
In what country, jay? Your “this” naturally isn’t self-explanatory to all readers. (I have no idea what nationality you are, for instance.)
I don’t think running a university observatory is the same as running a computer network, and if I remember correctly that was the point – it’s an educational job, and as such, religious beliefs could be relevant.
How could an employer show that anyone’s beliefs would be a measurable deterrent? Is that the legal language? It sounds peculiar.
I do of course understand that there is tension between the protection of religious freedom and this concern for doing the job properly – that was exactly my point in #33. But I don’t think it helps much just to emphasize the religious freedom aspect as if I hadn’t noticed it.
I would interpret that to mean applicable evidence (but maybe that’s too loose a definition). There is evidence that the pharmacist who refused to dispense Methergine is incapable of doing his job, so should be fired (in my view, Idaho law may disagree). The pharmacist’s inability emerges from his belief, but the belief itself remains sort of besides the point.
If that guy were fired and I were hiring his replacement I would try to confirm whether a new applicant would act appropriately in that situation. To the extent that I believe they would perform the job without a personal anti-choice belief interfering, and with a lack of countervailing evidence or a better applicant, I should hire them.
Ophelia I usually agree with you on many things. But in the US it is illegal to discriminate on religious grounds without a clear objectively definable reason. Having concerns about what a person’s religion might do will never stand up in court. When making a hiring decision, you cannot speculate about what a person’s religion might have on the job any more than you can legally speculate that someone’s gender or sexual orientation might affect their relationship to the job.
There is good reason for this kind of strict legal requirement. Think of how, historically, women, or gays, or Jews, or any number of individuals just “happened” to be passed over for “a good reason”. So the law is quite plain in that area.
If this person were a flat earther, or a geocentric universe adherent, there might be good cause. But if his big issue is evolution (and I’m assuming it is from what I’ve read), that really does not seem to rise to a quantifiable objection to his working in astronomy. Plenty of creationists would have no problem with astronomy (knowing from personal experience) any more than with engineering.
Off the main topic, but had to reply to this. In the U.S., people are not only slighted or mistreated for their personal actions that do not gravely affect their iteractions with others — people are thrown into prison for life for personal actions. Not just some people, but nearly 1% of the adult population. Smoke a joint? Take pictures of your kids in the bathtub?
I agree with you that discrimination can often prove to be a poor policy on a number of grounds. I disagree that we live in the utopian legal system you seem to imagine.
I’ve taken the time to read all the available documents and depositions in the case (to which Ken links above). What hasn’t been discussed much is the fact that the candidate who did get the position, a fellow named Tim Knauer, was no slouch. He did not get the job by default. The documents reveal that, while the hiring committee felt that Gaskell was probably the most experienced on paper, there was the sense that this Knauer guy would have been “a better fit.” Knauer was perceived as being more thoughtful and ambitious vis-a-vis how he would run the observatory and the events/courses connected with the observatory. He had better ideas for the observatory and arguably a better demeanor than Gaskell. (That’s my impression, based entirely on the documents.)
Given what the position entailed (which included being the public “face” of the observatory, making occasional TV appearances, etc.), and given Gaskell’s record of publicly expressing unscientific baloney, the hiring committee would have been downright derelict had they not discussed Gaskell’s publicly-advocated scientific views.
Kirth, I’m afraid that you attribute a belief to me that I do not possess. I would never say that we live in a “freedom utopia” so to speak. I should have added that I do not think the current situation is perfect, but I will not be an advocate for an additional way of penalizing someone for yet another personal belief or action.
I think I’m going to apply for a job at the creation museum, being a biologist I should be well qualified for a number of jobs in a museum, I hope me being an atheist will not be held against me. What do the rest of you think?
One does have to wonder why UK invited him for an interview if they had serious questions about his ability to perform the job. They could have easily asked him science questions about the age of the earth and the universe, the evolution of life on earth, etc. without bringing up religion.
jay, but I’m not discussing the issue just by asking what the law is. If the law means that a creationist can’t possibly be rejected for a scientific job, then maybe that’s a bad law. In any case just saying what is or isn’t illegal isn’t a conversation-stopper, because there is always room to argue over whether the law was actually violated. Lawyers and judges aren’t mathematicians.
