April 1

Court Upholds U. of California Admissions Requirements

A federal judge on Friday rejected a claim that the University of California violates private Christian high schools’ freedom of speech and religion by not certifying certain courses for its college preparatory requirements. While Judge S. James Otero sided with the university system over the constitutional challenge, a future trial will determine whether the course approval process was fairly applied to cases cited in the lawsuit.

Looking for a job?

See all 208 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 3,375
Administrative: 1,315
Executive: 170
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

The University of California is virtually unique in the rigor it applies in assessing whether high school courses sufficiently prepare students for college. Known as “a-g” requirements, for seven main subject areas, the standards are “intended to ensure that students coming to the university are conversant with accepted educational and scientific content and methods of inquiry at the level required for UC students and typically expected of educated citizens in the competitive workforce,” according to a 2005 statement.

“All courses are evaluated based on their academic merits, and we try very hard to make the same decisions no matter what school the course is submitted from,” said Christopher M. Patti, a university lawyer.

The 2005 suit, Association of Christian Schools International v. Stearns, additionally disputed the university practice of not approving courses that use certain textbooks. Many educators in California and elsewhere were worried that the suit, if successful, would hinder universities’ ability to insist that prospective applicants have a basic understanding of science and other topics.

“There are standards set for us in the university’s a-g guidelines that provide that courses have to have certain subject matter content and have to teach skills such as critical thinking, evaluation of evidence and that sort of thing that are important for students to have when they come to the university, so we evaluate those criteria when we are reviewing courses, really without regard to the school that submits the course,” Patti said. “Now, in some of these circumstances courses use textbooks that were evaluated by the university and determined that the textbooks really did not either teach the substantive material adequately or teach those kinds of critical thinking skills adequately and therefore the judgment was made that courses that used those … would not be approved.”

The system’s statement further explains the criteria: “The question the university must confront in reviewing these texts is not whether they have religious content, but whether they provide a comprehensive view of the relevant subject matter, reflecting knowledge generally accepted in the scientific and educational communities and with which a student at the university level should be conversant.” Students who don’t complete approved courses may also take standardized tests in the given areas as a substitute.

The court found that the university’s course approval system was a reasonable component of its admissions process and that it did not discriminate based on religion. A separate trial will consider whether the plaintiffs’ rejected courses in biology, history, government, English and religion were dismissed in accordance with stated UC policy.

“[A] reasonable person would not find the primary effect of the UC course review process to be inhibition of religion,” the judge wrote. “UC approves many courses that include religious perspectives or are submitted by religious schools. Additionally, an informed observer would be aware of the controversial nature of intelligent design and creation as scientific beliefs.”

An example provided by the university illustrates a primary textbook — published by Bob Jones University Press — for a course not approved for college prep. The introduction states: “The people who have prepared this book have tried consistently to put the Word of God first and science second. To the best of the author’s knowledge, the conclusions drawn from observable facts that are presented in this book agree with the Scriptures. If a mistake has been made (which is probable since this book was prepared by humans) and at any point God’s Word is not put first, the author apologizes.”

The courses in question aren’t only in biology. History, literature and other courses — for example, one called “Christianity’s Influence on America” — have been rejected as well. The ACSI, which brought the suit on behalf of Calvary Chapel Christian Schools of Murrieta, Calif., argued that the university system’s policies effectively institutionalized discrimination against Christians.

“ACSI believes it’s wrong for the state to discriminate against Christians — essentially foreclosing opportunities at state universities — because of unfair religious prejudice by UC personnel, particularly when UC can’t cite any objective evidence that graduates from Christian schools using these textbooks perform any less well in their freshman year of university than graduates from secular schools,” says a document describing the organization’s legal position.

The group has also suggested that other religiously inspired courses, but from Muslim or Buddhist points of view, have been approved by the university. Patti said no such evidence has been presented so far.

