<p>Perhaps the majority were actually sympathetic to the school and its sincere mission and I simply missed it due to my usual sympathy for the underdog; if so, I offer that rarest of commodities here on cc, my sincere apologies.</p>
<p>We can be sympathetic to the school and still disagree with the lawsuit. Things are rarely black and white. I fully support a school's right to teach whatever it wants, however it wants. And I also support UC's right to set academic standards. It is not trying to set religious standards, it is trying to set academic standards.</p>
<p>Removing the somewhat polarizing religious aspect of this question, think of it this way: an art history course does not satisfy the UC requirement for visual/performing arts. It doesn't mean that UC is anti-art history. That doesn't mean that the art history course lacks content or isn't rigorous. That art history course may in fact satisfy some other A-G requirement but it will not satisfy the visual/performing arts requirement. They want the student to actually DO something that one year, not just read and write about it. Now, we can argue (or not) over the merits of that, but there is no argument that UC is trying to undermine art history. A school can offer both art history as well as ceramics and then students can satisfy the visual/performing arts requirement for UC if they want to. But if they do not offer any visual or performing arts classes, just art history, then students who don't want to have to hassle with UC over fulfilling that requirement will have to take a class at a cc. I would not then accuse UC of "discrimination" -- I would accuse the school of being stubborn for refusing to provide classes that comply with the state university systems' requirements.</p>
<p>So what part of the English curriculum at this particular school have you found wanting...at least to the degree that you find fault with the high schools position?</p>
<p>This is a legal case that has, as of now, two sides to it. I myself have not made up my mind that either is necessarily wrong--I don't have the information to make such an educated guess. Could be the school is wrong, could be the university is wrong--it would not be precedent setting as they have been wrong before, but you would never guess that reading through the posts above so many of which seem to speak with some peculiar authority that seems to evade me.</p>
<p>My sons both took "technical" courses - drafting, CAD, auto technology, and I have a brother-in-law who is a shop teacher, who puts a lot of effort into teaching his students the subject of project planning, scoping, scheduling and execution. I personally find the subject matter of those courses to be interesting, relevant, at times demanding, and worthwhile for the education of my kids. But none of them are approved by UC, so there's a big hole in my boy's transcript where those classes were. Should I sue? </p>
<p>I have to admit, I liked this comment: "What business is it of the state to say what viewpoints are acceptable and which are not?"
Right on! 2+2 should equal whatever the heck I say it means, and the University has no business telling me that my "Klugemath" class doesn't meet their standards.</p>
<p>I have to say I agree with FountainSiren that there just is not enough information about the contents of the courses and the approach used to teach those contents to form an opinion about the rights and wrongs of the case. The titles of the courses do not offer enough of a clue.</p>
<p>Possibly because I have a child in a Catholic school who has taken courses with religious content, some of which are on the UC approved A-G list and some of which are not, I tend to believe that the UC system is not unreasonably denying "approved" status simply because it feels like being stubborn. </p>
<p>
[quote]
For example, the university said it rejected the literature course for using an anthology as the only required text.</p>
<p>"It's not that we're not allowing a particular viewpoint," UC spokeswoman Ravi Poorsina said. "We're saying that we require certain disciplines that in these cases are not there."</p>
<p>But the school's lawsuit also says that in 2004, UC rejected some biology and physics textbooks because they included a religious perspective. The suit cites this as evidence of past discrimination.
[/quote]
--<a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/144/42.0.html">http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/144/42.0.html</a></p>
<p>I think it is interesting that UC's rejection of biology and physics textbooks because they include a religious perspective is cited as "evidence of past discrimination." Yes, of course it is discrimination. That is what an "approved" course list is all about--it's about discriminating between one course and another and deciding which one fits the standard. </p>
<p>None of my three kids have ever taken a hs literature class that only required an anthology as the only required text. Extensive reading -- as many as 5-8 novels over the course of a semester -- has been part of their lit classes throughout high school.</p>
<p>The Chronicle provides a more lengthy treatment of the subject: <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/12/12/MNGBNG6N2K1.DTL%5B/url%5D">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/12/12/MNGBNG6N2K1.DTL</a></p>
<p>FS, you're operating with a false dichotomy, there's another option you overlooked: not anti-Christian and not sympathetic to the school.</p>
<p>True,</p>
<p>I hadn't accounted for those who are sympathetic only to the "True" Christianity as they define it--the school may not fall within those guidelines and there are also those who know all the ins and outs of this high school and have therefore already formulated a reasonable and sound judgment. Anyhow, how would I know, I'm not even a congregant and I know next to nothing about the high school or their particular faith and teaching method they adhere to.</p>
