Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article

[Michael MASINTER]

Hostility to bad science is not hostility to religious faith; the free
exercise clause and Title VII only protect against religiously motivated
hostile environments.  Whether the hostility reported in the NR piece was
motivated by bad science or religious bias is far less clear to me than to
Klinghoffer; it is Klinghoffer who uses loaded phraseology like "the
writer had learned how to deal with religious Christians," and OSC
ultimately concluded only that it lacked jurisdiction.

Scientists who make claims that lack evidentiary support, that distort the
work of other scientists, and that take statements of other scientists out
of context to misrepresent their views generally do not engender respect
from their colleagues.  Mr. Meyer has every right to believe in
intelligent design or intelligent falling,
http://www.onion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2 or, for that matter,
perpetual motion machines, but he has no right to have his beliefs treated
as responsible scientific claims or to be shielded from contempt for
having claimed otherwise.

Michael R. Masinter			3305 College Avenue
Professor of Law			Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
Nova Southeastern University		(954) 262-6151 (voice)
Shepard Broad Law Center		(954) 262-3835 (fax)
masinter at nova.edu			Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal Panel

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 JMHACLJ at aol.com wrote:

> David Klinghoffer reports on findings of the OSC in the flap over  
> discollegial reactions to publication of a intelligent design article in one the  
> Institution's journals.  See 
> _http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/klinghoffer200508160826.asp_ 
> (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/klinghoffer200508160826.asp) .
>  
> Jim Henderson
> Senior Counsel
> ACLJ
>