The University of Kentucky has agreed to pay $125,000 to a researcher who appeared likely to take charge of a new astronomical observatory until university officials became doubtful about his commitment to the scientific tenets of evolution.
C. Martin Gaskell, who had been a research associate professor in astronomy at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, then became the plaintiff in a lawsuit brought against the University of Kentucky in July 2009, and this week the two sides agreed to a settlement. It comes two months after a federal judge refused the university's request to dismiss the case.
The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Mr. Gaskell by the American Center for Law and Justice, which claimed a broad victory in what it has described as a case of religious discrimination.
"We have shed some much-needed light on a problem that is by no means limited to the University of Kentucky," a lawyer with the center, Francis J. Manion, said in a written statement.
The university said in its own written statement that the settlement "precludes what would have been a lengthy trial that, ultimately, would not have served anyone's best interests" and would have cost a lot of money to litigate.
In 2007, Mr. Gaskell had been the university's leading candidate to head its new MacAdam Student Observatory, built atop a parking garage on the campus, in Lexington. A search committee ranked Mr. Gaskell first in a preliminary vote reviewing its 12 choices, and the department chairman told the panel he was "clearly the most experienced" of the candidates, according to e-mails submitted by Mr. Gaskell as part of his court case.
But search committee members shifted positions after finding evidence, in his speeches and writings, that he harbored doubts about evolution and saw value in considering the arguments of "intelligent design" proponents. Mr. Gaskell, in an interview on Tuesday, said intelligent design has been assigned several different meanings, not all of which he accepts.
He said he instead subscribes to the philosophy of "theistic evolution," which he described as a belief common throughout many major religions including Christianity. The philosophy fully accepts evolution as described by mainstream science but also contends that the process of evolution was guided by some intelligent being rather than having happened through random chance. And either way, the question is a matter of biology that should not affect his qualifications as an astronomer, he said.
In a contribution to The Chronicle's Innovations blog last month, Peter W. Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, questioned the committee's rejection of Mr. Gaskell, saying that its stated objections to his scientific views seemed to be "a plausible professional cover story for a decision that is deeply infected by religious prejudice."
A University of Kentucky spokesman, Jay Blanton, rejected such suggestions. The university consistently made "an appropriate delineation between someone's personal religious or political beliefs and their views on science, which would, of course, be an important part of their position," Mr. Blanton said Tuesday in an e-mail message.
The university eventually hired Timothy G. Knauer, a part-time instructor on the Lexington campus, to lead the MacAdam observatory. Mr. Gaskell was later hired as a research fellow at the University of Texas at Austin, and is due to move to Chile in six weeks to begin work as a professor at the University of Valparaíso.
Comments
1. pataburd - January 19, 2011 at 07:52 am
He's in the minority, but certainly not alone. : )
2. blog21 - January 19, 2011 at 08:20 am
litmus testing. How wonderful.
3. phyisiologist - January 19, 2011 at 09:45 am
There is no problem in being religious and practicing science. The problem begins when religious dogma invades the scientific endeavor.
4. janesdaughter - January 19, 2011 at 11:54 am
Can someone please help me (I am neither a biologist nor an astronomer) understand how the question of random chance vs. higher intelligence applies only to biology and not to the creation and development of the stars and galaxies?
5. pierce_library40 - January 19, 2011 at 12:52 pm
Anyone who thinks "random chance" is at the heart of evolutionary theory does not understand evolution. If a so-called "scientist" rejects evolution out of hand, he or she probably does not understand much about the practice of science. It is one thing to attempt to better understand the world through enlightened skepticism; it is another thing entirely to reject the practice of science in favor of dogma.
6. clayfabulous - January 19, 2011 at 05:26 pm
Both "sides " in this debate have it wrong. In fact, the concept that evolution could possibly have a direction does not a Baptist make. On the other hand, persons who reject the fact of evolution based upon the old testament are fools in both science and Christianity.
7. lothlorien - January 19, 2011 at 10:41 pm
Absent any evidence that such beliefs were contrary to accepted astronomical theories and laws, this appears simply as an incident of bigotry.
8. jhwarner - January 20, 2011 at 02:51 pm
even if they were contrary to certain "accepted" theories, there is no need for discriminatory practices by the university. unpopular ideas in the humanities and sciences should be given an equal chance.
9. lothlorien - January 20, 2011 at 05:34 pm
This is not youth soccer. Unpopular theories are generally such because there is no scientific evidence to support them. Had this professor held that Earth was 5000 years old, that would be a belief (NOT a scientific theory) that is contradicted by just about every observation an astronomer might make. Science stands or falls on evidence. In this case, the bigotry applied because a) the man identified as a Christian and b) he did not deny any basic scientific principles, including the age of the universe and evolutionary descent with modification.