(Christian) Scientist alleges religious discrimination

[manifold]

LOUISVILLE, Ky. – An astronomer argues that his Christian faith and his peers' belief that he is an evolution skeptic kept him from getting a prestigious job as the director of a new student observatory at the University of Kentucky.

Martin Gaskell quickly rose to the top of a list of applicants being considered by the university's search committee. One member said he was "breathtakingly above the other applicants."

Others openly worried his Christian faith could conflict with his duties as a scientist, calling him "something close to a creationist" and "potentially evangelical."

Even though Gaskell says he is not a creationist, he claims he was passed over for the job at UK's MacAdam Student Observatory three years ago because of his religion and statements that were perceived to be critical of the theory of evolution.

Gaskell has sued the university, claiming lost income and emotional distress. Last month a judge rejected a motion from the university and allowed it to go to trial Feb. 8.

read more

 

[rdean]

If the American right wing wants to be stupid, go for it. Just don't infect the rest of the nation with that religious nonsense.

6% of scientists are Republican for a good reason. Because most Republicans left "reason" at the "alter".

 

[manifold]

I have no problem with the university passing him over based on concerns about his scientific objectivity.

I would've done the same.

 

[manifold]

But props for immediately chiming in with your favorite stat rdean.

 

[rdean]

But props for immediately chiming in with your favorite stat rdean.

My "favorite" stat is, "90% of the Republican Party is white and mostly Christian". My SECOND favorite is "Only 6% of scientists" are Republican.

Believe me, it shows.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If the American right wing wants to be stupid, go for it. Just don't infect the rest of the nation with that religious nonsense.

6% of scientists are Republican for a good reason. Because most Republicans left "reason" at the "alter".

This guy was qualified for the job and passed over because of his lifestyle choice, if he was passed over because he was homosexual you would be screaming and ranting a different tune. You should at least try to be logically consistent instead of just consistently illogical.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have no problem with the university passing him over based on concerns about his scientific objectivity.

I would've done the same.

Did they pass him over because of concerns about his objectivity or because they are biased against Christians? Unless they can sho something in his published work that supports their concerns about the lack of objectivity I do not seem them justifying it that way.

 

[pinqy]

I have no problem with the university passing him over based on concerns about his scientific objectivity.

I would've done the same.

Why? Based on the article there is no real reason to have concerns about his objectivity...the complaints are all speculative or unbacked opinion. Notes from one lecture aimed at a Christian audience does not mean he is biased and/or not objective. He specifically denies Young Earth Creationism.

Based on the article, it looks like the decison was made out of bias and not solid facts about his teaching/methodology.

 

[manifold]

I have no problem with the university passing him over based on concerns about his scientific objectivity.

I would've done the same.

Did they pass him over because of concerns about his objectivity or because they are biased against Christians? Unless they can sho something in his published work that supports their concerns about the lack of objectivity I do not seem them justifying it that way.

Actually, if you want to take his side on this, it's up to you (really him) to show that it was merely a bias against Christians.

I'd wager they have plenty of Christians working at UK so good luck with that.

 

[manifold]

I have no problem with the university passing him over based on concerns about his scientific objectivity.

I would've done the same.

Why? Based on the article there is no real reason to have concerns about his objectivity...the complaints are all speculative or unbacked opinion. Notes from one lecture aimed at a Christian audience does not mean he is biased and/or not objective. He specifically denies Young Earth Creationism.

Based on the article, it looks like the decison was made out of bias and not solid facts about his teaching/methodology.

I read the same article and concluded his objectivity is questionable.

Go figure.

 

[Steerpike]

Who knows what else went on behind the scenes. I didn't see enough in the article to think the guy would be biased or questionable in the position.

I agree with QuantumWindbag that there should be a basis in his scientific acumen to exclude him, not merely his religious views (which are protected by the 1st Amendment, and this is a public University).

 

[manifold]

Who knows what else went on behind the scenes. I didn't see enough in the article to think the guy would be biased or questionable in the position.

I agree with QuantumWindbag that there should be a basis in his scientific acumen to exclude him, not merely his religious views (which are protected by the 1st Amendment, and this is a public University).

He wasn't "excluded." He was considered for the job and didn't get it.

Boo frickin hoo.

Are you suggesting we need affirmative action quotas for Christian scientists now?

 

[Steerpike]

He wasn't "excluded." He was considered for the job and didn't get it.

Boo frickin hoo.

Are you suggesting we need affirmative actions quotas for Christian scientists now?

You clearly didn't understand the story you linked.

 

[manifold]

He wasn't "excluded." He was considered for the job and didn't get it.

Boo frickin hoo.

Are you suggesting we need affirmative actions quotas for Christian scientists now?

You clearly didn't understand the story you linked.

Fail

I understand it perfectly. Perhaps you don't understand the difference between facts and opinions/speculation.

Since it's the Christmas season, I'll help you out:

Facts:
He applied for the job
He was considered for the job
He didn't get the job

Opinions/speculation:
He was discriminated against because he is a Christian
He was discriminated against because his objectivity is questionable


You're welcome

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have no problem with the university passing him over based on concerns about his scientific objectivity.

