Mike Dunford was a graduate student in the Department of Zoology at the University of Hawaii, Manoa, where he studied evolution. Life as an army spouse has since moved him on to Pensacola, where he's currently trying to figure out what to do next. While he's doing that, he writes stuff here, although not usually in the third person. He's also a contributer to 
Over the last few days, I reposted a series of four articles that I wrote two years ago. Those articles discuss a California lawsuit filed by a group of Christian schools against the University of California. They are suing in an attempt to force UC to recognize some of their classes as meeting the requirements that UC sets for high school students who are applying for admission to the system. Several subjects are involved in the suit, but as a biologist I'm mostly interested in the biology courses that are involved.
At the moment, the next scheduled event in the case comes on September 24th, when the judge will hear arguments on motions for summary judgement. I'm not a legal expert, and I don't spend as much time following Constitutional Law for fun as Ed does, but I've got a feeling that the motion for summary judgement filed by the Christian schools will fail, and the case will go to trial. A motion for summary judgement can only be granted if there are no significant disputes about material facts in the case. In this particular case, at least as far as the science books are concerned, there is a significant dispute about the facts.
The plaintiffs (the Christian schools) claim that their courses, "add to standard content a banned book, a religious viewpoint that God created man and woman, or the viewpoint of creation or Intelligent Design," and that this constitutes "viewpoint discrimination." (Brief for Summary Judgement p. 20). Someone from the Association of Christian Schools International, one of the plaintiffs in the case, left a comment on a couple of the old articles that elaborated a bit on that - the case, he claimed, is not about creationism, it's about "illegal viewpoint discrimination.
When it comes to the biology courses, their claim that they are teaching the "standard material" with a religious viewpoint added had better be disputed - because they're not. I've got a copy of the Bob Jones University textbook that's used by some of the Christian schools. Biology for Christian Schools does not, in any way, shape, or form teach "standard" biology with religion added. It teaches religion instead of standard biology, and the University of California is absolutely right to refuse to accept courses taught from this book as biology classes.
If you teach, as the Bob Jones book does on page 173, that:
It has been shown that there are many factors that can cause a population to change over time. Some people would take this fact and use it as evidence to support the notion of evolution. However, they should think again about these population changes. In the example above, the deer are still deer; in the photographs the elephant seals and cheetahs are still seals and cheetahs. Creationists and evolutionists would agree that mutations are the only mechanism that creates new alleles; however, most mutations are harmful, and none have created a new type of organism. Population genetic studies are useful in studying how populations change, but they can offer no support to evolution.
you are teaching something quite different from standard biology.
If you teach, as the Bob Jones book does on page 197, that:
Christians need not wonder about the beginning of life, though, since it is clearly outlined in Genesis 1 and 2. Other passages in the Bible give us additional facts about God's creative act, the history of His physical creation, and even God's description of what will eventually happen to His creation. Collectively, these passages provide a divinely inspired outline of the history of life. Because God is the source of all truth, all accurate scientific knowledge will fit into this outline. Anything that contradicts God's Word is in error or has been misunderstood.
you are teaching religion in place of standard biology, and you are teaching that religion is superior to standard biology.
If you teach, as the Bob Jones book advises on page 200 of the teacher's edition, that:
Evolution, by definition, is change toward the more complex, not merely change. Change can be downward or toward the less complex, which is not evolution but devolution.
you are teaching a definition of evolution that no scientist working in the field would accept.
If you teach, as the Bob Jones book does on page 206, that:
Scientists theorize that the postdiluvian mountains are higher and the oceans deeper than the antediluvian mountains and oceans. They also propose that the rapid movement of water running off the land masses accounts for many of the geologic formations seen today...
you are clearly operating under the mistaken assumption that "scientists" and "charlatans" are synonyms.
