Re: [asa] Sternberg quote

*In my opinion, the burden of proof is on you to show that
the scientists at the Smithsonian have an axe to grind
against religion.*

I don't know about all "the scienists at the Smithsonian," but the odor of a
witch hunt unmistakably wafts from the internal emails relating to this
particular incident. The emails alone more than carry the burden of proof.
Of course, a real case also depends heavily on the credibility of witnesses
as they appear on the stand, and we can only speculate about that. My
experience suggests that no one looks good on the stand when they have to
explain that email references to the plaintiff's religious and political
views were only made out of "curiosity," or that a mocking reference to "one
nation under *dog*" in the Pledge of Allegiance suggests no bias against
religion -- which are a few of the comments in the relevant emails. The
"one nation under dog" email reference alone would blow these witness'
credibility out of the water with any jury of ordinary people, and rightly
so.

All of which is not to say Sternberg was an angel or was beyond criticism.
But then, almost no discrimination case is that clear cut. In my
experience, it is not at all unusual that a person complaining of
discrimination happened also to be a difficult person and not a stellar
employee. At my old law firm, we had a little saying: "nice people don't
sue." But that doesn't justify the surfacing of religious / race / sex
biases against that person -- which is what happened here with regard to
religion.

On 3/27/07, drsyme@cablespeed.com <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>
> To me what stinks like a fish is Sternberg's cry of
> discrimination. He was the one that made the error in
> judgment by publishing the paper, and by circumventing the
> normal peer review process.
>
> In my opinion, the burden of proof is on you to show that
> the scientists at the Smithsonian have an axe to grind
> against religion. Do they discriminate against anyone
> else with religious views, Christian, creationist or
> otherwise?
>
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:10:07 -0400
> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> > *I think the scientists at the Smithsonian were simply
> > embarassed about the Meyer publication, and were angry
> >at
> > Sternberg over it.*
> > **
> > I think it goes deeper than that, and yes, I do think it
> >was, in a
> > significant respect, at least for a few of the
> >individuals involved, a
> > question of religious discrimination.
> >
> > One of the difficult things about a case like this is
> >that it involves a
> > question of intent. You can't really know another
> >person's intent, and even
> > if you could, it's impossible to define a single
> >"intent" behind most
> > actions -- people always act for mixed and often
> >contradictory reasons --
> > and even if you could do that, a corporation or
> >institution is made up of
> > disparate individuals who among them have mixed and
> >contradictory motives.
> >
> > At the end of the day, though, there's kind of an
> >intuitive feel involved in
> > judging such a case. One question I would ask myself in
> >defending this kind
> > of case is, "can a completely benign explanation be
> >provided for the
> > allegedy discriminatory statement / action / policy, in
> >a few sentences or
> > less, such that a typical battle-hardened mid-level
> >employee from the jury
> > pool would find it instantly credible?" Or, more
> >poetically, "if it stinks
> > like a fish, it's a fish."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 3/27/07, drsyme@cablespeed.com
> ><drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Having read some of the internal emails relating to
> >>the
> >> >Sternberg matter,
> >> > there's no doubt at all in my mind that some of his
> >> >superiors were out to
> >> > get him because of his creationist leanings. Simply
> >>no
> >> >doubt at all. In my
> >> > view, it's ludicrous to claim otherwise.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> But is that discrimination against religion? He denies
> >> being creationist first of all. But if he is a
> >> creationist, with all of the pseudoscientific baggage
> >>that
> >> brings, are they out of line to question Sternberg's
> >> motives?
> >>
> >> I think the scientists at the Smithsonian were simply
> >> embarassed about the Meyer publication, and were angry
> >>at
> >> Sternberg over it.
> >>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Mar 27 11:56:23 2007