I understand that one can’t just have a blanket “no theists need apply” for jobs where theism is irrelevant. The issues here aren’t as clear-cut as that.
Eric said @ #29:
In my view, the most important point about belief, at least in the majority of cases, is that it is the key to belonging. In fact, the word is ‘affirmation’ rather than ‘belief’, because most religious people are not sufficiently familiar with their sacred text/s to be able to specify in detail what they ‘believe’ through adherence to it.
My favourite example is the case of the (now deceased) father of a friend of mine who was both a Christian fundamentalist and a professional industrial chemist, and who literally believed that the world was flat. His astronomy apparently did not affect the practice of his chemistry; which is just as well, as it was pre-Newtonian and probably pre-Ptolemaic.
He maintained that the Earth was flat because some crank had satisfied him that it said so in the Bible. That was enough. If one maintains that the Bible is literally true then a surprise or two may be in store.
Consequently, it does not surprise me that modern theology is so elastic, plastic and generally rubbery. Literal and eternal truth is not what mainstream religions are about. Rather, each is the Great Unifying Myth that has in its time united tribes numbered in thousands into supertribes of millions. Agreement with mainsteam science is preferable, but not essential.
That old boy could have probably taught industrial chemistry fairly well. But he would have been well advised to keep his religious views to himself if he wanted to maintain credibility with his students.
Jay wrote,
Having a “clear objectively definable reason” is not necessarily a defense. It’s a defense if something other than religion, gender, race, color, or national origin is the real reason for the emploment decision (hiring, firing, promotion, etc.) that is being complained about.
The relevant provision of the U. S. Civil Rights Act (applying to private and public-sector employers, with some exceptions) reads as follows:
* * * *
42 U.S.C. §2000e-2
(a) Employer practices
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
* * * *
The exceptions are “interesting”: Religious organizations CAN engage in discrimination in hiring, promotion, etc. on the basis of religion and sexual orientation. And at least for now, religious organizations that receive federal funds under “faith-based” initiatives and “community partnerships” can engage in employment discrimination on the basis of religious belief, religious affiliation, and sexual orientation.
Getting back to the University of Kentucky’s problem . . . . In specific cases, it is often extremely difficult to say whether a non-religious, non-race-based, non-gender-based reason for the employment decision is the “real reason” or just a pretext, to misdirect attention from an improper and discriminatory motive. And plaintiffs demand jury trials. Depositions are taken, the written records are laborioiusly studied for impolitic “smoking gun” statements, and the lawyers on each side do their jobs by putting their clients’ preferred “spin” on what they find. And not surprisingly, many of these cases get settled because of the high cost of litigation and significant uncertainty about the outcome.
Did Dr. Gaskell fail to get the job simply because he was / is an outspoken Christian, with a strong inclination to defend a literalist interpretation of Genesis, and despite having the best credentials and skill set for the position? Or was Dr. Gaskell obviously not the best all-around candidate of those who made it to the final round of the selection process? Was Dr. Gaskell someone who had bizarre opinions on issues of scientific fact — opinions that would make him ill-suited to a position requiring effective advocacy and scientific outreach to the public? Discrimination in hiring on the basis of a candidate’s bizarre and factually unsupported scientific opinions is not illegal . . . unless your lawyer can convince a jury that it’s actually discrimination against religious belief. In practice, it is extremely difficult to draw a bright dividing line between the former (lawful discrimination against bizarre and counter-factual scientific opinions) and the latter (unlawful discrimination against religious belief or affiliation) because of the undeniable connections or correlations between the two. Hence the high hourly rate commanded by my colleagues who defend employers in these discrimination cases.
The question is whether he can run an observatory. Belief in religion does not imply that someone does not have the skills to run an observatory, even if his beliefs run counter to the curriculum. On Twiitter Ophelia tweeted an article about British faith schools being allowed to discriminate against unbelieving teachers. Nothing about being an unbeliever implies an inability to teach a faith school curriculum. The issues are whether Gaskell avowed an intention to teach an unscientific curriculum or follow unscientific polices or whether his job experience shows that he has done such things.