If you teach, as the Bob Jones book does on page 207, that:
The average human life span before the Flood (based on Genesis) was 912 years. After Noah, the life span quickly dropped to about 400 years and continued to decline. Some scientists believe this change in life span is also due to postdiluvian changes in the atmosphere. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob lived well over 100 years, but few men after their time have reached even 100 years. A cause for this decrease could be the loss of the antediluvian atmosphere resulting in more direct exposure to solar radiation. Other Bible scholars believe this decrease in life span to be a result of sin and its effect on the human gene pool.
you have clearly decided that science is an optional component in your science class.
When you tell students, as the Teacher's Edition of the Bob Jones book does on page 233, that the correct answer to the question:
Anthropologists have found fossil evidence that clearly links humans and apes through a common ancestor. (True/False)
is false, you are lying to your students. You are definitely not teaching biology.
I don't know what you're doing when you teach, as the Bob Jones book does on page 618, that, "much of the modern environmental movement seems to be politically motivated by a liberal agenda," but it sure as hell ain't science.
At this point, I think at least one thing has become clear. Labeling the Bob Jones book "Biology" is like labeling a five-pound bag of dog droppings a "tulip" - the smell stays the same, and anyone who opens it is in for an unpleasant surprise. They can call a course taught from that book a "biology" class, but that really doesn't make it one.
Far be it from me, of course, to suggest that the fine folks at the Christian schools do not have the right to teach their students using the five pound ba- excuse me, using the Bob Jones text. As sad as it may be for their poor students, they do. What they don't have is the right to force other people to agree with their labeling. If they want their students to be credited as having taken biology, they need to teach biology. If they want to continue to exercise their right to deceive and mislead their children, they need to be willing to accept the consequences of that act.
Politics
Education & Careers
Comments
Perhaps I am not be the most well educated advocate of proper biology, but this small snippet from that textbook makes me feel just awful.
Posted by: Ryan | September 3, 2007 8:14 PM
I believe Behe in his expert report is arguing that it is a legitimate textbook as it meets the California standards. We could have a side issue of how good the accepted textbooks are (and this is likely to be interesting in the history course). According to Behe the Bob Jones text mostly closely met the standards.
Of course there are no peer reviewed papers referenced showing that the stated weaknesses and alternatives are actually scientifically valid.
Posted by: Erp | September 3, 2007 8:37 PM
Behe is involved in this case? Thank God. That means another victory for science is in the works!
Posted by: Jay Andrew Allen | September 3, 2007 9:19 PM
Not only does that textbook not meet the standards one would expect a real university to require, but those who have studied from that book most likely are in dire need of extensive remedial science classes. A real university certainly should discriminate between admitting students having promising bacgrounds from those whose understanding has been so perverted and retarded as to render them laughingstocks, crackpots, and IDiots.
Posted by: mark | September 3, 2007 9:32 PM
I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.
Those excerpts left an awfully bad taste. I would have to agree that it is not in anyone's rights to forbid such teachings in private, religiously oriented schools. But it is incredibly sad (and terribly frightening) that they would.
I cannot imagine the Christian Schools winning this case. Not in the slightest. But I wonder if they will cry religious discrimination when they do lose.
Posted by: Evan | September 3, 2007 10:08 PM
As an anthropology student, I can just imagine someone coming in to an Intro to Biological Anth. class who had been taught "Intelligent Design" trying to argue against archaeological evidence of millions of years of evolution. I feel sorry for those students who have learned this as science.
Posted by: Shayna | September 3, 2007 10:17 PM
Oh great a science book telling people they "need not wonder" about stuff. And all of this is supposed to be at the university level? What the hell kind of a university is that?
Posted by: 386sx | September 3, 2007 10:22 PM
Seriously that's just completely idiotic. What the hell?
Posted by: 386sx | September 3, 2007 10:26 PM
In the unlikely event that the University of California loses this case, I hope it has a "Plan B" in the works that would require manditory "bonehead biology" classes for all incoming freshmen who can't pass a proficiency exam. "Bonehead biology" should be modeled after the "bonehead English" courses that the UC introduced a few decades ago.
