There's a new battle breaking out in the culture wars between universities and Christian schools: which courses qualify for credit? (via Pandagon).
In a small room at the University of California's headquarters in downtown Oakland, UC counsel Christopher Patti sat beside a stack of textbooks proposed for use by Calvary Chapel Christian School in Riverside County -- books UC rejected as failing to meet freshmen admission requirements.
Biology and physics textbooks from Christian publishers were found wanting, as were three Calvary humanities courses.
"The university is not telling these schools what they can and can't teach," Patti said. "What the university is doing is simply establishing what is and is not its entrance requirements. It's really a case of the university's ability to set its own admission standards. The university has no quarrel with Christian schools."
I'm not sure that's exactly true, at least from the perspective of Christians. Most of us have run into college courses which, if not blatantly anti-Christian, certainly forced students to question Christian tenets and beliefs or ridiculed various aspects of Christianity, often without any balancing views presented. I sat in an astronomy class where a professor told the 500 students in attendance that "anyone who thought life began at conception was stupid." I dropped the course shortly after that, considering that the professor had other, shall we say, dubious distinctions from his past.
In any event, the Association of Christian Schools International disagrees with the University of California and is suing them for religious bias.
Unlike recent court cases...the suit against UC does not pit Darwinism against creationism and its intellectual offspring. Rather, by focusing on courses that Calvary Chapel planned to offer this fall -- in English, history and social studies -- courses that were turned down by UC, it sets competing interpretations of academic merit against each other.
"The university is in a way firing a shot over the bow," said Charles Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va., "saying to Christian schools that they may have gotten away with this in the past, but no more. And that will have a chilling effect across the country."
In its suit, the association and its co-plaintiffs objected "to government officials ... dictating and censoring the viewpoints that may and may not be taught ... (in) private schools. ... (They) have rejected textbooks and courses based on a viewpoint of religious faith, for the first time in the University of California's history." The rejections, the suit asserted, "violate the freedom of speech of Christian schools, students and teachers."
The suit is being allowed to proceed against the individual defendants in their official capacities, but not against the state directly because of sovereign immunity (basically, you can only sue the state if it okays it).
The case revolves around English and Social Studies courses which the University of California has rejected as "inadequate" because they were "Lacking necessary course information," and "Insufficient academic/theoritical [sic] content."
Among the courses turned down were a history class, "Christianity's Influence on America"; a social studies class, "Special Providence: Christianity and the American Republic"; and, most contentiously, an English course, "Christianity and Morality in American Literature." None is being taught because of the dispute.
The argument being made by ACSI is an interesting one.
This case is a legal challenge to viewpoint discrimination and content regulation of nonpublic schools’ speech, by the State of California through the University of California. The central issue is whether a state my require not just that particular subjects be taught, such as four years of English, but whether the state may allow some viewpoints and penalize other viewpoints, whatever they may be, in nearly all subject areas. Here, UC has asserted the power to approve or reject history and social studies courses based on whether they teach solely majority viewpoints, or also add minority viewpoints:
The content of the course outline submitted for approval is not consistent with the empirical historical knowledge generally accepted in the collegiate community.
UC has done the same toward science, in rejecting biology courses that present evolution and add religious viewpoints too:
The content of the course outlines submitted for approval is not consistent with the viewpoints and knowledge generally accepted in the scientific community.
Regarding these allegations, the Court, in ruling on the motion to dismiss stated:
Viewing Plaintiffs’ allegations in light most favorable to Plaintiffs, as the Court must, the Court determines that Plaintiffs have sated a valid free exercise claim. Plaintiffs have adequately shown that they have been put to the choice between providing and taking courses that promote a biblical moral view or complying with the UC’s a-g course requirements.
It's interesting that ACSI is attacking the rejections in areas not science-related. It seems to me that it is a much easier argument to make that this is viewpoint discrimination when you are talking about an English class rather than a biology class.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle article,
In their suit, the schools argue that UC has accepted courses in "The Jewish Experience" and Islam, and also allowed courses in "Military History and Philosophy," "Gender, Sexuality and Identity in Literature" and "Children's Literature." These acceptances, they claimed, undercut the university's rationale in rejecting Calvary's history course as "too narrow/too specialized."...
(I)n a court filing, the Christian schools replied that, "UC would not dare to claim there was no constitutional violation if it rejected courses because of their African American, or Latino heritage, or feminist or environmentalist perspective." And on its Web site, the Christian schools group says, "It's wrong to discriminate against Christians, essentially foreclosing opportunities at State Universities."
It would be interesting to see the texts involved in the courses and compare them to other university textbooks. One of the U of C's objections was reliance on an anthology for one class versus reading the full texts. I'm not sure exactly why an anthology would be considered "not appropriate." Virtually every English course I took in college used an anthology, including a 17th century British lit course. There are times that an anthology makes it easier to get through more materials and introduce more authors and works to students. It seems like a flimsy excuse to me.
The case is still pending, but it will be interesting to see how it works itself through the system. Obviously, a victory by ACSI would give a boost to Christian schools wanting to teach students from that perspective. A victory by the university system would have a chilling effect on academic freedom among Christian schools, given that the California system has more college students than any other.
Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.
UPDATE: Mary, in the comments over at CSPT makes some very good arguments for why the courses might have been rejected.
|