— Andy Guess

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

God vs Reason

I have to agree with the courts on this one. Again we can bring in the separation of church and state argument and apply it to the double standard. We want government out of religion, but religion in our government. The constitution allows for freedom of religion, not the application of that freedom to everyone and everything else. In other words you are free to believe in Creationism, but not free to expect others to apply that belief to scientific standards. All in all the only people I see hurt in all this are the poor children who are indoctrinated into the beliefs that run opposite to scientific reason. They will be handicapped from day one, and in many cases will not be able to handle the academic and social pressure put on them by public universities. The solution is simple, send your kids to Bob Jones or Oral Roberts, or any other of a dozen or so Christian Colleges in the US. You can not make a case on discrimination based on religion and then cry when the government wants to tax your multi-billion dollar industry.

Martin, at 8:45 am EDT on April 1, 2008

The University should only determine the potential students’ mastery of content. I have actually had an opportunity to look through a Bob Jones middle school level biology textbook several years ago; and while the name and source of the pub. company leaves an unfavorable impression in my mind, one would have a hard time convincing me that the content is not more than adequate. I found it very rigorous and I have no doubt it supercedes what is offered in most public schools.

I can think of no other reason for University of California to deny admission to these students other than religious discrimination.

denise, at 9:00 am EDT on April 1, 2008

UC System

Thank you, Denise. I am familiar with ACSI and I know that the schools that are accredited by ACSI are usually pretty rigorous.

I think I may have to agree with Martin on one point, however. Maybe these kids should start looking at Cal Baptist, Point Loma, Azusa Pacific, and some of the other good Christian schools in Southern Cal. Then they can get a good education and not be “handicapped from day one” by the hateful narrow-mindedness and intolerance of the UC System.

Ben Thare, at 10:00 am EDT on April 1, 2008

BJU textbooks

Denise opines that the content in Bob Jones University textbooks is adequate. That is simply not true. In Sept 2006 I read the actual textbook involved in this UC case, and posted my review here

http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2006/...textbook_adequate.php#comment-225343

Here’s just a taste of the “adequate” contents of this putative science textbook — “If the conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them.”

Read the rest, denise

Albatrossity, at 2:20 pm EDT on April 1, 2008

Stuck on the Inconsequencial

Albatrossity, I too have read pretty much through an entire textbook I have also read your additional post concerning a most recent textbook. While agree with you that the textbook is lacking in aesthetics that should not be a factor. Worksheets are also drab and children get enough of those.

But it seems your only other contention with the textbook is its relious philosophy on the origins of species. My contention is that the mastery of the content of this textbook results in a high level of understanding of biology which more than meets the University of California’s standards. And that alone should be the bottom line.

I believe this public university is overstepping its boundries and this judge’s ruling is definately off the mark in his/her dispense of justice.

denise, at 8:45 pm EDT on April 1, 2008

Read it again

Denise writes, re the BJU textbook review that I linked to: “But it seems your only other contention with the textbook is its relious philosophy on the origins of species. My contention is that the mastery of the content of this textbook results in a high level of understanding of biology which more than meets the University of California’s standards. And that alone should be the bottom line.”

I hope your reading of textbooks is better than your reading of my review. As indicated by my previous comment, my major concern with the textbook in question is that it fails to subscribe to a basic tenet of science; i.e., observations and data and evidence are paramount to preconceived notions. When students are taught that observations and evidence and data can be IGNORED if they contradict the word of God, they are not being taught science.

Why should the UC system accept students whose understanding of science is that flawed, regardless of their religious affiliations? I teach at a university; our job is not to be remedial educators. I am also very aware that education is sorely compromised when incorrect notions have already been installed into someone’s thinking. It can, in fact, take a lot longer to educate someone who has incorrect concepts in their head, compared to a naive person. Rewiring takes longer than new wiring; these students are being poorly served by any school which uses these textbooks in a “science” course.

It ain’t science, and it should not be accepted as science by a real university.

Albatrossity, at 7:45 am EDT on April 2, 2008

Science = Religion

Albatrossity,

Evolution is based on the theory that there is no force outside of nature that can be included in theories of origin. So, in this type of “science,” anything that points to a Creator must be dismissed because it is not “scientific.”