Posted by: caerbannog | September 3, 2007 10:37 PM
Mike, I totally agree with your analysis of those "biology" books but why would we as scientists want to keep these students from attending a REAL university such as UC? It's actually an opportunity to undo all the damage these poor students have been subjected to.
Posted by: Carol Clouser | September 4, 2007 2:25 AM
Mike,
So far you have only shown us what is wrong with the fundy biology textbooks and not shown what is right with them. Remember the optimist's creed --
As you go through life, my friend,
Whatever may be your goal,
Keep your eye upon the donut,
And not upon the hole.
The biggest dispute over the biology textbooks is about evolution -- though I admit I nearly gagged at the statement that human lifespans have decreased because of exposure to solar radiation.
We should also remember that the dispute with UC is not just over these biology textbooks but includes other textbooks as well. It is noteworthy that UC rejected the fundy physics textbooks without disputing the science in those textbooks at all. UC also rejected textbooks in history and literature, saying that the Christian focus of these textbooks is too narrow. Calvary Chapel high school sought approval for courses titled "Christianity's Influence on American History" (page 28 of complaint) and "Christianity and Morality in American Literature." (page 32). I actually see this apparent narrow focus of the history and literature texts as a much bigger problem than the science texts. However, the complaint argues that other courses with a similarly narrow focus have been accredited by UC (pages 45-52 of complaint).
caerbannog said,
The alternative admission paths that UC has offered to students who have used these disapproved textbooks require -- as I remember -- that they be within the top 2-4% of high school grads and I think that is unreasonable. A sensible alternative would be to require them to get a certain minimum score on, say, the SAT advanced placement tests in the subjects in question and take a remedial UC course if they fail. Here, for example, are the topics of the SAT advanced placement test in biology --
I. Molecules and Cells (25%)
A. Chemistry of Life (7%)
Water
Organic molecules in organisms
Free energy changes
Enzymes
B. Cells (10%)
Prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells
Membranes
Subcellular organization
Cell cycle and its regulation
C. Cellular Energetics (8%)
Coupled reactions
Fermentation and cellular respiration
Photosynthesis
===============================
II. Heredity and Evolution (25%)
A. Heredity (8%)
Meiosis and gametogenesis
Eukaryotic chromosomes
Inheritance patterns
B. Molecular Genetics (9%)
RNA and DNA structure and function
Gene regulation
Mutation
Viral structure and replication
Nucleic acid technology and applications
C. Evolutionary Biology (8%)
Early evolution of life
Evidence for evolution
Mechanisms of evolution
=====================================
III. Organisms and Populations (50%)
A. Diversity of Organisms (8%)
Evolutionary patterns
Survey of the diversity of life
Phylogenetic classification
Evolutionary relationships
B. Structure and Function of Plants and Animals (32%)
Reproduction, growth, and development
Structural, physiological, and behavioral adaptations
Response to the environment
C. Ecology (10%)
Population dynamics
Communities and ecosystems
Global issues
-- from
http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/biology/topic.html
So a relatively small part of the test is specifically about evolution theory, though there is also a lot about related subjects, like genetics and population dynamics.
In fact, the complaint in this lawsuit suggests the use of standardized tests as an alternative:
An important factor that courts consider in lawsuits charging unconstitutional discrimination is whether there are less burdensome alternatives.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 4, 2007 3:23 AM
I've taught unprepared students at the college level. It's heartbreaking-- just impossible to undo the damage in the time available. So what can the professors do? Flunk them out and let them try to pay off those college loans without a degree to help them get a good job? Pass them on and let your institution's reputation go down, down, down?
I know which way Berkeley would go if the Christian Academies win. The UC professors aren't going to let a world-class institution be dragged down to the level of Bob Jones U. Kids who thought they were bright (and maybe even were bright, before their good, Christian education left them too confused to think straight) will be out on the street, feeling like failures and with all those loans to pay off.
