Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge says UC can deny class credit to Christian school students
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 8/12/8 | Bob Egelko

Posted on 08/12/2008 6:49:07 PM PDT by SmithL

SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge says the University of California can deny course credit to applicants from Christian high schools whose textbooks declare the Bible infallible and reject evolution.

Rejecting claims of religious discrimination and stifling of free expression, U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles said UC's review committees cited legitimate reasons for rejecting the texts - not because they contained religious viewpoints, but because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking.

Otero's ruling Friday, which focused on specific courses and texts, followed his decision in March that found no anti-religious bias in the university's system of reviewing high school classes. Now that the lawsuit has been dismissed, a group of Christian schools has appealed Otero's rulings to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

"It appears the UC is attempting to secularize private religious schools," attorney Jennifer Monk of Advocates for Faith and Freedom said today. Her clients include the Association of Christian Schools International, two Southern California high schools and several students.

Charles Robinson, the university's vice president for legal affairs, said the ruling "confirms that UC may apply the same admissions standards to all students and to all high schools without regard to their religious affiliations." What the plaintiffs seek, he said, is a "religious exemption from regular admissions standards."

The suit, filed in 2005, challenged UC's review of high school courses taken by would-be applicants to the 10-campus system. Most students qualify by taking an approved set of college preparatory classes; students whose courses lack UC approval can remain eligible by scoring well in those subjects on the Scholastic Assessment Test.

Christian schools in the suit accused the university of rejecting courses that include any religious viewpoint, "any instance of God's guidance

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: academia; activistjudge; antiamerican; antichristian; antichristianbias; christianpersecution; christianschools; christianstudents; highereducation; judiciary; notchristian; ruling; uc; unamerican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last
To: Westlander

“Extra credit would be given to the applicant coming from a muzzie high school.”

And they would need it ...


21 posted on 08/12/2008 7:24:19 PM PDT by Let's Roll (As usual, following a shooting spree, libs want to take guns away from those who DIDN'T do it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

You’re gonna get flamed.............ok...........we are gonna get flamed.

I agree with you.


22 posted on 08/12/2008 7:27:07 PM PDT by Islander7 ("Show me an honest politician and I will show you a case of mistaken identity.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

“failed to teach critical thinking”

What is this, an example of sarcasm?

Public schools haven’t taught critical thinking in more than a generation. That’s why they have policies like ‘zero tolerance’ and such. It’s also why the populace is so enamored with a naive, inexperienced candidate like BO.


23 posted on 08/12/2008 7:28:12 PM PDT by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

Yes, Students need to know macro-evolution isn’t scientific, it’s not verifiable and repeatable. DNA in all species is losing information and becoming defective because of mutations. All so-called micro-evolution or adaption is only possible because the genetic information is already present in the DNA to accommodate changes in environment.


24 posted on 08/12/2008 7:34:04 PM PDT by Rodm (Seest thou a man diligent in his business? He shall stand before kings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
...because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking.

The decision sounds quite reasonable.

25 posted on 08/12/2008 7:34:53 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

It’s “free expression” if it’s what they want you to express.


26 posted on 08/12/2008 7:41:01 PM PDT by autumnraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Rejecting claims of religious discrimination and stifling of free expression, U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles said UC's review committees cited legitimate reasons for rejecting the texts - not because they contained religious viewpoints, but because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking.

Not sure about the California system but from my recent experience at the University the last thing the Professors teach is critical thinking, in fact they will often do everything possible to discourage or silence critical thinking.

27 posted on 08/12/2008 7:42:26 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP (Make all taxes truly voluntary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

The Christian textbooks we use teach what evolution is. They also argue against it. To the point, my students are aware of the basic arguments of evolutionary theory. They also get it nonstop from the news and public tv documentaries.


28 posted on 08/12/2008 7:57:28 PM PDT by Marie2 (Osama & Obama - both have friends who've bombed the Pentagon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

“The decision sounds quite reasonable. . .”

except for the fact that those of us who think critically of evolution are being discriminated against for thinking critically.


29 posted on 08/12/2008 7:59:16 PM PDT by Marie2 (Osama & Obama - both have friends who've bombed the Pentagon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Westlander
Extra credit would be given to the applicant coming from a muzzie high school.

Probably not. They're creationist too and therefore would be in the same boat as you.

30 posted on 08/12/2008 7:59:31 PM PDT by onewhowatches
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
I agree with you. How could one possibly deliver an intellectual refutation of evolution (assuming there is one) without any actual knowledge of the subject?
31 posted on 08/12/2008 8:02:14 PM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SmithL; informavoracious; larose; RJR_fan; Prospero; Conservative Vermont Vet; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

32 posted on 08/12/2008 8:02:37 PM PDT by narses (...the spirit of Trent is abroad once more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Another district judge in the 9th Circuis... and all this means is that the formality of losing at the DJ level, and losing at the Circuis level must be pursued, before appealing to SCOTUS. What a waste of time.