So what you are saying is that Science trumps Religion. Which means that science proves there is no god; that science is the ultimate standard of Truth. Which is a theological statement. Which means that science is a belief. Which means that science is a religion.

What if “observations and data and evidence” do point to a force outside of nature? Then, by all means, science must ignore it! Because “if the conclusions contradict the (Theory of Evolution), then conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them.” If it doesn’t look for all possible answers, it ain’t science, either!

Ben, at 9:30 am EDT on April 2, 2008

sigh

Ben writes: “Evolution is based on the theory that there is no force outside of nature that can be included in theories of origin.”

I presume that you are talking about the origin of life. Thus I must also presume that you are ignorant about the fact that evolutionary theory, despite what you learned in church, is not a theory that attempts to explain the origin of life. That’s called abiogenesis. If you want to rail against that one, feel free to do so. Just don’t confuse it with evolutionary theory again.

Additionally, forces “outside of nature” cannot be studied with current scientific methods. Science is the search for natural causes of observed events. Do you have some way to scientifically evaluate supernatural causes and haven’t managed to tell anyone about those (and pick up your Nobel and Templeton prizes simultaneously)? Or is it possible that you too have an incomplete understanding of the nature and limitations of science in general, and evolutionary theory in particular?

Albatrossity, at 10:25 am EDT on April 2, 2008

This is a philisophical issue

This is a magnification of where this debate of the philosophy of science has taken us...to the point of strongarming religious schools into submission. Then what? Would UC find it necessary to evaluate lesson plans and classroom objectives to make sure the instructors of these religious schools aren’t supplementing said textbook with creation supplementals and speakers that purposfully contradict the scientific philosophy of the approved book. Perhaps UC would find it necessary to send representatives in to observe. Maybe they could have a contract of sorts that the students could sign after acing a standardized subject test in order to be considered for admission (just to be sure there is no infiltration). Something like, “I do renounce...I am not a member of...". Or would they simply be denied because of their association?

Ultimately, based on this ruling, the door is opening to deny access to any student who graduates from most religious schools, because their very foundation is that God is the origin of all creation and all knowledge.

By the way, I do happen to know professional scientists who also espouse this. One being a highly respected microbiologist who has been published hundreds of times and has made great contributions to science. His name is Dr. Carl Fliermans if you would like to google him. So your assertion that any scientist who holds a strong belief in Intelligent Design cannot be taken seriously holds no weight with me.

I also know a young student who attended a Christian school (which used curriculum from a Christian pub. co.),was awarded placement in the governors school for engineering when he was in high school, is now a Deans List student in the school of chemical engineering at a well known polytechnical school (on scholorship), leads the largest bible study on campus, and is an elected officer of the student government. He also is highly respected by his professors and his peers.....and yet!...he is a firm believer in Intelligent Design. What are we to do? They’re everywhere!

denise, at 1:55 pm EDT on April 2, 2008

Each of you have validated my argument

Every poster of comments to this article has in his or her own way validated my original thoughts. Religion is not science and should not thought of or taught as such. Religion is based, not on fact, but on faith and as such has no place in a factual based society, such as the scientific community. It is every person’s right, God given or constitutionally given, to his or her own beliefs, but the factual argument is not covered by the constitution nor accepted by religion. Is there a place in this world for people who do not believe in evolution, sure, that place would be at colleges and universities who support such beliefs, not facts. There are simply no scientific facts to support creationism, it is purely taken on faith. There are, however, biological, physical, mathematical and chemical FACTS that explain evolution. I believe, as does the court system, that universities have the right to deny admission to any student who they deem is academically unfit to perform at an acceptable level in their curriculum. Just because a person is religious and unfit or unprepared to perform at an acceptable academic level is not a basis for discrimination. There are two courses of action that I would recommend to these students. ONE: go to a technical or junior college and take an acceptable science course, or series of courses that are acceptable in the UC system. This would clearly show a desire to separate belief from fact. SECOND: enroll in a faith based college or university that accepts belief or faith as fact and leave the heathens in the UC system to continue to be “wrong” and eventually burn in hades.