Carol Clouser's suggestion may sound good at first glance, but letting unprepared students into universities is really a cruel, cruel thing to do.
Posted by: hoary puccoon | September 4, 2007 3:27 AM
Though I agree with Carol to an extent, at the same time I think a University (especially the respective colleges within the university), even if public, has the ability to discern acceptance standards. Certified education beyond high school curriculum is a privilege that can be utilized, not a naturally given right. And certain criteria must be met before one is considered to be enrolled.
Don't get me wrong; education is a right. One cannot force another indidivual to become educated. But the government is not obligated to recognize in an official capacity that indidivual's education.
/rambling
Posted by: Shawn WIlkinson | September 4, 2007 3:44 AM
Those quotes are bad enough, but nothing tops:
You couldn't ask for a clearer declaration of anti-scientific intent.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | September 4, 2007 5:38 AM
Ginger Yellow said,
It's not "anti-scientific intent" -- it's a "fundy viewpoint." :-)
To me, the critical issues concerning the biology courses are the following:
(1) So far as I can see, UC has not complained that the fundy biology textbooks do not present the core material correctly -- UC's complaint appears to be that these textbooks add a fundy viewpoint.
An email from Roman Stearns, Special Assistant to the Director of Admissions, said of courses using either the BJU Press or A Beka Book biology/science texts,
That is too vague -- UC needs to be more specific. The ACSI said of a meeting between both sides,
-- from
http://www.acsi.org/webfiles/webitems/attachments/007875_1.%20Overview%20of%20ACSI%20Law%20Suit.pdf
(2) Did UC offer the rejected students admission if they would (1) take standardized tests -- e.g., the SAT advanced placement biology test -- on the subjects in question and (2) take remedial UC courses if they did not get satisfactory scores on the tests?
I have been reading legal documents in the case and I have not found satisfactory answers on the above two issues. Some legal documents are available at the following two sites (http:// prefixes have been removed to prevent the comment from hanging up) --
National Center for Science Education --
www2.ncseweb.org/avs/index.php
Association of Christian Schools International
www.acsi.org/~UCcase
UC's answer to ACSI's motion for summary judgment might shed some light on the above issues. ACSI's motion was mailed on Aug. 27, so it is too early for an answer. The hearing is scheduled for Sept. 24.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 4, 2007 8:20 AM
The best and shortest answer to this, in my opinion, is: science has no place for viewpoints.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | September 4, 2007 8:49 AM
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 4, 2007 9:38 AM
Carol Clouser wrote -
WE WOULDN'T.
The issue is merely that garbage courses shouldn't be counted as equivalent to biology prerequisites. By the University of California, in this specific example. There are many options available to these students to take the required prerequisites. Requiring prerequisites does not "keep students from attending university" in any meaningful way.
The issue here is not whether or not the students should ever be allowd to study science at the university level. Of course they should, if they have the basic decency to achieve the same mandatory preparation required of all other students (and they can take all the creationist claptrap courses they want, too, they just can't use them for science credit).
Ironically, I entered university somewhat deficient in science, due to a disrupted high school education (however, I had technically achieved the minimum prerequisites; I didn't try to con anybody, and I wasn't delusional about my level of preparation, either). I caught up, and ended up with a science degree, moving on to medical school, but students are far better off with adequate preparation. The ultimate victim of this nonsense, should it succeed, will be the students who are conned into thinking that they've been taught biology - until they hit a real classroom.
Posted by: harold | September 4, 2007 10:56 AM
A couple of quick points for those who haven't done a lot of background reading on this case:
UC has far more applicants who are fully qualified (i.e., took 2-3 real science classes like they were supposed to) than it can accept. Why, then, should it accept a single student who substituted Bible study instead? It's not as if the Calvary Chapel students add significant diversity to the student demographics. Middle-class Christian kids from suburban Los Angeles are a dime a dozen on any UC campus.
