University of California system sued over creationism

National Center for Science Education ^ | 08 September 2005 | Staff

[PatrickHenry]

Creationism is prominent in a recent lawsuit that charges the University of California system with violating the constitutional rights of applicants from Christian schools whose high school coursework is deemed inadequate preparation for college. The complaint was filed in federal court in Los Angeles on August 25, 2005, on behalf of the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI), the Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta, California, and a handful of students at the school. Representing the plaintiffs are Robert H. Tyler, a lawyer with a new organization called Advocates for Faith and Freedom, and Wendell R. Bird of the Atlanta law firm Bird and Loechl.

Bird is no stranger to litigation over creationism. As a law student in the late 1970s, he published a student note in the Yale Law Journal sketching a strategy for using the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to secure a place for creationism in the public school science classroom. Bird later worked at the Institute for Creation Research, where he updated its model "equal-time" resolution. The ICR's resolution eventually mutated, in Paul Ellwanger's hands, to become model "equal-time" legislation. A bill based on Ellwanger's model was passed in Arkansas in 1981 and then ruled unconstitutional in McLean v. Arkansas.

Although Bird was not able to participate in the McLean trial -- he sought to intervene on behalf of a number of creationist organizations and individuals, but was not allowed to do so -- he was involved in Aguillard v. Treen, which became Edwards v. Aguillard. Named a special assistant attorney general in Louisiana, Bird defended Louisiana's "equal-time" act all the way to the Supreme Court, where in 1987 it was ruled to violate the Establishment Clause. His The Origin of Species Revisited, which compared evolution and "abrupt appearance," was subsequently published (in two volumes).

At issue in the present suit are the guidelines set by the University of California system to ensure that first-year students have been adequately prepared for college in their high schools. The complaint (1.6M PDF) cites a policy of rejecting high school biology courses that use textbooks published by Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Books as "inconsistent with the viewpoints and knowledge generally accepted in the scientific community." Such a policy, the complaint alleges, infringes on the plaintiffs' rights to "freedom of speech, freedom from viewpoint discrimination, freedom of religion and association, freedom from arbitrary discretion, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from hostility toward religion."

Robert Tyler told the Los Angeles Times (August 27, 2005) that "It appears that the UC system is attempting to secularize Christian schools and prevent them from teaching from a [Christian world] view." But creationism is a matter of theology, not of science, Robert John Russell of the Center for Theology and Natural Science told the Oakland Tribune (August 31, 2005). "It's almost ludicrous anyone would even take this seriously," Russell said. "It seems absurd that a student who had poor biology would meet the same standards as a student with 'good' biology. ...This has nothing to do with First Amendment rights."

A spokesperson for the University of California system would not comment on the specific allegations leveled in the complaint, but told the Los Angeles Times that the university was entitled to set course requirements for incoming students, adding, "[t]hese 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."

In its fall 2005 newsletter, ACSI expresses concern that the University of California system's "secular intolerance might spread to other institutions and to other states. ... If this discrimination is allowed to continue unchallenged, it is only a matter of time before secular institutions in other states will join the bandwagon." Interviewed by Education Week (September 7, 2005), however, a spokesperson for the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers expressed the opposite concern, reportedly worrying "about the potential implications of asking a university to ignore its course requirements -- which had been shaped by experts in various fields -- in favor of a 'free-for-all,' in which any interest group is allowed to shape policy."

[snarks_when_bored]

I have to disagree with you about higher education being a sham. Are parts of it in trouble? Yes. English departments and sociology departments and political science departments are pretty much complete write-offs. But there's no substitute in the current world for mathematics departments and physics departments and chemistry departments and biology departments...

[PianoMan]

My daughter went to Catholic school her whole life and was accepted to every college she applied to.

No one at UCLA denies Catholic schools privde a great education. Being in favor of evo is not to be against religious instruction and being a creationist doesn't mean you are more devout. It's about a good science education, which is not possible without Darwin's observations as a central point of reference.

[NJ_gent]

"Evolution has nothing to do with liberalism, and creationism has nothing to do with conservatism. This is not a left-right issue."

You're absolutely correct, of course, but when logical arguments fall short, ad-hominem is rarely far behind. Ergo, calls of "liberal! liberal!" go up from some when the topic comes 'round; ignoring the vast numbers of staunch conservatives who disagree with them.

[explodingspleen]

If UC* are interested in denying entry to those who have received a 'substandard education', does that mean they are not accepting students from failing school districts?

I didn't think so. What a sham.

[curiosity]

Are parts of it in trouble? Yes. English departments and sociology departments and political science departments are pretty much complete write-offs.

And that's a national tragedy.

I hope you're not one of those natural science types who is willing to write off up at the softer discipines. They're all equally important.

[NJ_gent]

"Catholic schools, for the most part, do an excellent job of teaching evolution and biology in general and do not water it down with nonsense like creationism and "intelligent design.""

I hadn't even heard of ID until after I'd graduated, with honors, from my Catholic high school. We were taught all subjects well, and it contributed to the school's high rate of graduates heading off to college (about 96% if I remember correctly). It's really a shame that some schools are failing to prepare their students for the real world, especially when they're private or religious schools that are generally considered to be better for students' education than public schools.

[explodingspleen]

It's about a good science education, which is not possible without Darwin's observations as a central point of reference.

Who is discarding any of Darwin's observations? The contension is over what those observations imply about origins. Nothing else.

[NJ_gent]

"If UC* are interested in denying entry to those who have received a 'substandard education', does that mean they are not accepting students from failing school districts?"