<p>I will humbly defer to the expertise offered above. Thanks Spoony.</p>
<p>Yet another strike, FS. It has nothing to do with whether the school is teaching "True Christianity" as I perceive it or not. Wanna take another swing?</p>
<p>I humbly defer to your esoteric inclinations here, Sir. Whatever they are, I'm for 'em. Just don't yell, if you please.</p>
<p>Because I'm going to sleep and I'm so tired. Goodnight.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I see where the school's coming from, but I side with the UCs on this one. I question the merits of any biology class taught in a private high school
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I hope you ment religious private schools....</p>
<p>Challenging the UC system -- the most powerful public university system in the United States (and if you don't believe that, go talk to the folks at CB who have revamped their SAT test and, beginning next year, their new approval process for AP classes) -- and charging discrimination over a proposed English class, when the school already has UC approved English classes available and when 18 out of 25 students from the school have been admitted to UC schools in the past three years, makes me scratch my head and ask, "What is really behind this lawsuit?" And 4000 Christian schools "nationwide" have joined them? So Christian schools in Maine are involved in how UC decides admission criteria? Why?</p>
<p>Why? Simple. This lawsuit has nothing to do with that particular Christian school. I'm sure it is funded by a national public policy law interest group. And, the real purpose is an attempt to lay an incremental foundation of precedent for cases down the road on "real" issues like the teaching of creationism.</p>
<p>It's a contempory implementation of a legal strategy developed by Thurgood Marshall when he was with the NAACP.</p>
<p>Anyone here actually look at books published by Bob Jones University, some of the texts in question?</p>
<p>Check them out....no defending them as science, or history at all</p>
<p>And the schools can not be defeneded, the UC can be defended</p>
<p>To teach that God made the earth in 6 days, and that the world is only a few thousand years old is NOT SCIENCE</p>
<p>Please, look at the text books in question</p>
<p>Truly sad</p>
<p>While maintaining its focus on biblical integration, this two volume set covers cellular biology, genetics, biotechnology, taxonomy, origins, microbiology, botany, zoology, and human anatomy. from the 10 grade bio book- bible based biology</p>
<p>"curious brown natives" that is who Columbus found, how quaint</p>
<p>idad--yes, and I notice that wherever news reports of so-called culture wars surface, Charles Haynes of the First Amendment Center is never far away. And just who is this man and who/what is the First Amendment Center? "First Amendment", after all, sounds good, doesn't it? But look closer at his publications and their goals: <a href="http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=12815%5B/url%5D">http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=12815</a></p>
<p>And for those willing do dig and read far enough past the seemlingly "balanced" viewpoints, there's this:
[quote]
Haynes recommends a truce. Letting some of the creationist and intelligent design arguments into the curriculum could help students understand how science and religion have interacted over the centuries, he said.
[/quote]
<p>That's a "truce"????</p>
<p>Here's an excerpt from the Chronicle story:</p>
<p>"The primary text, published by A Beka Press, of Pensacola, Fla. -- whose biology text also was rejected -- was to have been "American Literature: Classics for Christians.</p>
<p>"In turning down the English course, Sue Wilbur, the director of UC undergraduate admissions, checked two categories as 'inadequate' on a standard form: 'Lacking necessary course information,' and 'Insufficient academic/theoritical [sic] content.' She added a note that said: 'Unfortunately, this course, while it has an interesting reading list, does not offer a nonbiased approach to the subject matter.' And she also commented that 'the textbook is not appropriate.' During the interview, Patti said the textbook was an anthology and that UC demands some full texts be read."</p>
<p>If this suit gets past the pleading stage, it's likely to be because of the comment that the English course "does not offer a nonbiased approach to the subject matter." The complaint seems to argue that the requirement of "unbiased" content is directed in a discriminatory fashion against Christian bias, and alleges that comparably biased non-Christian content passes muster.</p>
<p>In most actions where a dismissal on the pleadings is sought, courts assume for purposes of the motion that all facts alleged in the complaint are true. I haven't read the complaint in this case, but suspect it might be possible to draft a complaint that would get through the pleading stage. It's more likely, though, that as the director cited other grounds for rejecting the course that were patently non-discriminatory, the plaintiff will not get very far.</p>
<p>
hahaha</p>
<p>Are CHRISTIANS supposed to sue now? Isn't that a sin? </p>
<p>And no offense, but I think hardcore Christians would NOT fit in well with the liberal environment at UCs, especially ones such as Berkeley. They shouldn't even bother applying because they will hate it here even if they do get in.</p>
<p>don't forget, that students can become eligible for the UC's by testing alone (total score 3450 on SAT + 2 subject tests), and not have to fulfill the a-g requirements.</p>
<p>The students don't need to become eligible by testing alone -- there are other English classes at that school, approved by UC as satsifying the subject requirement. In fact in the last three years 18 out of 25 students from that school were admitted to UC. And there is nothing preventing students from taking the non-approved course if they want to, as long as they take 4 approved courses. </p>
<p>This suit is not about access to UC.</p>