UC is also the top tier of a three-tier system. It doesn't do remedial education. Kids who have serious holes in their education would be much better off going to a community college for a few years first, to get the basics straight, and then transferring to a UC campus for their last two years.
The other disputed courses were just as problematic as the biology class. Most noteworthy, the "American Literature" class read only short exceprts from mostly British authors, and flunked because they weren't reading any entire books. The history course flunked for the same reason the biology course did: it used a textbook that substituted fundamentalist apologetics for academic subject matter.
UC's general standard is that to win certification in a subject area, a course must reflect "material generally accepted in the academic community". Alternative viewpoints must be presented only in supplimental materials, if at all, so students can clearly distinguish the academic material from the non-academic viewpoint.
It appears that Calvary Chapel isn't willing to let its students know that its "viewpoint" is widely rejected as worthless by serious academics who are actually familiar with the primay data. That's fine--as a private religious school, Calvary Chapel can teach what it likes. However, UC also doesn't have to accept students whom it considers to be ill-prepared for university-level work.
Choices have consequences. UC has clearly stated what students have to learn in high school if they wish to be considered for UC admissions. Every high school guidance counselor in California knows the UC guidelines, and exactly which courses at their school meet the requirements. Students who take other courses instead have no one to blame but themselves if UC isn't interested in taking them.
Posted by: mary | September 4, 2007 11:03 AM
Lary Fafarman wrote -
That's good news of the University of California. If Lary Fafarman supports a side in a case with his "constitutional" arguments, that alone is excellent evidence that the other side will massively prevail.
Darn good thing, too. The original poster exaggerated slightly - of course there's room for viewpoints in science, but they have to appeal to and adjust to the evidence to remain relevant. But that's hardly the point.
Lary literally can't differentiate between his perfect right to express any nonsene he wishes, versus his merciful complete lack or right or power to force the taxpayers to have any crazy crap whatsoever taught as "science" in public schools or, in this case, accepted as "science prerequisites" at a public university.
Of course the constitution protects your right to preach it from a soapbox. But public school science curriculum is a matter of expert consensus, based on mainstream science, and ultimately funded by the taxpayers and administered by elected officials or their appointees. All within the framework of respect for the rights of the individual which is ensconced in the US constitution. Sorry.
Posted by: harold | September 4, 2007 11:13 AM
"Darn good thing, too. The original poster exaggerated slightly - of course there's room for viewpoints in science, but they have to appeal to and adjust to the evidence to remain relevant. But that's hardly the point."
Well, I, original poster, still agree with myself. A viewpoint is an opinion, a personal choice of perspective, and as such, it's normal that it's protected by the Constitution. You have the right to choose your religion, your political options, your favourite car or food, cats over dogs (or vice-versa), etc.
But science isn't about opinions. If it was, answers would be decided by voting, instead of using observation, experiments, etc.
So invoking "viewpoint discrimination" in science is... well, it's always the same old song in the evolution/creation "debate". Or, let's make room for other alternative viewpoints, such as geocentrism, the demonic possession theory of disease, the Babel Tower theory of the origin of languages, etc.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | September 4, 2007 11:50 AM
How is teaching those lies not intellectual child abuse?
Posted by: Jeb, FCD | September 4, 2007 11:56 AM
Could someone please remind me which amendment in the Bill of Rights covers "viewpoint discrimination"?
Posted by: Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD | September 4, 2007 12:34 PM
"Viewpoint discrimination"? That's a nice way to put it.
Meanwhile, back in reality, working in education actually requires that you discriminate against stupid people. I know, it's a crying shame.
.
Posted by: Grand Moff Texan | September 4, 2007 12:55 PM
Christoper Thill -
I suppose I included reasonable hypotheses that have not yet been definitively ruled in or out as "viewpoints". Maybe I shouldn't have.
