Judge says UC can deny religious course credit

Judge says UC can deny religious course credit

www.sfgate.com

(08-12) 17:25 PDT 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.
More Education

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.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I am not quite sure where to place this as it crosses some boundaries in our family of topics.

The issue seems focused on private (religiously focused) high schools wanting college level credit for some of their classes (read evolution/creationism).

The opinion of the court determines that as a rule, if the creationistic aspect of the material is the focus of the course, it has necessarily discarded those principles accepted by accredited institutions as necessary components of the subject matter.

But I wonder, should this be the case, don't we have a significant number of graduates from Universities of the religious bent that also fail to meet the criteria for having studies the subject in question? If they were suddenly 'disallowed' those credits, would it affect the degrees bestowed upon them retroactively?



www.sfgate.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Why did it even get to the courts?

Schools don't accept high school gym as credit or allow it to factor in GPA either...I don't see any courts having to defend this position.

I don't understand why this should suddenly be news.

I wen't to catholic school from kindergarten until high school graduation...and the only class which was required every year was theology. We had it each and every year...

...But we knew, and were told, that the class would be factored out by schools when recieving our application. Even the catholic universities didn't accept it as credit or factor it into the GPA.

Nobody ever had a problem with this; it would be like accepting credit in a course that says Fire Golems live in the earth, and that is why lava flows. The court made the right decision in something which shouldn't have been an issue in the first place.

Courts are a joke. Most people go because they are scared they will go to jail if they do not. The truth is you do NOT have to go to court even with a summons. You can refuse to contract with the court and go home if its a Civil Matter.

Contract Law is the only law. The judge say whatever the hell he wants because if you show up to court and contract with the courts you are appointing the judge yourself.

Also to note that only Lawyers and Judges are the only ones who have to follow the laws set forth in the BAR.

[edit on 8-14-2008 by CPYKOmega]

I believe the reason for denying credits is that many of the private religious schools supplement creationism or bible studies as science denying students from getting a comparative science class that will address evolution.

Because Evolution is part of the science as a whole I don't see how in hell it should be considered a credit to supplement it with religious Bible teachings.

The judge is right to denied the credits.

Stop me if I'm wrong, but this could affect classes that are not focus on theology but touch on theological principles as part of the curriculum. For instance, I went to a private christian school and though we covered all the usual topics in american history, there was a particular focus at times on the history of the great awakening periods. If a christian course teaches that those were positive occurances a school like UC may be allowed to say that this course did not teach critical thinking and may disallow it from factoring into the student's gpa and prerequisites for college. This ruling has far more sweeping consequences than whether or not a bible class will be accepted. Every subject I studied growing up had a biblical angle to it, so effectively my entire education could have been disregarded according to this.

[edit on 14-8-2008 by ngchunter]

It is interesting that this issue was brought to a court for resolution. Some people, presumably of the religious bent, must have pushed fairly hard to get this reconsidered.

Actually, I'm not sure how a class in creationism can be conducted without a thorough examination of the evolutionary process it claims to supersede. I mean, all told, how could the class run?

Teacher: "God created everything, says so right here..."

Student: "But what about (insert scientific evidence herein)?"

Teacher: "Nope! Say's right here, God created everything"

Student: "Oh, I see."

Teacher: "You do?! Great, A +, class dismissed"

Credits 4. You are now an expert.

reply to post by Maxmars


Max,
That could be said of almost all subjects. The Nineth Circuit is 'one crazy' group of individuals. They are the most overturned circuit in our judicial complement. Don't be surprised that the end of this discussion is going to taske a more virulent edge to it. I've read that 80% of they'er rulings that go on to the SCOTUS get overturned. going to be interesting to watch. They also have a habit of taking cases that realy should not be judged by them.

Zindo

reply to post by ZindoDoone


Well, the dramatization may have been a bit simplistic, but it was meant to point out the futility of arguing with an infallible text.

It should be quite a show. Considering the point will come down to whether a public institution of higher learning can, in fact, render it's own judgment on the matter, or must it be compelled to accept that lower schools courses, if categorized as scientific, must be accepted as such by law.

In the end, I think reason will prevail. If it is that important to legitimize creationism as a 'science' the student must choose to attend universities that are predisposed to agree.

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by ZindoDoone

 

Well, the dramatization may have been a bit simplistic, but it was meant to point out the futility of arguing with an infallible text.

It should be quite a show. Considering the point will come down to whether a public institution of higher learning can, in fact, render it's own judgment on the matter, or must it be compelled to accept that lower schools courses, if categorized as scientific, must be accepted as such by law.

In the end, I think reason will prevail. If it is that important to legitimize creationism as a 'science' the student must choose to attend universities that are predisposed to agree.

IMHO the school should not have to accept t course as scientific unless the science communit accepts it as scientific. If the science community looks at it and says that while it is a basis of faith, it is not one of science, then it does not count as a science course.

