Re: [asa] Sternberg quote

*But David in court cases like this doesnt there have to be
some proof that some kind of harm came to Sternberg as a
result of these emails, comments, etc? As far as we can
tell nothing happened to him.*

That is a fair point. A plaintiff in a discrimination case must prove
damages. One line of defense often is that "she would've been fired
anyway" or "her position was being eliminated in the ordinary course of
business regardless..." Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. It all
depends on the particular facts of the case. The point I was making is not
necessarily that Sternberg has a case under the anti-discrimination laws,
but simply that there's plenty of evidence that some of the individuals
involved harbored an anti-religious bias.

*By the way in medicine we dont say "If it stinks like a
> fish, its a fish." We say, "If it walks like a duck and
> quacks like a duck, its a duck." Just wanted to point
> that out.*

Once I had the chance to say, "yes, Your Honor, and it is an ugly duck
indeed." I also once had a case in which it was alleged that the President
of a company was corrupt, leading to a culture of corruption in the whole
company. My adversary included this in his brief: "An ancient Chinese
proverb says, a rotten fish starts to stink at the head." In Dostoyevsky's
Brother's Karamazov, much is made at one point of the "odor of corruption"
emanating from the body of the Elder Zosima, though I think there the
fragrance was mistaken for a bad sign. And of course, "there is something
rotten in the State of Denmark" gets trotted out from time to time --
although the quoting of Shakespear in legal briefs usually signals that the
case has problems or that the lawyer needs a vacation. But the basic "sniff
test" gets the most play -- it's just so vivid and common-sensical -- say
what you want about this milk, anyone can smell it's rotten. Or, like one
of my former partners used to say to clients: "We have a technical legal
term for that kind of argument. We call it Horsesh*!"

On 3/27/07, drsyme@cablespeed.com <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
> You like olfactory metaphors dont you? At first I was
> going to say this was a mixed metaphor, because what does
> a witch hunt smell like? But then I figured maybe it is
> referring to them burning at the stakes.
>
> I am not trying to defend the behavior of the scientists.
> I am sure some of them are atheists, and are hostile to
> religion. And it is clear that they have expressed this
> view in some emails.
>
> But what was the real result of their opinions? As far as
> you or I, or anyone else knows, there was no hostility
> towards Sternberg until after the publication. I think
> there is fair ground for them to question his motives in
> publishing this paper, if it is clearly below the
> standards of the journal, especially if there is an agenda
> that can be advanced by publishing it, which there clearly
> is in this case.
>
> But David in court cases like this doesnt there have to be
> some proof that some kind of harm came to Sternberg as a
> result of these emails, comments, etc? As far as we can
> tell nothing happened to him. There are other
> explanations for some of the changes going on at the
> Smithsonian at the time, not the least of which was the
> death of Sternbergs sponsor. Given the circumstances he
> was treated like any other RA. I am sure that Sternberg
> felt hostility, but does that really reach the level of
> discrimination?
>
> By the way in medicine we dont say "If it stinks like a
> fish, its a fish." We say, "If it walks like a duck and
> quacks like a duck, its a duck." Just wanted to point
> that out.
>
>
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:55:55 -0400
> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> > *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.
> >
>

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 13:39:57 2007