At the level of graduate education and research, science is full of legitimate competing views on cutting edge or detail topics, and surprising findings. That's what people like about science. But that doesn't make crackpot nonsense a legitimate "viewpoint".
I don't have any problem with your basic point, to put it mildly. There is no excuse for teaching claptrap as "science". There is much that is well-established - certainly including the theory of evolution - and "viewpoints" which lie about established fact are just plain wrong.
Let's face it - "viewpoint" here is just a creationist weasel word. Any garbage can be called a "different viewpoint".
Posted by: harold | September 4, 2007 1:05 PM
Mike -
IAAL, and I don't see a *factual* dispute in what you've related, but a dispute over the legal characterization to be given those facts. That is, there is no dispute over the bare facts of which textbooks the plaintiffs wish to continue to use, nor over the words that appear in those texts, nor over what the UC's procedures are for applications from students who have used these texts. As such, the case would appear to be appropriate for summary judgment - denial of the plaintiffs' motion and/or (if the UC hasn't filed a summary judgment motion of its own) granting summary judgment for the defense on the judge's own motion.
I don't include the possibility of plaintiffs prevailing on their summary judgment motion, because frankly it is laughable to me that it would constitute "viewpoint discrimination" actionable under the Constitution for the state (as the University of California) to impose the criterion that science texts must stick to scientific facts.
But hey, I could be surprised (astounded would be more like it, actually).
Posted by: Jud | September 4, 2007 1:45 PM
On page 14 of the Plaintiffs' Brief PDF there's the following extraordinary complaint about UC's view of history courses:
A [history] course will be rejected that "attributes historical events to supernatural causes". ... That prohibits even explaining the Great Awakening as an act of God, or the Civil War as a judgement of sin by God.
Did I read that correctly - someone thinks it's a bad thing that university history departments won't accept supernatural explanations of events? Mind you, if such things had been acceptable back when I was taking history exams it would certainly have made my life easier...
Q: Describe the long-term and short-term causes of the Second World War.
A: God done it.
Excellent - full marks!
Posted by: Rob | September 4, 2007 1:54 PM
One of my minor complainst about fundie cultists is that they are setting their kids up for failure in the real world. It is probably legal but it isn't moral.
The Xian textbooks are appalling and a typical example of voluntary ignorance. FWIW, a fundie "viewpoint" of science has to not only toss evolution but also physics, astronomy, geology, and paleontology. Most of modern science.
Besides which, they shouldn't be the least afraid to teach real science as real scientific theories. This is where their court case will fall apart. You don't have to "believe" something to understand and know about it.
If I studied Buddhist theory and practice, that doesn't mean at all that I'm a buddhist or going to become one. In fact I have studied fundie cultist theory and practice and concluded that they are completely wrong on just about everything.
Posted by: raven | September 4, 2007 2:01 PM
Thanks, Jud.
That kind of clears things up.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | September 4, 2007 2:01 PM
Who are these cultists? This isn't even good fundie theology. Who was the latter day prophet who came up with the above BS? And why are they writing new books for the bible?
Not sure why they are worrying about their kids getting into Berkeley. They will be lost, deep in culture shock, way behind the rest of the kids, and most likely last a quarter or two.
Posted by: raven | September 4, 2007 2:08 PM
Don't know if this has been posted already, but here's a link to Prof. Ayala's expert report (Biology):
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/expertreports/ayala.pdf
Other reports can be found at UC's page about the case:
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/
Posted by: Dizzy | September 4, 2007 2:30 PM
I also have a copy of the two-volume BJU "Biology for Christian Schools", and I posted my review on this thread at Thoughts from Kansas. It is comment #240.