Clearly this decision is typical 9th circuis nuttery.


33 posted on 08/12/2008 8:03:51 PM PDT by seanrobins (blog.seanrobins.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Activist judges; judicial review; judicial oversight...Has anyone ever heard of impeaching Court Justices ?...that is the balance of power where the legislature can limit the tyranny of the bench...So why isn’t this used more in the United States?...we sit back and wring our hands when many State Constitutions give the people the right of Impeachment, or Recall.....We may have to start doing that if the courts insist on making more and more untenable rulings..People need to wake up..

New tagline tonight


34 posted on 08/12/2008 8:05:49 PM PDT by billmor (Friday:Red Shirt Day- meaning the silent majority is silent no more..Wear yours please..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

>>>...because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking.

>>>The decision sounds quite reasonable.

Look: If the Left cannot concede that the “Theory of Evolution” is, in actuality, a THEORY, then there is nothing left to discuss. If, however, the left does acknowledge that a “theory” is a theory, then it must accept that it has not been successfully subjected to a scientific proof. Therefore, there is plenty of room for disagreement.

If this dipwad district judge is taking the “legal” and “constitutional” position that there can be no disagreement as to issues that are not, and can not be considered settled, then he should packs his bags and go home. Disagreement is the essence of the First Amendment (freedom of speech), the right to disagree.

To require that the acceptability of college credits (all other things being equal) hinge upon falling in line with a form of political and sociological indoctrination (that a “theory” is a “fact” indisputable) is clearly a violation of freedom of speech (and necessarily, of thought). The 1st Amendment, again, gets tossed out by this dingaling.


35 posted on 08/12/2008 8:11:02 PM PDT by seanrobins (blog.seanrobins.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Otero's ruling Friday, which focused on specific courses and texts, followed his decision in March that found no anti-religious bias in the university's system of reviewing high school classes.

Are Creationists asking for credit for sciences that they don't believe in? If so, I agree with the judge.

36 posted on 08/12/2008 8:11:08 PM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billmor

Forgot to add a citation...Here is one:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=104

There are others found on Google on these same matters if impeachment and recall of Judges..


37 posted on 08/12/2008 8:13:32 PM PDT by billmor (Friday:Red Shirt Day- meaning the silent majority is silent no more..Wear yours please..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
The article contains two contradictory elements:

#1 SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge says the University of California can deny course credit to applicants from Christian high schools whose textbooks declare the Bible infallible and reject evolution. If this was in fact the ruling it makes teaching Christian doctrine on this subject the object of discrimination

#2 Rejecting claims of religious discrimination and stifling of free expression, U.S. District Judge James Otero of Los Angeles said UC's review committees cited legitimate reasons for rejecting the texts - not because they contained religious viewpoints, but because they omitted important topics in science and history and failed to teach critical thinking. This is a different issue than #1 above.

As to critical thinking, uncritical acceptance of evolution, is not critical thinking.

38 posted on 08/12/2008 8:23:08 PM PDT by verklaring (Pyrite is not gold)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seanrobins

You fail to distinguish between the common usage of the word, “theory,” and the scientific usage, and use the word inappropriately when describing the Theory of Evolution. Since most of your reply is based upon this inappropriate usage, this you may wish to clarify just what exactly you mean.


39 posted on 08/12/2008 8:24:15 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

-—”However, it is silly to say someone is fully qualified to take college level biology without a working knowledge of evolution. “-—

Well, I don’t know about that. I had all of one Biology class in High School, and wound up taking 16 credit hours of it in College. Wasn’t really until my second college class that Evolution really started to come up in any active fashion.

Most HS Biology is very basic, and touches more on cells and basic genetics than anything more complicated. I don’t remember touching much on Evolution in HS, nor any reason a Creationist would object to the class.

I would suggest an entry exam solution for the University. Include basic Evolutionary Theory and its principles on the College Entry exam. If the Private School Students are truly being deprived education on the topic, then they’ll test their way out of the University before getting there. Or just make a test specific for this occasion: an exam required in order to receive those desired credits if you come from a Private High School in question.

I find it hard to believe that no compromise could have been made by the University. How many students get history credits while having never been taught many critical elements of history? I sure knew a few.

I have a problem with the judge declaring qualifications of schools in general, and I have a problem with the University not giving the students a chance to prove they did learn the required information from their school.

But yes, it is important to have a working knowledge of the Theory of Evolution, even for those who do not believe in it.


40 posted on 08/12/2008 8:28:15 PM PDT by TitansAFC (In 2008, please vote GOP and show us that you love your country more than you hate John McCain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson