http://www.aclj.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=4074

The remark “potentially evangelical” in the context in which it was used and as it was explained in the disposition was not in the first place about potentially being something but about potentially doing something, namely – doing – evangelizing. The first thing – being something – would let itself perhaps compare in a conceivable theoretically idealized scheme with being something other like (another assumed religious identity) Muslim, Hindu, Scientologist, Winti-believer or whatever. If however in equal circumstances there would be a reasonable suspicion in either of these hypothetical cases of using their position and the weight of their authority that comes with it to do something, namely proselytizing their favoured set of beliefs and dogmas then there would be equal ground for worry.

So if you are honest you compare doing something with doing something belonging to the same category of acts (here – potentially – proselytizing of some kind of religion or sect, of convincing) and compare being something with being something belonging to the same category of things (here belonging to a group of followers of some religion or sect, of having a conviction.)

But gays, people with a relative abundance of melanin, people with red hair, deaf people, people with a clubfoot and so on belong to a different category, of being endowed with a set of biological facts or genetic make up or whatever, not to a category of – preferential – convictions.

The important thing about this with respect to science and teaching of science is the matter of interpretation of favoured (holy) scripture. Does one take from it that religious texts make or are a source of truth claims about the world (revelations) or not.

In both of these cases then there is a major conflict with science. If not, if one accepts that religious texts bear no a priori relevance to truth claims about the real world, there need not be. Then in Gould-speak the magisterium of science and the magisterium of religion could be kept separated. This however is – a few declared exceptions here and there excluded – not the way it works in real life or ever will and is why Universities are right to very carefully guard the separation of science and religiously motivated special pleading and why invoking (hypersensitive) political correctness as almost always is so misguided.

Science is fundamentally opposed to a “spiritual approach.”

I would disagree unless I’m misreading your statement. Science deals with measurable quantifiable items. It doesn’t deal with the supernatural or spiritual which can’t be measured or quantified so just leaves it out of any equations/theories/hypotheses.

Science is the best tool kit we have for understanding the physical world. Using science to look at the claims* of something that can’t be detected in the first place is like using religious philosophy to understand how the material world operates (and we all know how well that latter attempt worked out). Different tool kits, different purposes, not in opposition.

On topic, Ms. Shafer’s remark was very ill-considered. “Potentially evangelical”? That’s the sort of comment that gives a lawsuit traction.

*If those claims involved something in the physical world then science applies. E.g. “prayer heals people” can be examined.

Those suggestive comparisons, like those in an earlier comment, might have been cleverly crafted to appeal to a sense of hypocrisy or something but actually they belong to different categories (which in short means the argument is fallacious.) And in the sense in which the remark was actually used and carried it’s meaning, they don’t even superficially make sense.

Was it perhaps undiplomatic to put it that way (I mean diplomatic language in the sense in which we were accustomed to perceive of it in the pre-Wikileaks era) in a personal e-mail? Well perhaps, if one has to take into account all the ways ones out of context quotes can be used for judicial or ideological purposes.

“There is no case to answer. That email merely notes that he’s “potentially evangelical” – which means they’re concerned that he’ll be evangelising, NOT that he’s religious per se.”

So if an email went out saying that Dr. Gaskell “potentially evangelical” about being gay there would be no discrimination case either?
How about an an email saying that Dr. Gaskell is “potentially Evangelical” about being Muslim or Jewish?

Granted, when hiring someone, the quality of their work must be looked at.
If the people in the hiring committee feel the quality of the work is not good, that person should not be hired.
Having arguments over email on the persons religious beliefs is the height of stupidity and hubris.