Gaskell vs. University of Kentucky

(I am not a lawyer. I have no special legal qualifications. This is commentary by an interested outsider.)

In 2007, Dr. C. Martin Gaskell applied for a position at the University of Kentucky. The position ultimately went to another candidate who does not have a Ph.D., has significantly fewer publications, and significantly less experience than Dr. Gaskell. Gaskell was led to believe that the decision was made on the basis of his religious beliefs. As a result of this belief, Gaskell sued UK.

The case has been settled, with the UK paying Gaskell $125,000 while admitting no wrongdoing. This was probably the best Gaskell could have done for himself, and it likely spared UK millions of dollars. Pragmatically, financially, it was the best decision for both plaintiff and defendant.

My feelings on this decision are mixed. If the case had gone to the Supreme Court, a muddled situation could have been clarified. On the other hand, there are enough conservatives on the Court and no one with any apparent understanding of science that the decision could easily have encouraged attempts by Creationists (Biblical literalists who believe the earth was created in six days) and supporters of Intelligent Design (creationism of another, but still unscientific, breed) to use the legal system to require science teachers in middle and high school to teach the Bible as science. I doubt Dr. Gaskell would have supported these efforts himself, but he wouldn’t have been able to stop it.

One of the key decisions that would have been decided in the case if it hadn’t been settled is whether it was appropriate for the hiring committee at UK to take into consideration publicly available lecture notes by Dr. Gaskell in which he blends science and scripture so intricately that determining whether he’s discussing science or religion (specifically, some form of creationism that seems to be unique to Gaskell) is next to impossible. Dr. Gaskell has these lecture notes posted on the internet. He linked to them from his website when he was at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln. Once the hiring committee became aware of these notes, they had to investigate.

So the question that will not be decided is: Is it appropriate for a public university to ask a potential employee about how (in this case) his religious beliefs affect his understanding and teaching of science when that potential employee has already publicly published on the internet lecture notes that indicate that he does blend science and religion (as distinct from faith)?

Overall, I think UK had sufficient and substantive reasons for not hiring Dr. Gaskell that they could have won had the case gone to the Supreme Court. Probably the most important reason is that UK advertised a position that was half teaching and half outreach (especially to K-12 teachers). Dr. Gaskell stated that after a couple of years he would have wanted to reduce both of those responsibilities so that he could work on his own research, with a third of his time devoted to each (research, teaching, outreach). Dr. Gaskell has a history of buying out of his teaching responsibilities, and his experience in outreach was not as involved as what UK is working on. If UK had hired Gaskell, right now they would more than likely be looking for someone to work part time to cover the responsibilities he’d be trying to get out of performing.

The University had other reasons for not hiring Gaskell, including interpersonal and interdepartmental politics, and an apparently fantastic interview (or at least significantly better than Gaskell's) from the candidate who was eventually hired.

Depositions in the case are available at the website of the National Center for Science Education. I will post my comments on Dr. Gaskell’s lecture notes soon.