Of course, if I knew such a physician I would ask him why he didn’t believe that God uses physicians to “raise them from the dead” (i.e., resusciate them.) In any case, a physician is hired or contracted to do a job which includes resuscitating patients. That physician shouldn’t be “subbing out” his duties to others!
1 Like
Or how about this one. Can a hospital refuse to hire an ER doctor because they are a Jehovah’s Witness and have religious objections to giving blood transfusions? The answer is yes so long as administering blood transfusions is part of the job. Like Puck said you can discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs if those beliefs would prevent a candidate from performing the job.
I won’t be as revealing as Josh was but at some point in my career somewhere I knew of a creationist faculty who simply refused to teach evolution in introductory biology and they kept their job. So like most things with creationists the perception of persecution is far worse than the reality.
Some of his lawyer’s statements seem to indicate that the plaintiff ALSO asked for summary judgment on the issue of liability and that this was at least partly granted. However, it’s rather vague and so hard to be sure whether that’s what he’s saying. A copy of the ruling would almost certainly clear that up.
Yeah, if that conversation was well-attested, that’s not a good moment, liability-wise.
I think it’s very clear that Title VII doesn’t allow that. But belief in the ongoing resurrection of hospital patients might be another matter entirely as it could adversely affect the work and therefore fall under the bona fide occupational qualification zone.
1 Like
But that may open up a can of worms. Imagine a YEC geologist who affirms that the world does look old from a purely scientific point of view, and without divine intervention that would indeed be how things actually would have happened. However, because of their religious beliefs, they also believe (based on faith) that the universe is actually young, but 6,000 years ago God miraculously made the universe with the appearance of age, evolution, and all of that. What would you say about this case? That is of course way more extreme than the case of believing in the resurrection, but it seems only different in degree, not kind.
I think a university should refuse to hire anyone (historian or not) who denies the Holocaust, just like they should refuse to hire someone who’s a member of the KKK or the American Nazi Party, for example. But I would base this on a general moral argument (for the good of the university’s image as well as the safety and well-being of its community), which is stronger than an argument based on scholarly incompetence or some sort of incongruence between one’s scholarly work and personal beliefs.
Yeah, I agree with you on this one - in general, they shouldn’t hire this person. But I can think of grayer areas in medical ethics where religious beliefs may have an influence, and I’m not so sure.
2 Likes
So even a physicist? Can a university refuse to hire a physicist for being a Holocaust denier? How about if they deny the moon landing?
No. That person has no business being an educator in anything that touches on geology, the age of the earth, physics, or biology.
Yes. As a minority and international graduate student, I wouldn’t be comfortable taught by a professor who is a white supremacist. I imagine the situation would be even worse for other graduate students of color. But to clarify, I don’t know if the hiring process will catch that unless the person has actually spoken publicly and visibly about such beliefs.
I’m not so sure on that one. It depends on why they deny it. Normally you wouldn’t ask about such beliefs right? Like, maybe one of my colleagues denies the moon landing, I just have never asked. As Josh says, as scientists we normally don’t subject fellow scientists to idealogical purity tests on random things.
But what’s the difference between that person and the case of someone who only believes in the Resurrection?
Someone who says the Holocaust never happened isn’t necessarily a white supremacist. Besides this would put you at odds with Josh who would say he would hire that person so long as no one had to know they were a Holocaust denier.
I’m with you on this one however. I don’t think it matters if they brought it up in the classroom or not. Being a Holocaust denier or even denying the moon landing are not protected classes.
Are you aware of any legitimate reason to deny the moon landing?
And maybe one of your colleagues denies the Holocaust as well.
Because someone who believes as you described could not teach their classes with any honesty as the science is not intended as some model divorced from the world but rather an accurate description of how the world really is. What if someone believes that the magical Flying Spaghetti Monster created the entire universe with the appearance of age last Thursday. Would they be a good science educator in your opinion?
Regardless of what Josh says the moon landing doesn’t qualify as an “ideology” so it’s not a purity test of any kind just as it is not demanding “ideological purity” to ask that physicians not practice medicine on the basis of possession by evil spirits or magical resurrections of their patients. It’s simply asking physicians practice medicine.
Now Josh might say what difference does someone’s beliefs make if they don’t influence how they perform their job but I find it odd to say the least that people out there have all these deeply held beliefs that in no way influence their actions. I mean what is the point then of the belief in the first place?
The fact remains that scientists are not asked to sign belief statements and we do not go around holding inquisitions into one another’s personal beliefs. If asked our personal beliefs in any professional context we have the right not to answer, and letting our work stand on its own. In fact pressing for answers on these sorts of belief questions is understood to be extremely unprofessional.
Science is not about what we believe in the privacy of our hearts, it is about the legitimacy of our professional contributions.
1 Like
So if you found out someone on your faculty denied the Holocaust or held racist beliefs or just believed in unfounded conspiracies you’re fine with that?
I find it odd that you find holding people responsible for completely unfounded beliefs as the unprofessional thing while people believing in total BS like the moon landing or the Holocaust never happening or harboring racist beliefs as no problem professionally.
Read more closely.
I can only read so close Josh.
I think the situation is different between a Holocaust denier and a moon landing denier. There are different moral implications. While I don’t think there is any legitimate reason to deny the moon landing either, I don’t know if we should subject everyone to purity tests on matters that don’t have moral implications. For example, a physicist might be a childhood fan of Everton FC in their private life and irrationally believe that they have a high chance of winning the Premier League next year, which would also be scientifically illegitimate. But I don’t think most people would regard that belief as disqualifying for a job as a physicist.
But you could argue the same regarding a medical school professor who believes that in exceptional circumstances (such as that of Jesus), divine intervention may result in a resurrection that violates the known laws of physics and medical science. A really militant atheist could argue that such a person is also “dishonest”, in a certain way. I just don’t see how your position is consistent.
The science is NOT about what we believe in the privacy of our hearts but clearly private beliefs can influence our actions. Few private beliefs are so contained that they don’t spill over into what we do. If they didn’t there would be little point in having those beliefs. The technical proficiency of your science is not the only contributor to your career. I really don’t see much difference then in someone like Jim Watson losing professional opportunities for letting slip his racial and sexual prejudices and him harboring those prejudices in secret. Either way no one wants their institution harboring people with these beliefs. Telling him, “Jim, just keep it to yourself” is no solution.