Originally Posted By gadzuux <a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/12/12/MNGBNG6N2K1.DTL" target="_blank">http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/arti cle.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/12/12/MNGBNG6N2K1.DTL</a> Culture war pits UC vs. Christian way of teaching Religious schools challenge admission standards in court Excerpts - >> In a small room at the University of California's headquarters in downtown Oakland, UC counsel Christopher Patti sat beside a stack of textbooks proposed for use by Calvary Chapel Christian School in Riverside County -- books UC rejected as failing to meet freshmen admission requirements. "The university is not telling these schools what they can and can't teach," Patti said. "What the university is doing is simply establishing what is and is not its entrance requirements. It's really a case of the university's ability to set its own admission standards. The university has no quarrel with Christian schools." The Association of Christian Schools International, which claims 4,000 member schools including Calvary Chapel and 800 other schools in California, disagrees. On Aug. 24, it sued the university in federal court for religious bias. The lawsuit marks a new front in America's culture wars, in which the largest organization of Christian schools in the country and the University of California, which admitted 208,000 freshmen this year, are accusing each other of trying to abridge or constrain each others' freedom. << >> "The university is in a way firing a shot over the bow," said Charles Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va., "saying to Christian schools that they may have gotten away with this in the past, but no more. And that will have a chilling effect across the country." In its suit, the association and its co-plaintiffs objected "to government officials ... dictating and censoring the viewpoints that may and may not be taught ... (in) private schools. ... (They) have rejected textbooks and courses based on a viewpoint of religious faith, for the first time in the University of California's history." The rejections, the suit asserted, "violate the freedom of speech of Christian schools, students and teachers." On Oct. 28, UC asked U.S. District Judge S. James Otero to dismiss the suit. The university was not "stopping plaintiffs from teaching or studying anything," it argued. "This lawsuit is really an attempt to control the regents' educational choices. Plaintiffs seek to constrain the regents' exercise of its First Amendment-protected right of academic freedom to establish admissions criteria." A hearing is scheduled today on the motion to dismiss. << >> In 1978, when he [Wendell Bird, lead attorney for the schools] was a law student studying under Robert Bork -- whose rejected nomination to the Supreme Court was an early battle in the culture wars -- Bird published an influential article in the Yale Law Journal. In it, he laid out a strategy for using the courts to compel public schools to teach creationism alongside evolutionary theory. Bird later argued, and lost, Edwards vs. Aguillard, before the Supreme Court. In that case, the justices overturned an attempt by Louisiana to give biblical creationism equal time in its public schools. Today, Bird considers the exclusion of creationism from public school classrooms a settled legal issue and said that he discourages others from bringing intelligent design cases. However, the Calvary Chapel case offered Bird and his allies fertile new ground for advancing the conservative Christian agenda in the public square. Theirs is the first lawsuit to question the university's discretion to establish courses required of all students seeking admission. "The question here," Haynes said, "is whether a public university can disadvantage students from these schools because the science or English they took is not up to par. I wouldn't teach Emily Dickinson in a Christian context, but the point is they have the right to put it in the context of their faith." << >> UC policy, Patti explained, was to make "a distinction between courses that study religion in an academic way and courses that are intended to instruct in religious faith." He seemed pleased to be asked how, based on the brief course submission forms, UC could distinguish between the two. "Here," he said, reading an excerpt from "Biology for Christian Schools," which had been rejected as a text: "The people who have prepared this book have tried consistently to put the Word of God first and science second." If, "at any point God's Word is not put first, the author apologizes." But in a court filing, the Christian schools replied that, "UC would not dare to claim there was no constitutional violation if it rejected courses because of their African American, or Latino heritage, or feminist or environmentalist perspective." And on its Web site, the Christian schools group says, "It's wrong to discriminate against Christians, essentially foreclosing opportunities at State Universities." Ravi Poorsina, a university spokeswoman, disputed the criticism. "Their (students') ability to enter UC is not hindered," she said, explaining that other Calvary Chapel courses in the same academic fields did pass muster. Another of the plaintiffs' lawyers, Robert Tyler, who has a son at Calvary Chapel, said the issue was simple fairness. "This is America. We have the right to send our kids to private schools, and have them study from a Christian perspective," he said. "The university has no right to tell any person of any faith they're not going to accept courses because they're taught from a Christian perspective. They have every right to look and see if it's sufficiently rigorous, sufficiently analytic. "This is all about the changing landscape, the culture wars. I think it's pretty obvious. They've chosen sides."
