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."

[cookcounty]

I'll bet these kids can pose the Darwinian argument a lot better than the public school kids.

[NJ_gent]

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

Apparently, the faculty of the university decided that it was so unlikely that any students being taught from these textbooks would have the knowledge and understanding necessary to enroll in college-level science courses that it wasn't even worth the time to consider each individual's possible efforts to overcome the burdens placed upon them by their high school instruction. If the high school is using books which are extremely lacking in substance or wrong in presentation of certain topics, it's highly likely that in-class instruction was equally lacking. If an individual wanted to appeal their denial, I'm sure they could do so and request an interview to show that they somehow managed to make up for the lackluster instruction from their high school.

[LauraleeBraswell]

Yes, yes your right. I'm taking Anatomy and Physiology right now (trying to get an associates in nursing) for the reason that science is science and you can't (I don't have to) argue with it. Unfortunately, I also have to take sociology which makes me nauseous. But I've learned not only to swallow my pride but to completely pretend I'm a left wing liberal. The professors love it. And I get the A. Win Win Win.

[curiosity]

Abeka certainly does address evolution. It states what it is and why they believe it is wrong but they DO present it.

I've never seen a piece creationist literature give an accurate description of the theory of evolution or the evidence that supports it. In addition, I've never seen a piece of creationist literature give a scientifically valid argument against it.

In other words, all creationist literature I've seen is filled with MISINFORMATION. Now maybe Abeka is different. Given my experience with other creationist literature, however, I'd seriously doubt it.

The UC system has every right to excludes applicants who have been taught a bunch of misinformation regarding one of the most important concepts in the life sciences.

[metmom]

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.


I have their high school Chemistry book that we used to supplement, and that was not the case at all. I've taken Chemistry more times than I care to think about (It was a toughie for me.) and I didn't find their Chemistry to be pseudo-science. I also do not necessarily agree with the idea that the universe is only 6,000 years old. I am a Christian and believe in creation but there are different schools of thought on the age of the Earth and whether evolution is occurring. I would venture to say that most Christians have a very good idea of what evolution is all about so just because it might not be taught in their school doesn't mean they don't know it. It's pretty hard to miss these days. Just because one becomes a Christian, fundamental or evangelical or whatever label you choose, doesn't mean they kiss their brains good bye. Take a look at the biographies of some of the most famous scientists of our time and you'll find that an awful lot of them at least believed in God and obviously believed in creation if they lived before Darwin. It didn't affect or diminish their contributions to modern science.

[curiosity]

I'll bet these kids can pose the Darwinian argument a lot better than the public school kids.

Given the misinformation that runs rampant in creationist literature, I seriously doubt it.

I have yet to meet a creationist who can give an accurate description of the theory of evolution and the evidence that supports it.

[vpintheak]

This doesn't even deserve a ping. To use your own words.

[curiosity]

I never said a Christian can't be a good scientist. I'm sick and tired of this assumption equating Christianity with creationism. Many, if not most of the world's Christians accept both Darwinian evolution and an Earth that's billions of years old. And yes, there are plenty of good scientists who are also devout believing Christians.

However, it is impossible to be a good scientist and believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

That belief flies in the face of nearly every scientific discipline.

Now you're probably right about high school level inorganic chemistry. There's nothing in that field that contradicts Young Earth Creationism.

But that's the about it. In every other field, from geology to physics to biology to astronomy, it is simply scientifically untenable to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

[curiosity]

I would venture to say that most Christians have a very good idea of what evolution is all about so

I would venture to say that nearly all Christians who reject evolution do not have a good idea of what it is all about. In fact, I'll make an even stronger statement. I've never met a creationist who could give an accurate description of the theory of evolution and the evidence in its favor.

[NJ_gent]

"I would venture to say that most Christians have a very good idea of what evolution is all about"

I would agree with that. Unfortunately, a seemingly high number of creationist proponents' concept of the ToE is essentially "a dog mates with a cat and they produce a penguin". It's amusing the first few times, but then just gets sad.

"just because it might not be taught in their school doesn't mean they don't know it. It's pretty hard to miss these days."

Assuming that students who aren't taught algebra in their high school will know and understand it at a college level because "well, everyone knows that" is not a responsible way to conduct university admissions.

"Just because one becomes a Christian, fundamental or evangelical or whatever label you choose, doesn't mean they kiss their brains good bye."

No, but some (not a lot, but some) do seem to equate thinking with questioning the will of God. Again, the University of California is not denying admissions based on the religious beliefs of students. I'll go out on a limb and say they probably have plenty of Christian students attending their university, and probably have plenty of students who've been admitted after graduating Catholic or other religious high schools. They're looking for a given set of knowledge and understanding among their applicants. Those whose high schools fail to bestow said knowledge and understanding to their students are denied admission. That's not just reasonable; it's common sense.

"Take a look at the biographies of some of the most famous scientists of our time and you'll find that an awful lot of them at least believed in God and obviously believed in creation if they lived before Darwin. It didn't affect or diminish their contributions to modern science."

Which would be relevant if the University of California were denying applications based on the religious beliefs of the applicants. They aren't; they're denying applications from students whose high schools have apparently failed to give them adequate preparation for college-level life science courses.

[metmom]

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.

[explodingspleen]

That is utter non-sense. Textbooks obviously do not reflect on in class instruction because they are not chosen by the instructor. I find it even more silly to suggest that the textbook chosen for one course would reflect on the entire curriculum. And even if the entire curriculum were sabotauged by the sheer existence of that one book on campus taught by an instructor pulled from the same general pool of teachers as any other school and using the book because of a district decision to do so, as I pointed out I don't see the UC* schools overlooking students from failing schools, so the effective general education students are getting is quite clearly not their consideration, own the politics of the ideas being taught.