I would've done the same.

Did they pass him over because of concerns about his objectivity or because they are biased against Christians? Unless they can sho something in his published work that supports their concerns about the lack of objectivity I do not seem them justifying it that way.

Actually, if you want to take his side on this, it's up to you (really him) to show that it was merely a bias against Christians.

I'd wager they have plenty of Christians working at UK so good luck with that.

I actually think he has a lousy case, and even if he had a solid case I would advise him not to pursue it. All I am saying is that if you are going to claim that they had some evidence of his lack of objectivity you are going to have to do better than anything I have seen. The fact that he was a top candidate, if not the top candidate, for the post in the first place proves that he has good scientific credentials, and that he has never published anything at all to indicate he believes what they accused him of believing. That makes your defense of them lacking, even if it does not improve his chances of winning the suit.

 

[Steerpike]

Fail

I understand it perfectly. Perhaps you don't understand the difference between facts and opinions/speculation.

Since it's the Christmas season, I'll help you out:

Facts:
He applied for the job
He was considered for the job
He didn't get the job

Opinions/speculation:
He was discriminated against because he is a Christian
He was discriminated against because his objectivity is questionable


You're welcome

Now it is certain you didn't understand it. This probably won't be worth the effort, since you don't seem all that reasonable, but...

There's a lawsuit ongoing. The Professor alleges religious discrimination. And in the article you linked there is a lot of evidence to support the claim that religious viewpoint was the reason he didn't get the position. As I noted, a lot may have happened behind the scenes that we don't know about. And if it is the case that based on scientific suitability, he wasn't chosen, then there's no problem. But even statements by members of the search committee appear to support the Professor. So you've got a potential Constitutional issue.

That's reflects an understanding of the article, rather than the surface-level browsing you apparently did.

 

[manifold]

Did they pass him over because of concerns about his objectivity or because they are biased against Christians? Unless they can sho something in his published work that supports their concerns about the lack of objectivity I do not seem them justifying it that way.

Actually, if you want to take his side on this, it's up to you (really him) to show that it was merely a bias against Christians.

I'd wager they have plenty of Christians working at UK so good luck with that.

I actually think he has a lousy case, and even if he had a solid case I would advise him not to pursue it. All I am saying is that if you are going to claim that they had some evidence of his lack of objectivity you are going to have to do better than anything I have seen. The fact that he was a top candidate, if not the top candidate, for the post in the first place proves that he has good scientific credentials, and that he has never published anything at all to indicate he believes what they accused him of believing. That makes your defense of them lacking, even if it does not improve his chances of winning the suit.

Point taken.

But I still say if it were up to me I wouldn't hire a bible thumping scientist. Just common sense really.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have no problem with the university passing him over based on concerns about his scientific objectivity.

I would've done the same.

Why? Based on the article there is no real reason to have concerns about his objectivity...the complaints are all speculative or unbacked opinion. Notes from one lecture aimed at a Christian audience does not mean he is biased and/or not objective. He specifically denies Young Earth Creationism.

Based on the article, it looks like the decison was made out of bias and not solid facts about his teaching/methodology.

I read the same article and concluded his objectivity is questionable.

Go figure.

What did you read in the article, viewed entirely without your obvious personal bias, would lead a reasonable person to conclude that his objectivity is questionable?

 

[manifold]

Fail

I understand it perfectly. Perhaps you don't understand the difference between facts and opinions/speculation.

Since it's the Christmas season, I'll help you out:

Facts:
He applied for the job
He was considered for the job
He didn't get the job

Opinions/speculation:
He was discriminated against because he is a Christian
He was discriminated against because his objectivity is questionable


You're welcome

Now it is certain you didn't understand it. This probably won't be worth the effort, since you don't seem all that reasonable, but...

There's a lawsuit ongoing. The Professor alleges religious discrimination. And in the article you linked there is a lot of evidence to support the claim that religious viewpoint was the reason he didn't get the position. As I noted, a lot may have happened behind the scenes that we don't know about. And if it is the case that based on scientific suitability, he wasn't chosen, then there's no problem. But even statements by members of the search committee appear to support the Professor. So you've got a potential Constitutional issue.

That's reflects an understanding of the article, rather than the surface-level browsing you apparently did.

Nope, I read all that and understood it perfectly.

I'm just not one to jump to conclusions based on hearsay simply because of a built in confirmation bias.

 

[manifold]

Why? Based on the article there is no real reason to have concerns about his objectivity...the complaints are all speculative or unbacked opinion. Notes from one lecture aimed at a Christian audience does not mean he is biased and/or not objective. He specifically denies Young Earth Creationism.

Based on the article, it looks like the decison was made out of bias and not solid facts about his teaching/methodology.

I read the same article and concluded his objectivity is questionable.

Go figure.

What did you read in the article, viewed entirely without your obvious personal bias, would lead a reasonable person to conclude that his objectivity is questionable?

The fastest horse.

Any scientist who gets on a religious soapbox isn't a scientist I trust to be objective.

Simple as that.