Originally Posted By gadzuux So does anybody think these christian schools have a legal leg to stand on? The plaintiffs say ... >> They [UC] have rejected textbooks and courses based on a viewpoint of religious faith, for the first time in the University of California's history." The rejections, the suit asserted, "violate the freedom of speech of Christian schools, students and teachers." << A textbook that is 'based on a viewpoint of religious faith' SHOULD BE rejected by any public school system. The very notion of "faith" is a belief that is unsupported by any evidence. UCs perfectly sensible response ... >> The university was not "stopping plaintiffs from teaching or studying anything," it argued. "This lawsuit is really an attempt to control the regents' educational choices. Plaintiffs seek to constrain the regents' exercise of its First Amendment-protected right of academic freedom to establish admissions criteria." << The christians, in describing their own textbook ... >> "The people who have prepared this book have tried consistently to put the Word of God first and science second." If, "at any point God's Word is not put first, the author apologizes." << So god and 'faith' comes before science and 'fact'. And if they stray from this philosophy, they apologize first. Is it any wonder that the UC system, which attracts the brightest students from all over the globe, would reject this text? The plaintiff's lawyer says ... >> "This is America. We have the right to send our kids to private schools, and have them study from a Christian perspective," he said. "The university has no right to tell any person of any faith they're not going to accept courses because they're taught from a Christian perspective. << He's right and he's wrong at the same time. Yes, this is america, and he has the right to teach his kid anything he wants. But the UC system does indeed have a right to tell these applicants that their "faith-based" learning is not applicable or acceptable to their curriculum. Simple really - you're free to teach your kids whatever you like. But if you want to prepare them for the real world, you're gonna need to stick to the facts and go light on the myths and legends that are unsupportable by any tangible evidence. And don't go looking for validation of your personal faith from government, public school systems, retailers such as target or wal-mart, or the court system.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut wow, churchies trying to impose thier faith once again. Who would have thought that?
Originally Posted By woody "So god and 'faith' comes before science and 'fact'. And if they stray from this philosophy, they apologize first. Is it any wonder that the UC system, which attracts the brightest students from all over the globe, would reject this text?" If the students are bright, they will learn new things. They can tell facts from perspective. "But the UC system does indeed have a right to tell these applicants that their "faith-based" learning is not applicable or acceptable to their curriculum." Many things you learn in high school are not even adequate for college preparation. Many students much get remedial education to keep up. If the UC schools think the students are not adequately prepared, then they could have them take remedial course, but NEVER has there been remedial courses for science and history. Colleges start at a clean slate. They Christian Schools should be allowed to teach anything they want.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Christian schools ARE allowed to teach anything they want. UC (or any school) should be allowed to continue to establish their own admissions criteria. If the student meets it, they're in. But if they spent three semesters learning the 'christian view' of art and science instead, that might not be what the university admissions office is looking for. Do republicans want the government to intervene, and to create christians as a "special class"? Doesn't sound like smaller, less intrusive government to me.
Originally Posted By cmpaley ^^^ True. Interesting how graduates of Catholic schools have little trouble getting in. I wonder why?
Originally Posted By cmpaley Actually, I was thinking it has something to do with...perhaps the curriculum?
Originally Posted By peeaanuut curriculum has nothing to do with getting into college. Its about how much money you are willing to spend. A student that gets a 4.0, takes honors or AP classes and scores very high on the SAT could still only get a partical scolorship. Vs the student that barely passes their basic classes but can pass a football like noone else and sells games out. 99 times out of 100 the football player gets in. Money. Thats all it is.