Finn,
If a person chooses to go to a theological semenary and then decideson a differant course in they're life, should they be penalised for what they learned? Should all of they're former educatio be denied as a basis for further learning? It cuts both ways also. What if you choose to become a theology major after first going to engineering school. Does that preclude any knowledge you have from your past? It muddies the water in both directions!

Zindo

Originally posted by ngchunter
Stop me if I'm wrong

Hold up, partner.

Originally posted by ngchunter
[...]but this could affect classes that are not focus on theology but touch on theological principles as part of the curriculum. For instance, I went to a private christian school and though we covered all the usual topics in american history, there was a particular focus at times on the history of the great awakening periods. If a christian course teaches that those were positive occurances a school like UC may be allowed to say that this course did not teach critical thinking and may disallow it from factoring into the student's gpa and prerequisites for college.

I can not say I know what would happen in such a case, but if the class was a course which taught religion in the context of history then I wouldn't see a real problem --though there is a line which could easily be crossed.

My junior year theo. class, for example, was the History of Catholicism and the Catholic Church. Even that (my theology course at a catholic highschool) was taught without slanting the class too far one way or another...no worse than any other school skews history at least.

If, however, it taught history in the context of religion...and I imagine it would have to be glaringly so...like recently looking through one of my friends 'science' texts from Liberty University.

That is an example of supplementing critical thinking for 'the bible told me'.

Originally posted by ngchunter
This ruling has far more sweeping consequences than whether or not a bible class will be accepted. Every subject I studied growing up had a biblical angle to it, so effectively my entire education could have been disregarded according to this.

I think that's a mentality/argument you will see brought up as truth if this ruling recieves any opposition on the religious front. It is ridiculous though. A religious slant is much different than:

"[omtting] important topics in science and history and [failing] to teach critical thinking."

Ah, another one of those "only in California" stories.

Have no fear, the state will tell you how to think and feel. You and your fellow citizens will become totally homogenized - not a play on words - as in milk, where it means mixed to the point you can no longer determine the individual constituents. In other words, all the same.

Yes, I think Aldous Huxley (author of Brave New World) would be very proud of all the "progress" California has made towards making his novel a reality.

On the other hand, the problem is that so far this "homogenization" is only being applied to caucasians. The rest of the people in CA still get to be different and to celebrate their difference.

reply to post by ZindoDoone


No, but, if you change your course of study you also have to change any prerequsites that you had to take, and that could mean taking an actual science course as opposed to a theological one. It's not that hard to take a course for the credit, simply go to community college for a summer course, then go on and get into uniersity.

[edit on 8/14/2008 by Finn1916]

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
If a person chooses to go to a theological semenary and then decideson a differant course in they're life, should they be penalised for what they learned?

I wish I could use that argument when arguing the non-transferability of math credits between universities.

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
Should all of they're former educatio be denied as a basis for further learning? It cuts both ways also. What if you choose to become a theology major after first going to engineering school. Does that preclude any knowledge you have from your past? It muddies the water in both directions!

The point is moot. That is the reality of how it works.

If you chose to go to change majors to theology from engineering you would need to take all the courses required for theology. You can't just say "Oh, I have all these static mathmatics credits...what do you mean you won't accept them for my theology major?"

Not to mention changing schools is a whole other game. They don't have to take any of your credits if they do not match a comparable course which they offer or if they decide the course should not have it's credits transfered over.

And even then, only those for your major and generally required courses even matter; electives are just gravy...

...or a possible minor.

The fact of the matter is that if you are teaching a course on biology at the college level (even the 1000 level courses), it is a hinderance to the proffessor, the student and the rest of the class if one person argues the 'basics' which are assumed knowledge for the course.

reply to post by centurion1211


It was only a matter of time...


...first it was the evils of accreditation and now this!

And of course, we mustn't forget the financial impact on the institutions that seem to make a practice of disallowing transfers of credits simply because it reduces the income flow.

Cynical as it may sound, I have seen this in action. Using the theological objection as grounds for refusal may be something of a 'red herring' in certain cases. It would be interesting to make a study of the practice and the fiscal benefit behind enforcing 'non-transferability'.

reply to post by Maxmars



Thank you, that was a point that I forgot. Financials on the university level trump all other aspects of education. If they can charge you twice, they will and damn you if you complain.

Zindo

It would be interesting to learn whether courses from madrassas are equally scrutinized.

Imo, the ruling is too ambiguous, in accepting some courses and rejecting others simply on the basis of whether a text contains certain declarations.

What if a Creationist soundly defeated an Evolutionist in a debate?

What if science does not answer all questions about our origins?

Too vague. But if this was the 9th, I'm not surprised.

It's about time. This is wonderful news! Woo hoo!!