Source: Richard A. Posner, How Judges Think (2008), p. 227 Bottom Footnote 35.

  35. Brief for Amicus Curiae the American Association of University Professors, 2005 U.S. S. Ct. briefs LEXIS 641, at nn. 2—3 (Sept. 21, 2005). This brief states that
[1.] "[1.1] a faculty is entitled to make the academic judgment that assisting recruitment by an employer that refuses to hire openly gay students is akin to [1.2] failing a student in class merely for being gay." Id. at n. 12.
That is like saying that [2.] [2.1.] teaching evolution to a class that contains believers in biblical inerrancy is [2.2.] akin to flunking a student because he is a fundamentalist Christian.

Posner tries to weaken and counter analogy 1 by analogizing wth a ridiculous analogy 2, but I don't understand what's weak or unconvincing about 2?

In 2.2, the fundamentalist Christian student can dodge flunking only if she expresses evolution (e.g. on a test). But even if she avers (whenever expressing evolution) that she's only expressing evolution without espousing it, she may still be sinning as she's expressing a false belief. Her fundamentalism still mandates her to express that creationism is right, and evolution wrong.

  • How is 2.1 akin to 2.2? In 2.1 it's merely a teaching of a subject where you can pass or fail. If 2.2 was the case that would mean that every student in 2.1 would fail which is not indicated by 2.1. The weakness lies in the claim that 2.1 is akin to 2.2. It isn't because you can still pass as fundamental christian in 2.1. no matter what you express as personal belief. – CaZaNOx Jan 20 '18 at 9:26
  • Is there a way to make stack exchange notify you when something gets answered? Cuz I don't understand that quoted text at all and would love to see some sort of dissection of it. – StarWeaver Jan 24 '18 at 12:32

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.