The Discovery Institute continues to threaten Ball State

October 2, 2013 • 12:34 pm

Well, this is the second Discovery Institute (DI) shenanigan of the day.

Last month I reported that, after Ball State University (BSU) dismantled Eric Hedin’s “science” course for teaching intelligent design and being a cover for Christian apologetics, the DI protested loudly, arguing that other courses also taught atheistic views, something presumably just as impermissible in a state university as pushing Christianity. As I noted, the DI wrote a strong letter to BSU president Jo Ann Gora, demanding that four other courses be investigated, either for containing significant amounts of “nonscientific material” or containing some atheist material, including a book edited by my agent John Brockman. As I wrote,

Now, however, the Discovery Institute (DI) has decided it will not go gentle into that good outcome. They have written President Gora a ten-page letter (link here), demanding an investigation of the Hedin affair as well as some structural changes in the university’s teaching. The letter is signed by John West, vice-president of the DI, as well as by  Joshua Youngkin, DI Program Officer in Public Policy and Law, and Donald McLaughlin, described as a “Ball State University Alumnus and Resident of Indiana Regional Representative Discovery Institute” (whatever that means).

But there have been three developments since the DI sent that letter.

First, as reported by the Ball State Daily News (the student newspaper), Ball State is investigating all its honors courses, including the four singled out in the DI letter:

All honors courses will be reviewed for appropriateness of teaching style, teachers’ qualifications and course materials, said a university spokesperson.

Joan Todd, executive director of public relations, said the reviews will occur before the semester the course is taught, and courses for Spring Semester 2014 are already under review. Four faculty subcommittees will conduct the reviews in distinct areas: social sciences, humanities, natural sciences and colloquia.

The Discovery Institute, an intelligent design organization, sent a letter to Ball State officials in mid-September asking for a review of four classes, and the university will be looking at the four in addition to next semester’s courses.

. . . The institute said the class HON 390, “Dangerous Ideas,” by English associate professor Paul Ranieri promoted anti-theistic ideas through the main text of the class, “What is your Dangerous Idea?”

Hedin’s qualifications as an astronomy professor to discuss religious ideas were also examined, so the institute brought up three professors it believes teach areas outside of their field of study. They include English assistant professor Brent Blackwell’s HON 296: “‘Old’ and ‘New’” Science,”associate biology professor Ann Blakey’s HON 297: “The SustainABLES: Air, Biodiversity, Land, Energy, & the Seas [Water]” and assistant biology professor James Olesen’s 298: “The Biology of Life.”

This certainly looks as if BSU has capitulated to the Discovery Institute’s demands, and hidden its investigation of those four courses within a general investigation of all Honors courses, some of which certainly don’t merit that investigation. Even the “Dangerous Ideas” book, which I know well, can hardly constitute Christian proselytizing, for it contains a number of disparate articles about all kinds of stuff, and is part of a course designed to examine various “dangerous” views.  Yes, some of those include atheism, but I highly doubt that Dr. Ranieri was proselytizing for atheism in the same way that Hedin was proselytizing for Jesus. After all, Hedin’s syllabus consisted largely of books about how the universe gives evidence for God, and he pushed that view in the classroom.

Second, an article by Seth Slabaugh in the Muncie Star-Press reports President Gora’s response to the DI’s letter, which includes this:

You can be assured that the syllabi and curricula of all of the courses you singled out, as well as those of other courses offered by the Honors College and elsewhere at the university, are reviewed and updated on a regular basis,” BSU President Jo Ann Gora wrote in a letter on Monday to The Discovery Institute.

“Some were undergoing this process before we received the inquiry regarding Honors 296, and others are being reviewed and updated at the present time,” the letter read. “Our intent is to ensure that their content and pedagogy reflect the highest academic standards.”

But then Gora added this, as Slabaugh reports:

But nothing submitted by the institute “persuades us we should change our position” on intelligent design, Gora wrote in this week’s letter.

Well, that ticked off the DI, and the Star-Press reports that now they’re threating BSU, presumably with a lawsuit:

The Discovery Institute is not satisfied with Gora’s response and continues to threaten to “seek another remedy.”

“We are seriously concerned about whether the subcommittees being established will apply the same standards fairly and equally to all faculty,” West told The Star Press via email on Tuesday. “In particular, we will be looking at the make-up of the various committees to see if they are as ideologically one-sided as the ad hoc committee appointed to investigate Eric Hedin.”

He accused Ball State of continuing to “stonewall by refusing to answer basic questions that have been raised about its potential violations of the law, the federal and Indiana constitutions, and its own guarantees of academic freedom and due process.”

West said, “We gave BSU an opportunity to clarify what it is doing, and to show that it is applying its policies in a fair and legal manner. Because BSU has refused to clarify what it is doing or answer our questions, we will be forced to seek another remedy.”

I’m not too worried about all this, as the DI has always been like a toothless dog that barks incessantly.  And they surely don’t want another humiliating defeat like the one they suffered in Dover. But if they want to adjudicate the First Amendment on the college level, bring it on! I’d welcome that, because a public university is still a government institution, and in neither case can you legally proselytize religion in the U.S.

h/t: Diana

33 thoughts on “The Discovery Institute continues to threaten Ball State”

      1. You need to submit a comment and check the “Notify” check box to get emails. Sub is short for subscribe.

  2. The DI doesn’t really seem to have a case. Science courses should reflect the peer-review process and be in line with what is generally accepted in the scientific community. That seems logical, and defeats the “equal time” argument.

  3. The DI are just being whiny pissants. They asked for a review and got it. Nothing Ball State can do will satisfy those Liars-For-Jesus. I hope they do sue and they will get slapped again and pay all costs.