I think they make evaluations based on a number of things, including the types of classes (so-called "gifted" or "accelerated" classes, etc) the student is taking, the quality of those classes, the quality of the textbooks used in those classes, and what is known about the teaching methods and success history of those classes. Simply denying everyone applying from a 'failing' district would be absurd.

[metmom]

Abeka certainly does address evolution. It states what it is and why they believe it is wrong but they DO present it. We've used Abeka for out jr./sr. homeschooling and I feel that the state is off base here. Abeka at least has the courage to address both opinions which is more than I can say for most public schools. I also feel that it irresponsible for the college to say that Christian school students are not adequately prepared for college on the basis of ONE topic taught in ONE subject for ONE year of high school. when you see how inadequately prepared for college most students are in math and English, this is just an agenda issue. There are incoming freshmen who can't even handle a 100 level math course and that was what I saw 20 years ago when I went back to finish up my degree. I'm sure it's much worse now.

[NJ_gent]

"The contension is over what those observations imply about origins. Nothing else."

That's simply one facet of the overall debate. Many disbelieve virtually every part of the ToE; even the parts repeatedly demonstrated in nature to be correct.

[HitmanLV]

A 3.5 GPA, a good attitude, and a healthy approach to life beats a basket case 4.0 who actually believes (since the 5th grade) that his or her entire life rides on the SATs and getting into their #1 school.

I work with these kids all the time - truly a pitiful sight.

[HitmanLV]

"[t]hese 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."

How do they reconcile that mandate with the fact that their classes are populated by people with limited knowledge and poor critical thinking skills? I worked for many years with recent college grads and despite their strong self esteem & coming from our best schools, they are consistently underwhelming. Out of every 100 or so, only 1 or 2 were worth keeping.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[metmom]

We had a similar issue in NY when the Comnissioner of Education was threatening to remove state colleges aid if they admitted NY students who did not have a high school diploma. In effect it only disallowed NY homeschool students from applying to MYS public colleges because homeschool students do not recieve a NYS high school diploma. Any student from outside the state could be accepted, including homeschool students, and foreign students were OK but not NY homeschooled students. It's been taken care of. Which raises another question; does this policy extend to foreign students who may have been taught creation and not evolution?

[explodingspleen]

Of course it would be absurd. Absurd as denying people based on what textbook they worked from in one of their classes.

[curiosity]

This may well be true, but for the benefit of the doubt I still think the UCal system should provide historic fact to support their position.

They're not excluding all or even most home-schooled or Christian schooled students, but only those who use textbooks biology textbooks put out by Bob Jones University.

Since that retrograde institution forces all of its faculty and staff to believe the universe is only 6,000 years old, it is immediately obvious that any science text it publishes will be filled with a bunch of pseudo-scientific garbage.

[explodingspleen]

That's simply one facet of the overall debate. Many disbelieve virtually every part of the ToE; even the parts repeatedly demonstrated in nature to be correct.

Well, if the students can't answer questions about natural selection, by all means don't admit them.

But denying them because their textbook does not teach ape-based origins?

[NJ_gent]

"It states what it is and why they believe it is wrong but they DO present it."

Apparently, the University of California does not believe that the books adequately cover the topics necessary to enroll in their required science classes. They may present it, but that presentation may not be thorough enough to give incoming students the knowledge and understanding required for them to enter the university's science courses.

"Abeka at least has the courage to address both opinions"

The Theory of Evolution is not an opinion; it's a scientific theory, which has a very specific meaning.

"I also feel that it irresponsible for the college to say that Christian school students are not adequately prepared for college"

That's not what they're saying. What they're saying is that students taught from certain textbooks do not have the knowledge and understanding of certain topics required to enroll in their university. Apparently, no public schools use those particular textbooks. If they did, it's likely that the University of California would not admit those students either. It's not the religion, nor the school; it's the textbooks.

"not adequately prepared for college on the basis of ONE topic taught in ONE subject for ONE year of high school."

The school is free to have requirements of knowledge and understanding in any given subject for applicants to be accepted. How about a school which does really well with teaching students about every subject, but never addresses algebra? Sure, the kids are mostly prepared, but they've not met the university's requirements for mathematical knowledge. Ergo, they're not admitted. Too bad; apply elsewhere.

This is an amusing manifestation of a persecution complex some people have. This university has every right to set its academic standards. When students are inadequately prepared for what the college is teaching, they are not admitted to the college. If certain schools are teaching religion at the expense of other subjects, their students are going to suffer. I went to a Catholic high school where a year-long religion class was mandatory and standard for every single student. 96% of my high school's graduates went on to college. The schools whose graduates are not getting into college have failed their students. That's just the way it is. The students affected by this should apply to a school with lower standards, or go to a local community college to receive instruction in the subjects where they lack the requisite knowledge and understanding.

[balrog666]

Interesting that none of the plaintiffs have actually been rejected or discriminated against by the UC system as yet. And all of them, being aware of the deficiencies of their current biology courses, could simply choose to take another biology course (as an elective or free study) to fulfill the noted entrance requirements. Just as they would if they found out their class in Basket Weaving 101 didn't fulfill the minimum requirements for a mathematics class.

Of course, lawyers rarely state exactly what the real aims of their destructive suits are.

[NJ_gent]

"Of course it would be absurd. Absurd as denying people based on what textbook they worked from in one of their classes."

If your senior year math book says "Disney" on the front, you're probably unprepared for college and should not be admitted to most colleges. Of course the textbook matters; in every subject considered important by the university.