There is a very simple unbiased way to see how well a student fairs in general knowledge known as the standardized test. ACT/SAT scores are an infinitely better barometer of a student's general repertoire of knowledge than what school they went too. Selective private college will want essays, AP scores, written recommendations on top of that. But I am at a loss as to how with standardized test score information being available that district policy on textbooks should ever enter into the equation.

[LauraleeBraswell]

I personally, love history, Love Politic, love English and love learning in general.

But English classes in college- have really turned me off. It's all about "how you feel" about the text. "What you thought" the author was trying to convey. And it's always a class discussion of nonsense. Teach me something about grammar or structure, because I don't care what Joe thinks about Maya Angelou.


And no, I don't write history (which is philosophy with examples) off. But I'm the type of person who often knows (can I say it?) "Better" than my professors. That is, I am able to argue with them in class. Which (I'm not bragging)not many students are able or want to, do. And it was frustrating for a while, until I learned that to succeed, I have to be a suckup. And if being a communist touchy feely type makes me a sellout, I'm a sellout with the A. Eventually, I'll make it up X 1000 to the conservative movement, but only because I got the good grades to do so.

[curiosity]

But English classes in college- have really turned me off. It's all about "how you feel" about the text. "What you thought" the author was trying to convey. And it's always a class discussion of nonsense. Teach me something about grammar or structure, because I don't care what Joe thinks about Maya Angelou.

Yes, it is a great tragedy what has become of the field of literary criticism. Many, many students don't even know that it entails anymore.

[curiosity]

Textbooks obviously do not reflect on in class instruction because they are not chosen by the instructor.

Talk about nonsense! Aren't instructors required to cover what's in the text?

They certainly were in the schools I attended.

[metmom]

How about a school which does really well with teaching students about every subject, but never addresses algebra?

Yeah, but algebra is so basic to any understanding of all math where evolution is not even needed in some sciences. I realize that it can be incorporated in all branches of science but you could take Chemistry, Geology, Physics, and Meteorology, for example, and pass those courses with straight A's and not have evolution enter it. Not believing in evolution would have no effect on the practical use of sciences in engineering, earth quake prediction, even medicine. I don't care what my doctor believes that way, I just care that he's a good doctor. It's not like a belief in creation, or not having a full understanding of evolution, disqualifies you from being able to function in society.

[curiosity]

I realize that it can be incorporated in all branches of science but you could take Chemistry, Geology, Physics, and Meteorology, for example, and pass those courses with straight A's and not have evolution enter it.

You can't make arguments for a 6,000 year-old earth (which is a dogma Bob Jones requires ALL of its faculty to accept) without presenting some serious mis-information about geology, physics, and astronomy.

[explodingspleen]

If your objection is simply that the material is covered at all, then you agree that this is an ideological issue, not a matter of excluding the uneducated.

Otherwise, none of my teachers taught to the text. My AP teachers went much beyond the material, especially my AP Bio and AP Physics teachers. The incompetent teachers didn't even understand the text, much less teach to it.

[LauraleeBraswell]

I am SO going to copy your post down. Because it is so simple, it is brilliant. Absolutely. It's the thing we've always known but never said or read. Yes, people who don't believe in evolution on the basis that they believe in creationism are whack. But you are so so so so on target. You just articulated what we all knew, but never said.

[NJ_gent]

"Textbooks obviously do not reflect on in class instruction because they are not chosen by the instructor."

If a teacher is teaching things completely contrary to the textbook selected by administrators, his job is toast. Of course the textbook used reflects on in-class instruction. If it didn't, then neither would be particularly useful. What's the teacher say? "Ok class, forget the last 3 chapters you read in your textbook, I'm going to teach you something completely contradictory to that"? Come on...

"as I pointed out I don't see the UC* schools overlooking students from failing schools"

You're suggesting that the university ignore what and how students are taught in class when considering its admissions policy so that it can pay more attention to what an arbitrary outside authority has decided regarding the overall status and progress of the school? Outstanding...

"the politics of the ideas being taught."

The only politics in a science class are those injected by those with no interest in science. That would tend to include politicians as much as anyone else.

"There is a very simple unbiased way to see how well a student fairs in general knowledge known as the standardized test. ACT/SAT scores are an infinitely better barometer of a student's general repertoire of knowledge than what school they went too."

The SAT is not a knowledge test; it's a logic test. It even says so on the test. SAT I: Logic Test. The knowledge required to complete most of the test should have been acquired by the end of the freshman year of high school. It's not uncommon for a bright middle school student to score 1000 or better on the SAT I.

"Selective private college will want essays, AP scores, written recommendations on top of that."

Caltech wants a whole lot more than that. Believe me, I looked.

"I am at a loss as to how with standardized test score information being available that district policy on textbooks should ever enter into the equation."

SAT IIs aside, there exist no real knowledge tests for universities to use to aid their admissions process. The SAT IIs, themselves, are limited in scope and prone to artificially inflated scores due to 'prep' classes that teach the test precisely and exclusively. A truly comprehensive admissions program will look at all facets of each student's preparation for college. If you want to know whether your applicant is prepared to succeed at your school, knowing whether he or she has the knowledge required to do so is quite helpful. The textbooks used in their classes can be helpful with that. If the textbooks are particularly poor in certain areas, as the faculty of the University of California appears to have determined in this case, then it may be decided that it's extremely unlikely for any students who've been taught from the books to have the knowledge necessary to succeed in vital subject areas. As such, denial of admission is appropriate and necessary.