The anti-science nature of this book is obvious from the Introduction (p. xi)
If your teacher assigns a report on grasshoppers, an encyclopedia would be a logical place to begin. As you find out about the legs and wings of grasshoppers, how far these insects jump, their life cycle, how much damage they cause each year, and what types of insecticides are used to control them, you are gleaning scientific material. The same encyclopedia article may state that the grasshopper evolved 300 million years ago. You may find a description of some insect that the grasshopper supposedly evolved from, and a description of the insects that scientists say evolved from the grasshopper. You may even find a scientific explanation of the biblical locust (grasshopper) plague in Egypt. These statements are conclusions based on supposed science. If the conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them.
followed on the same page by
The Christian must evaluate the source of a statement. Scientific statements must be based on observation or else they are mere guesses. There is nothing wrong with a guess, as long as it is clearly labeled a guess or a belief. But Christians must disregard those guesses and beliefs that contradict the Bible.
Posted by: Albatrossity | September 4, 2007 4:17 PM
I've read the relevant pleadings in this case, and based on what I've reviewed, it seems that there is a pretty good chance of UC losing the case. Most comments here have focused on the biology courses, but UC's weakest argument concerns the other courses such as History and English. I just can't fathom some of UC's policies concerning these types of courses where they disallow any courses that have a Christian viewpoint. For instance, a course focused on feminist authors throughout history would be allowed, but a course focused on Christian authors throughout history would not be allowed. A physics text was banned (until after the filing of the lawsuit) only because there was a bible verse at the beginning of each chapter even though the content of the actual chapters was completely secular and accurate. The plaintiff was able to dig up a lot of comments made by the UC reviewers and policy-makers that pretty clearly show that the UC staff was anti-religious in general when reviewing courses and instituting policies.
Posted by: Phatty | September 4, 2007 6:29 PM
Tegumai Bopsulai FCD said ( September 4, 2007 12:34 PM ) --
-- after you remind us which amendment in the Bill of Rights covers "separation of church and state."
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 4, 2007 7:10 PM
Phatty,
I suggest you read through the expert reports on the English, history, government, and physics textbooks before you decide that there was nothing wrong with them besides the addition of a Christian viewpoint. There are links to the reports at http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/
The books had extensive problems, quite apart from the Christian bias. The English anthology was limited to short snippets from each author, often selected in such a fashion as to be irrelevant to any serious discussion of why that author is considered important. (If you're only going to reprint a few pages of "Uncle Tom's Cabin", shouldn't you select pages that discuss the problem presented by slavery?)
The history textbook covered wealthy white Protestant men adequately, but did not offer any significant treatment of the historical contributions of women, minority religious groups, African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, or poor Americans. Unlike mainstream high school history textbooks, there were no sections presenting multiple perspectives of a historical turning point using original sources. How can a student use such a textbook to learn how to examine a historical event critically, as is required in any college-level history course at UC?
The government textbook was similarly flawed: some material presented was flat out wrong, other material that should have been covered was not, and students were actively discouraged from critically examining the material being presented and perhaps coming to a different conclusion than the authors.
The "Christian viewpoint" of the physics textbook was not limited to the Bible verses at the chapter headings. Among other serious problems, the book attempts to rewrite the Second Law of Thermodynamics and claims that radioactive decay rates aren't constant. This is apparently because these aspects of physics, if properly understood, would allow the students to spot certain creationist "criticisms" of evolution as bogus.
The most interesting part of the expert reports, however, is the analysis in Michael Kurst's report of a study showing that as a group, UC students who went to high school at ACSI schools (even if they take the coursework UC requires) do not do as well academically as public-school students from similar backgrounds. They score lower on SATs, have lower grade point averages, drop out more often, and if they stay, take longer to earn a degree. All of those are classic indicaters of students who came to college with insufficient preparation in high school.
Posted by: Mary | September 4, 2007 7:55 PM
The Clouserbout pooted:
It's actually an opportunity to undo all the damage these poor students have been subjected to.
I nominate, you, Carol, to "volunteer" to undo all that damage when they get to the UC of their choice.
In fact, why wait? why don't you go see if you can undo that damage RIGHT NOW.
idiot.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 4, 2007 8:26 PM
I've read the relevant pleadings in this case, and based on what I've reviewed, it seems that there is a pretty good chance of UC losing the case.
care to wager a case of scotch on that?