    1. The DI would have a much tougher time if it sued Ball State than a student would have if the University had refused to take the action that it did regarding Hedin’s course. But although I expect the DI to lose, it is unlikely that the DI would be forced to pay “all costs.” Court costs could be “taxed” against the DI as the losing party, but those court costs would at most be a few thousand dollars, more likely a few hundred.

      Unfortunately, in federal lawsuits, a losing plaintiff (e.g., DI) can be ordered to pay the successful defendant’s (BSU’s)attorney fees only on a showing that the claim was plainly frivolous and pursued in bad faith or for a manifestly improper or “harassing” purpose (28 U.S.C. 1927; see also Rule 11 of the Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure). In Indiana state court litigation, the rule is essentially the same; unless a specific statute establishes a “loser pays” rule for attorney fees, a losing plaintiff can be ordered to pay the winning defendant’s fees only if the court can be convinced that the plaintiff brought or pursued a claim that was frivolous, unreasonable or groundless or litigated the action in bad faith (Ind. Code 34-52-1-1(b)). In practice, this is quite difficult to establish: one must convince the court that the losing plaintiff’s claim is really, obviously groundless or that the plaintiff brought and pursued the suit for an obviously improper purpose.

    2. I’d bet money they won’t sue. They like to push others to sue, but just based on their actions in the past, it seems pretty clear that they actively avoid being a party in a legal suit.

  4. Too bad BSU didn’t tell the DI to get lost, but then again when they discover the English course wasn’t proselytizing atheism that’s going to sting too.

  5. I really, really, really, really, really hope that the DiscoTute sues BSU. Dr. Gora has repeatedly demonstrated that she’ll have none of their bullshit, making her the perfect defendant in a case like this to set a precedent even more meaningful than that in the Dover trial.

    I also get good vibes from the review process. I think we can be quite confident that the reviews will be thorough and brutally honest, which is exactly what we want. Any lingering promotion of religious ideology of any sort should be very well purged as a result. And Dr. Gora has demonstrated that she’s as baffled as the rest of us by the idiotic notion that failing to proselytize Christianity somehow constitutes an un-Constitutional promotion of atheism.

    To their dismay, I’m pretty sure the DiscoTute is going to get exactly what they asked for.

    Cheers,

    b&

    1. I think of Kahn when I think of the DI:

      He tasks me. He tasks me and I shall have him! I’ll chase him ’round the moons of Nibia and ’round the Antares Maelstrom and ’round perdition’s flames before I give him up!

        2. I don’t like Moby Duck. I used to call it Moby Phallus. I know my opinion is not popular.

          3. Melville needed a better editor. The book contains some absolutely epic prose, and if it could be cut to about a third the original length, it would suffer much less from dissipation.

  6. “In particular, we will be looking at the make-up of the various committees to see if they are as ideologically one-sided as the ad hoc committee appointed to investigate Eric Hedin.”

    In the interest of fairness and balance, we insist that the committee consist of both competent and incompetent people.

  8. Stepping back a moment, what is the DI if not a clown car?

    Physically, the DI is a shabby suite of offices above a gym in Seattle. No sign on the door other than the “No Loitering” which is too ironic by half.

    Inside you have Attack Gerbil Luskin, twisted Westie, Bobby “the crow” Crowther, Klinkleklankle aka slasher former journalist, and a couple of odds and sods. That’s it. Everybody else is a “fellow” which seems to be more of an honorary title more than anything else.

    So, the DI is really just a handful of cranks, religious nuts and knuckleheads. The only standing they have is grand and the sum of their credentials plus a nice Target gift card could get you a set of placemats.

    Here’s how West concludes his hissy fit threatening “if BSU continues along this path, it is going to find itself in serious trouble.”

    ORLY, “serious trouble,” srsly?

    1. They apparently don’t know that Ball State appealed a case to the Supreme Court last year and were successful. Their legal team has to be laughing their arses off at that threat.

      1. I agree with what both of you say about the relative quality of the DI and BSU legal capabilities. And I empathize with JAC’s desire to have the speech-at-state-based-college question resolved (though I probably support a different answer).

        And yet, with all that being said….do you REALLY want to put this sort of case before THIS Supreme Court? All three of you are basically arguing that the liberal secular side is going to have the best arguments. You do understand that that doesn’t necessarily mean you’re going to win, right?

  9. I should point out that the Ball State Honors may contain other problematic stuff given that Hedin had taught his course for some time before people noticed he wasn’t exactly teaching science.

    BTW Ranieri, the professor teaching the “Dangerous Ideas” colloquium attacked by DI, might have also used in other courses such atheist promoting books as “The Way the World Is: The Christian Perspective of a Scientist” by John Polkinghome. From his cv I suspect he is a Catholic (Catholic university education, consulting editor to a journal on Catholic higher ed, faculty advisor to the Ball State Catholic Student Union Council) not atheist and as a professor of rhetoric, should be well armed to dissect and answer arguments from the DI.

  10. Does anyone have the address of the Disco ‘Tute? I offer to ship them, at my own expense, a case of pacifiers, and I’ll even throw in a case of Gerber’s!

    Just give me a moment to post my offer to their blog…

  11. They provided the “evidence” that this is all simply a PR stunt and has nothing to do with ID or academic freedom or anything else other than seeing their name in the media, when they went after the other courses that have nothing to do with ID (demand#3). Those courses demonstrate the existence of academic freedom, where the faculty are drawing upon their breadth of training to provide depth and societial connections for students in non-science majors basic science courses for Honors students. Thus, they have thereby quashing the need for responding to demand#2. And finally, universities have had curriculum committees for decades, therefore demand#1 is a demand for a procedure that is already in place.

Comments are closed.