Rejected Astronomer Suing University of Kentucky over Religious Discrmination

December 14th, 2010

I was going to write about something else today, but saw this story about Martin Gaskell, a friend of mine.   There’s also a blurb at the Chronicle of Higher Education with a few really interesting comments.   Atheist blogger PZ Meyers has a post about the story, most of which I agree with, frankly, but I will say a few things here.

So apparently the crux of the matter is that Martin is being allowed to sue the University of Kentucky for not hiring him as an Observatory Director back in 2007 on the basis of religious discrimination.   Martin is pretty religious, a point brought home to me when I was sitting with him at a restaurant in Shaghai one time, and some little girls came over to us to practice their English.   He started to tell them about his church and to teach them a Christian song.   Made me a little nervous — not only because I’m an atheist but because China in the 1990s wasn’t very friendly about missionary activity and I was a young grad student on one of my first international trips.

I have a number of things I’d like to say to put this in perspective.

First, I have been blogging about hiring astronomers and how hard it is to land a job of any sort at any level (see here and here).   There are lots of great people out there looking for good jobs, and chances are Kentucky had a large number of qualified candidates and a significant number of candidates they liked a lot.   Religion is one of those topics that candidates do not have to speak about, and cannot be asked about unless they bring it up themselves.   Personally, I have religious colleagues I value and respect as scientists, and Martin is one of them.

Martin likely was a leading candidate for the job.   He’s a really good astronomer in my subfield of quasars, and has over 100 refereed publications, including prestigious journals like Nature.   “The” leading candidate, I don’t know.

The specific issue that came up seems to be a talk he gives to the public concerning science and Genesis.   Contentious topic, perhaps.   Let me give what is likely Martin’s side, from a comment by “galileo” at the Chronicle:

Actually, Gaskell has never said that he thinks evolution “has major flaws.” This was a misrepresentation of his views first appearing in a newspaper article about his case. Gaskell is an astronomer who, in a lecture largely about modern cosmology surveyed about a dozen interpretations of Genesis I and how they may or may not be reconciled with modern science. He noted that there “are significant scientific problems in evolutionary theory,” as there are in most areas of science. Pointing out that there are “scientific problems” in any scientific field is hardly the same thing as saying the the reigning theoretical framework of that field has “major flaws.” “Problems” are not “flaws.” In the same lecture Gaskell repeatedly voiced his acceptance of evolution and his belief that “creationism” is “very bad scientifically.” That some at the University of Kentucky interpreted his views as “creationist” says more about their own lack of intellectual depth than it says anything about Gaskell.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this was Martin anonymously commenting.   If this comment is correct, he might have enough of a case to warrant the judge’s ruling to let it go to court.   But, I do have some issues.   Talking about “problems” vs. “flaws” is kind of splitting hairs — his audience is the public, likely the religious public interested in putting some science in their religion.   Science has nothing to do with religion, and is inconsistent with many, many, many statements in the Bible, so there’s something underhanded about this sort of presentation.   Questioning the basic notions of evolution in any way is probably not wise with this audience, as many will come across with the wrong idea, even if couched in a lot of caveats against creationism.   To too many, intelligent design isn’t creationism, and leads them to some intellectually weird places.   Anyway, have a look yourself:

Here’s Martin’s article the hubbub is about.

I’m afraid I do kind of have a problem.   He’s gone to an awful lot of effort to support the Bible with science, which seems like a terrible idea to me from several perspectives.   He seems to be supporting intelligent design, which is not scientific and is a form of creationism as usually expressed.

On the other hand, maybe Martin is the kind of scientist to bring anti-science Christians to “see the light,” so to speak, especially in a place like Kentucky that sports a a Creationist museum.

I know several astronomers at Kentucky, and know that they know Martin pretty well, and I wonder if they’d have even put him on a short list if this was going to be an issue.

I would put this conflation of religion and science under the heading of “intangible issues” if I were on the hiring committee.   Martin has made it an issue by giving public talks on the issue, and would have to speak very carefully to make sure he was not seen as a strong intelligent design (ID) proponent and hence lacking some level scientific credibility.   There’s having a religion, and there’s misapplying science to justify belief.   The former should be protected.   The second, not so much, as it potentially speaks to a lack of scientific acumen, presumably something you want in the successful job candidate.

That issue alone, I believe, could justifiably make a hiring committee uncomfortable enough to go with another similarly strong candidate.   And there may have been stronger candidates, making this much ado about nothing.   It’s a bit arrogant of Martin to assume he was the leading candidate by a large enough margin for him to be suing now, unless he had inside information.   God, what a mess.

I know how hard I’ve worked on our most recent hire, and how much effort we as department invested in trying to make the best hire we could.   I’d be kind of mad to be second-guessed by a candidate who got serious consideration yet passed over.   I’m sure Martin could have done a good job at Kentucky, but without seeing and interviewing all the applicants, I’m loathe to second-guess the hiring committee myself. In any event, the issue doesn’t seem to be Martin’s religious beliefs but how he may be perceived based on his public talks.   Martin is for sure not some Young Earth Creationist, but perception can trump reality.

The courts have ruled in the past that Intelligent Design is not science but creationism recast.   Being concerned about the university and department getting bad press for having one of their own scientists out there potentially being perceived as a creationist is, I think, a legitimate concern, if it even came into play at all.   Well, I guess the court will decide again in Martin’s case.

Other opinions?

UPDATE:   I’ve been reading more.   There’s apparently a lot more information out there (for instance issues about why he left Nebraska that sound problematic).   And all the depositions and legal documents are posted by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE).   More complicated…   It looks like he was by far the strongest candidate based on who they hired (someone with 3 publications), although there might be a case that Martin was overqualified.   Apparently biology did raise a stink, and Martin’s position on some of the issues above did have an effect on some of the members of the hiring committee.   I don’t think it was a case of religious discrimination, but of discrimination against someone who was viewed as promoting the misuse and abuse of science in support of Intelligent Design, and if that’s the case, I don’t really have a big problem with it.   Sorry, Martin.   You’re a good man and a good scientist, but let’s not muddy the waters for the public, especially when it comes to areas outside your expertise.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Wow.   Reading the depositions…just found out one of my other friends/colleagues is a UFO believer.   I need to stop reading these…

Share/Bookmark

Tags: , , , , ,

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.