U of CA Rejects Creationism

[micatala]

The Boston Globe ran a short article on Saturday last entitled University of California sued over creationism.

According to the article, UC admissions officials have refused to certify some science and other courses, particularly those using curriculum developed by Bob Jones U and Abeka Books. As a result, The Association of Christian Schools International has filed suit in federal court.

A UC spokesperson said the University has the right to set entrance requirements. She futher stated:

These requirements were established after careful study by faculty and staff to ensure that students who come here are fully prepared with broad knowledge and the critical thinking skills necessary to succeed.

The questions for debate are:

1) Is the UC system justified in refusing to certify courses they deem to be of poor quality because of the creationist viewpoint of the courses?

2) Does the Association of Christian Schools have any grounds for filing suit? What are they?

I am particularly interested in science courses, especially those pertaining to evolution. However, the article does note that some non-science courses, including one entitled "Christianity's Influence in American History," have been rejected.

I do not know at this point any of the particular rationale for the rejections, what was found objectionable in each case, etc.

[juliod]

1) Is the UC system justified in refusing to certify courses they deem to be of poor quality because of the creationist viewpoint of the courses?

Yes, and I think they have an obligation to, if the classes are not equivalent to classes at their own school.

2) Does the Association of Christian Schools have any grounds for filing suit?

I can't see how they can. I can't see that any school has a claim on what another school views as appropriate.

DanZ

[Jose]

Every college or university has entrance requirements. As a general rule, they set those requirements based on some set of criteria, independent of what other colleges or universities do.

For a school system like that in California, which has the community colleges, the state colleges, and then the university, it makes sense for the university to set the bar higher than the other portions of the system. In this case, they are stating that they want students to enter with knowledge of the central organizing principle of biology, without which, none of it makes sense. They are stating that scientific literacy at the level of a UC graduate must include this principle--but they don't teach remedial classes, so they insist that students come in with appropriate background.

We, on the other hand, do teach remedial classes. It's actually quite astonishing to see how much effort is put into remediation. But then, our cutoff is lower than UC's, being just slightly above being able to breathe.

Is a lawsuit justified? It doesn't seem like it to me. If a school chooses to ignore science and teach theology instead, then they shouldn't expect to send their students to universities that care about science.

The only other solution is to develop Placement Tests. Anyone who flunks any of the tests has to take remedial courses in those subjects (probably at a cooperating community college), before starting the freshman year. This might actually be a good idea...and there actually might be enough students who need the Evolution course that it would be a big seller.

[Chimp]

When I transferred from a private art school to SFSU, I lost almost all my
credits ( 2 1/2 yrs net'd me 9 units, basically covered my art electives and
I had to start over ). I understand that these are high school to university, not
college to university, but the principle is the same. It sucks, but it happens
across disciplines. It does seem odd to say the least, maybe a more detailed
article will surface that answers some of the oddness.

[juliod]

I understand that these are high school to university, not
college to university,

I'm a little confused by the article. I originally thought it was about transfer of credits. But it seems to be about undergraduate admissions.

They aren't talking about the AP program where you get college credit for high school classes.

I don't understand to what point UC "certifies" high school classes. Surely they don't expect to be able to examine the curriculum of every class at every school from which potential students apply.

DanZ

[micatala]

Quote:
I understand that these are high school to university, not
college to university,


I'm a little confused by the article. I originally thought it was about transfer of credits. But it seems to be about undergraduate admissions.

Yes, it is high school courses as they relate to UG admissions, and I'm afraid I can't help too much beyond that, knowing nothing more than is in the article. My assumption is that the UC admissions standards include having students take certain HS courses and that these courses must meet certain requirements (not that they have to be Advance Placement, necessarily).

What their system is for determining whether courses are certified or not, I don't know.

[Jose]

My son entered college after being at a non-traditional school. The admissions folks were uncertain which of his courses really should "count," so they had him take the Michigan test (or some such thing). He did fine, so they counted the courses (ie "certified" them), and in he went.

There are lots of un-accredited Christian schools which are likely to teach non-traditional versions of biology. [i.e. a couple of students I talked to a while back tried to convince me (based on their biology class) that dinosaurs still exist because they were on the ark.] Unless the teachers are certified, and the courses meet the State Standards, a school has no idea whether the course meets the basic admissions requirements.

Having said this, I have no idea what flavor of Christian schools these are, or whether they fall into the "non-traditional, uncertified-teachers" group. Perhaps they do.

[jcrawford]

Having said this, I have no idea what flavor of Christian schools these are, or whether they fall into the "non-traditional, uncertified-teachers" group. Perhaps they do.

Assuming that these high-schools are registered in their state and that their basic science curriculum (physics, chemistry and biology) meets and satisfies state requirements for the issuance of an accredited high school diploma, I see grounds for claiming both religious and racial discrimination by any state government institution which refuses to honor and accept a valid certificate of graduation from any of these private high schools.

[Chimp]

Having said this, I have no idea what flavor of Christian schools these are, or whether they fall into the "non-traditional, uncertified-teachers" group. Perhaps they do.

Assuming that these high-schools are registered in their state and that their basic science curriculum (physics, chemistry and biology) meets and satisfies state requirements for the issuance of an accredited high school diploma, I see grounds for claiming both religious and racial discrimination by any state government institution which refuses to honor and accept a valid certificate of graduation from any of these private high schools.

[ my bold ]

I agree with the above statement, except for the bold. Where do you get
race out of this? I understand you are ahhh...uhmmm... fixated on race, but
I'm confused as to when this crept into the debate...care to elaborate?

[micatala]

Assuming that these high-schools are registered in their state and that their basic science curriculum (physics, chemistry and biology) meets and satisfies state requirements for the issuance of an accredited high school diploma, I see grounds for claiming both religious and racial discrimination by any state government institution which refuses to honor and accept a valid certificate of graduation from any of these private high schools.

Chimp:
[ my bold ]

I agree with the above statement, except for the bold. Where do you get
race out of this? I understand you are ahhh...uhmmm... fixated on race, but
I'm confused as to when this crept into the debate...care to elaborate?

I would also partially agree, but it needs to be emphasized that whether the assumptions "that these high-schools are registered in their state and that their basic science curriculum (physics, chemistry and biology) meets and satisfies state requirements for the issuance of an accredited high school diploma" are valid is an open question.

Even if the assumptions are valid, there is still not necessarily religious discrimination, unless the criteria they are using are not applied equally to all schools but only to students from 'Christian' schools, or unless the criteria were specifically crafted to discriminate against Christian schools. If the criteria are valid, academic criteria applied uniformly to all schools, I don't see how you could say there is religious discrimination.

There is no racial discrimination since neither the schools, nor the students, are being discriminated against on the basis of their race. This is a false assertion, as has been pointed out in the other thread, and I don't see that elaborating on it is going to make it any less false.