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.

[micatala]

Here is a further ruling on the case. Recall that a school in CA had sued the U of CA for determining that some of their courses were inadequate to be considered as part of the admissions process for U of CA schools.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1044829/Cal ... nia-Ruling

The March ruling cited a couple of posts back determined that certain portions of the case were going to be summarily dimissed and others not.

Now it appears the entire case against the U of CA has been decided. In the March ruling, the judge had decided that"

Remaining as issues for trial are the reasonableness of Defendants' challenged decisions to deny approval for specific religious school courses under A-G Guidelines and Policies and Plaintiffs' other "as applied" challenges.

The Plaintiffs (the secondary Christian school) had claimed the rejection of some of their courses violated the First Amendment Free Exercise of Religion clause.
Judge Otero has now ruled that the defendants be granted summary judgment against the suit.


I'll try to read through the decision in more detail over the weekend. This final decision was all the way back in August, and I kind of lost track of the case, but want to do a wrap up and potentially debate the consequences of this decision.

[micatala]

Just browsing through an old issue.

Here is the NCSE statement on the decision, now going on two years old.

http://ncse.com/news/2008/08/victory-ca ... ase-001374

Here is the whole decision.

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/n ... ng0808.pdf


Here is an article from the Murrietta christian school describing the three books the U of CA considered to be problematical.
http://www.cccsmurrieta.com/secondary/p ... gister.pdf



The NCSE indicates the Christian school in questions would appeal the decision.

This appeal was decided in favor of the University of California this past January.
http://ncse.com/news/2010/01/victory-ag ... ase-005282

In a January 12, 2010, ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal district court's summary judgment in favor of the University of California system in ACSI et al. v. Stearns et al. The case, originally filed in federal court in Los Angeles on August 25, 2005, centered on the University of California system's policies and statements relevant to evaluating the qualifications of applicants for admission. The plaintiffs — the Association of Christian Schools International, the Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta, California, and a handful of students at the school — charged that the university system violated the constitutional rights of applicants from Christian schools whose high school coursework is deemed inadequate preparation for college.

Creationism was not the only issue in the case, to be sure, but it was conspicuous. The plaintiffs objected to the university system's policy of rejecting high school biology courses that use textbooks published by Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Books — Biology: God's Living Creation and Biology for Christian Schools — as "inconsistent with the viewpoints and knowledge generally accepted in the scientific community." Michael Behe, a proponent of "intelligent design" creationism, defended the textbooks, while Donald Kennedy and Francisco J. Ayala (a Supporter of NCSE) contended that they were inappropriate for use as the principal text in a college preparatory biology course. The trial judge was unpersuaded by Behe's defense.

After the trial judge granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on August 8, 2008, the plaintiffs promptly appealed, asserting, inter alia, that the University of California's policy on high school biology courses "constitutes viewpoint discrimination, content discrimination, and content-based regulation, which conflict with the First Amendment." Of particular interest in the preparation from the appeal was the California Council of Science and Technology's amicus curiae brief. Coauthored by attorneys from Pepper Hamilton LLP who were part of the legal team representing the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller v. Dover, the 2005 case over "intelligent design" creationism, the brief argued, "Students educated with these textbooks will not be adequately prepared for science courses."

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's ruling that the University of California's policy was constitutional on its face and as applied, writing (PDF), "The plaintiffs have not alleged facts showing any risk that UC's policy will lead to the suppression of speech. ... the plaintiffs fail to allege facts showing that this policy is discriminatory in any way. ... The district court correctly determined that UC's rejections of the Calvary [Baptist School] courses [including a biology class that used Biology: God's Living Creation] were reasonable and did not constitute viewpoint discrimination. ... The plaintiffs assert a myriad of legal arguments attacking the district court's decision, all of which lack merit." Documents from the case are available on NCSE's website, in a special section devoted to ACSI v. Stearns.

One wonders how this case might affect eventual litigation in Texas over the textbook fights there.