In a message dated 8/23/2005 11:21:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The accusation that he was antagonistic to religion was and remains patently false.  The fact of the matter was that the kid had made no demonstration of the academic horsepower required, and I suspect any suit would have been tossed for lack of standing.  There was no showing, nor even hint of a showing, that Dini would deny a recommendation to any student who had scored well academically, but believed in creationism -- so long as the student could explain the theory of evolution.  Dini was asking academic rigor only. 
How many times must a black man try to use a whites only water fountain before he has standing to complain about a law enforcing the segregation of government owned water fountains?  If he would use the whites only fountain, but never tries because of patent racial discrimination enforced with criminal law, do you claim that he has not been injured by the discrimination?
 
A student wants to take a class offered by a professor, ultimately because he concludes that the professor's recommendation (should he do well in the course) would be an important factor in his effort to be admitted to some program of graduate education.  The professor lists on his webpage the requirement that students acknowledge that white folks are biologically superior to black ones.  Do you applaud the DOJ for recognizing it had no business involving itself in some "made up" case by a student who lacked the intellectual rigor for the professor's courses in any event?
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Reply via email to