Martin, at 3:10 pm EDT on April 2, 2008

Pro evidence

I applaud the judge. If a textbook that tells students “If conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them” doesn’t bother you, I hope for the sake of innocent people that you are not allowed on any jury. Using a textbook that tells students to reject evidence, even when there is lots of it, is anti-educational period, but particularly in a science class. The whole idea of science is that your conclusions must be based on evidence, on scientific facts.

Beth, at 2:50 pm EDT on April 3, 2008

Evidence?

Beth,

Relax and watch a movie. May I suggest “12 Angry Men,” 1958 (or so), starring Henry Fonda, Jack Klugman, E.G. Marshall, et al.? (Not the remake with Jack Lemmon and Tony Danza, yuck!) What an incredible movie. It deals with evidence, too. Funny, seems like all that hard evidence they thought they had turned out to be not so strong after all...hmmm. Makes you wonder.... And, yes, if I have to choose between Man’s best estimate and God’s clear authority, I choose...God. Everytime. Makes sense to me. Good luck with that whole depending on man thing! Let me know how it turns out for you.

Ben, at 6:40 am EDT on April 4, 2008

Read the Decision

I would like to suggest that people actually read the court decision before making ridiculous guesses about what the university’s policy is or what the decision means. In point of fact the University of California has no problem with a wide variety of courses taught in religious schools, nor does it have any problem with courses that use even defective textbooks (such as that BJU jokebook) as supplementary material. Their problem is with courses that cannot demonstrate that they have adequately covered the subject. English courses, for example, in which no complete work is read, but only excerpts. Textbooks in which no serious explanation is given of key concepts in biology or geology or astronomy when used as the main or sole guide for a class that allegedly covers one of those subjects. Further, even if a student has had the misfortune to take such a class, he or she can still demonstrate mastery of the material by taking a standardized test, assuming that he or she has in fact mastered the material.

As far as I can see the only purpose to this apparently frivolous lawsuit is to try to shoehorn kids into the university who have not mastered the material and are trying to claim a religious exemption to actually learning what all the other students have had to learn. In a sane world a case like this would have been tossed at the outset and the lawyer in question (who appears from his misquotations of irrelevant decisions to be an incompetent boob) disbarred. It does not seem to me anyway that the Christian schools got their money’s worth from this guy. Of course I’m no lawyer and maybe this character is following some deep legal strategy that is way beyond me. Still, if these schools ever had a case it looks to me like he bungled it; and if their case was really as weak as he made it look, then why on earth did he encourage them to go on with it?

And, by the way, Ben, is it? I have to agree with you that the Henry Fonda “12 Angry Men” is a great movie, and that the remake doesn’t come close. It was, however, a work of fiction. Me, I wouldn’t base my decisions on somebody’s story, however well-crafted. Good luck on that relying on fiction thing. I hope it works out for you.

sbh, at 12:15 pm EDT on April 4, 2008

Are They Prepared?

The discussion has been great, but I wonder what the statistics are in regards to Christian High Schools students being successful in college.

When comparing them against public school high school student, who have taken all the right prep classes, how do they compare. For example, what are their SAT — ACT scores, drop out rates, and academic probation rates.

Since an arugment by UC focuses on preparation and academic maturity, I wonder how prepared they are for the rigors of the UC system.

Timothy, at 7:50 pm EDT on April 6, 2008

Jobs Related to Court Upholds U. of California Admissions Requirements

or search for jobs directly.

Administrative Coordinator I
University of South Carolina

A leader in academe, the University of South Carolina holds the Carnegie Foundation’s highest research designation and is ... see job

General Counsel
Central Michigan University

General Counsel serves as the chief legal officer to the university who coordinates and provides all legal services to the ... see job

Model Laboratory School Instructor of Physical Education
Eastern Kentucky University

Eastern Kentucky University, located in Richmond, Madison County, Kentucky near the Heart of the Bluegrass, is a ... see job