This is where I draw the line. While I have no problems with students standing up to liberal indoctrination; when you use lawsuits to prevent assignments from beign presented, you have thwarted the entire purpose of the class.
Consider classes in biology, if any mention of evolution is challenged by a lawsuit, the students will fail to grasp the fact that life forms change over time. This is evident in the fossil records, thus we now have students dictating what will be presented for education, and what will not.
The point of college is to gain exposure to new ways of thought, be it calculus, atomic physics, Einsteinian physics as an extension of Newtonian physics, Arts, humanities, and social sciences. Whether you accept these theories into your personal life is not the point. You can be an expert in evolution and still be a devout Christian. Just because something is being assigned that you may not like, or agree with is not a reason that it should be removed from the ciriculmn. Using this same line of reasoning, would one then remove the history of Nazi Germany from the history ciriculumn?
I'd sue too if the assignment were the Koran, Queran, or however the hell it's spelled.
How can anyone believe that they know about religion without reading at least the Bible and the Koran? How can anyone believe that they know about political philosophy without reading Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto, as well as the (U.S.) Declaration of Independence and Constitution? Of course, context is required, and that is the task of the professor. But a good paper supporting an unpopular point of view still deserves a good grade - and perhaps, an offline conversation with the student about the content.
AS part of a midterm test review session I was conducting for my managerial economics class, I was inventing a situation in which an increase in supply of one good would affect the price of a complementary good, and chose peanuts and beer as my example.
I asserted that Jimmy Carter had returned to the only calling where he had ever displayed any capability, thereby creating a peanut surplus, and asked the class for a static analysis of the effects. Immediate frowns from a couple of the students, particularly after some of the military students laughed at my (I thought harmless) political joke.
I felt compelled to offer an apology, since the situation was a fantasy, and I had no idea if Jimmy had actually had any more success as a peanut farmer than as leader of the free world.
But I must say that a have complimentary Emails from 5 of my 11 students, two of whom specifically mention my political viewpoint. Maybe there is hope....
Sorry but have to differ with you here. Life forms do not change over time and the fosil record shows that. This is a fact. Species appear in the fossil record fully formed and without any transitional species behind them. This true of man as well as other species. This is why the Darwin theory has had to be revised at least twice, trying to explain the lack of evidence in the fossil record. Instant mutation is the latest and greatest theory, and it is called puntuated equilibrium, also known as the Hopeful Monster Theory. Read a little more and keep an open mind. These are the things that should be taught. The truth about the fossil record, not so much ID, but the fact the evolution is not a fact, at least not yet.
Couldn't creationism teaching be considered as presenting another side to those who have never heard it before also?
Nice try, but this was no lawsuit over Evolution or Physics. The lawsuit in this case related to homosexual indoctrination of incoming freshman students. Perhaps you consider teaching anal sex and fisting right up there with the Magna Carta and Relativity.