Thank you, Jeff – those last few sentences are a vastly improved and professional version of what I was trying to say to jay.
Question – about the exceptions – religious organizations can also discriminate on the basis of sex, yes? And they’re the only organizations who can? Religion, sexual orientation, and sex – right?
Or not quite right, because they can discriminate on the basis of sex only for certain core jobs? Is that it? The other two are blanket exceptions while sex is an exception only for the doctrinally central jobs like priest n bishop?
Ophelia, I am not a civil rights or employment lawyer, but I can find statutes and case law.
The general provision (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)) of the Civil Rights Act that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, and national origin, which I quoted in my previous comment), is subject to an exception that favors religious organizations and educational institutions (primary and secondary private schools, colleges, etc.) and excuses them from being liable for discrimination on the basis of sex or religion:
42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(e):
(e) Businesses or enterprises with personnel qualified on basis of religion, sex, or national origin; educational institutions with personnel of particular religion. – Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter,
(1) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees, for an employment agency to classify, or refer for employment any individual, for a labor organization to classify its membership or to classify or refer for employment any individual, or for an employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs to admit or employ any individual in any such program, on the basis of his religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise, and
(2) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for a school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning to hire and employ employees of a particular religion if such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is, in whole or in substantial part, owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a particular religion or by a particular religious corporation, association, or society, or if the curriculum of such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is directed toward the propagation of a particular religion.
* * * *
Of course, the most slipppery concept above is “where [when] religion, sex or national origin is a bona fide occupational classification. So, religious organizations — whether they receive federal funds or not, are allowed to require their newly-hired employees to affirm their acceptance of a detailed “statement of faith.”
Note that “sexual orientation” is not a suspect classification in these statutes, on the same level as “race” or “sex” or “religion,” as a basis for showing unlawful discrimination. There may be long-standing Executive Orders, from a succession of U. S. Presidents, that also prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion, sex and sexual orientation in situations where the statutes are silent; I don’t know.
There are separate provisions of the federal civil rights statutes that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin (not sex and not religion) by private sector or public sector organizations or entities that receive federal contracts or federal funds, but there is an exception for religious organizations in these provisions as well.
42 U.S.C. §2000d: “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
42 U.S.C. §2000e-1:
(a) Inapplicability of subchapter to certain aliens and employees of religious entities. – This subchapter shall not apply to an employer with respect to the employment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities.
On the issue of blatant discrimination by religious organizations receiving federal funds, the messy and disgraceful state of federal law is summarized pretty well by this article from December 2010 by Rick Cohen in The Nonprofit Quarterly: http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8026:keep-the-faith-but-why-keep-the-discrimination&catid=149:rick-cohen&Itemid=991
Why have religious organizations received this special treatment? I haven’t studied the specifics of the history, but my best educated guess is that we can blame (1) the high apparent levels of religiosity and (2) the pains that our elected legislators have taken over the past 230 years to avoid appearing hostile to organized religion, in light of the Free Exercise of the First Amendment. Since the enactment of the first parts of the modern Civil Rights Act in the early 1960s, the idea seems to have been that if religious organizations are not allowed to engage in discrimination that would be illegal if committed by any other individuals or private sector entities, then the free exercise of religion by these organizations and their members is somehow being seriously infringed.
Well I waded through the whole thing – all the emails, court docs etc. and I must say that, to me, it appears there were several reservations that various members of the search committee had about Gaskell. Included was the concern that he wasn’t a good fit for a position that included no research since this had been a problem at Nebraska where Gaskell (who had been hired on a 3-year contract primarily to teach) wanted to cut back his teaching load so he could do research. Seems he did not accept “No” with good grace. Other concerns were with his willingness to reach out to the target clientele, rapport with K-12 teachers and how he came across during interviews. UK, I daresay, couldn’t prove that religion was not a factor at all and simply made the sensible decision. Had it gone to a Kentucky jury I think it very unlikely Gaskell would only have been awarded $125,000 But I still don’t see where his rights were violated. I also don’t accept that he was necessarily the best candidate based on the job criteria. There’s something deeply creepy about his lecture notes…….
Thanks Jeff.