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 4, 2007 8:30 PM
Re: Larry Fafarman's comments on "SAT" AP Biology
No such beast. The AP Biology exam can, depends on the testing center, be taken without having taken an approved AP Biology course, which would allow a student to cite an exam score. The SAT exams are a separate affair. However, colleges and educators provide the program for high school instruction, not for a standardized test. Evidence of having taken an approved AP Biology course, combined with a good score on the College Board administered exam as proof the student was awake, is accepted by some colleges for transfer credit for freshman bio. The intent is for the student to take the course.
I've taught AP Biology. Larry's reading of the topics is misleading. The quote "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." is absolutely true, and doubly so for AP Biology. Evolution is one of the three major themes of the course. It relates to all the topics, and is not restricted to 10% of the course.
Where in the Constitution does it say that science becomes accepted science by popular vote? Creation science merely drives a wedge between the scientific community and the public. The advancement of science will go on without the propaganda blinded American public. Their loss.
Posted by: Mike | September 4, 2007 9:13 PM
IAAL also. First, there's a serious mistake in the PT post. The motion for summary judgment was by the defendant UC, not the plaintiffs.
Second, summary judgment motion is only on those issues for which there are no facts in dispute at all. Simply put, the plaintiffs are claiming that any attempt by the UC system to deny certification to high school classes interferes with their religion. (This is called a "facial" claim in law.) The motion for summary judgment does not deal with the "as applied" challenge, in which the UC system denied certification to particular programs.
I'll join in betting a case of scotch that UC wins.
Posted by: Francis | September 4, 2007 9:50 PM
Francis:
If you click on the appropriate link in my post, I think you will find that the plaintiffs have in fact filed a motion for summary judgment. Both motions will be heard the same day.
The reason that I thought (still think, to a certain extent) that there are facts in dispute is because, at least as far as the biology textbooks are concerned, the plaintiffs are arguing that they do teach all of the standard material. They've hired an expert witness to testify that they are doing just that, and to contest the testimony given by the experts hired by the defense.
Posted by: Mike Dunford | September 4, 2007 10:14 PM
Mary gives an accurate perspective. Admission to the University of California as a freshman is highly competitive. Lots and lots of students who want to go to a UC campus straight out of high school are not accepted. If one has that as an objective, one should make sure that one has completed the minimum requirements for admission. On top of that, their grades and other activities should be outstanding.
It's readily available public knowledge, and should be conveyed by the college counselor at the H.S., which courses at each high school (public and private) satisfy these requirements. If you are serious about wanting to attend UC as a freshman, you should be serious about making sure you take accredited courses.
Otherwise, as someone else said, go to a community college and apply to UC for the junior year. From the experience of my kids' friends, if you have a decent GPA, it's much easier to get admission to UC as a jr. college transfer than as a freshman.
Posted by: celdd | September 4, 2007 11:38 PM
Larry blathered:
It appears from the ACSI's Motion for Summary Judgment that they are dropping the charges with respect to the American Lit course. It's quite clear that the course did not meet non-viewpoint-related guidelines - the guidelines required that Lit courses teach primarily from complete works and only secondarily from anthologies, whereas the submitted course was almost entirely anthologies. Only the single term paper assigned a complete work, and most of the books on the list were not by American authors! The history and social science booksappear to have contents that don't meet to academic standards, and the expert witness reports seem to focus on this. In the event that they do have standard contents with an added religious viewpoint, then ACSI is right, but it looks like the books replace the standard contents with a religious viewpoint. And note that ACSI's claim in the MfSJ is that they are teaching standard content and adding a religious viewpoint. It looks like both sides are gearing up for clash on the actual contents of the books. An interesting recent development, though. According to the ACSI's MfSJ, UC is now allowing the physics books as a primary text. This may moot that particular point, if UC can meet its burden.
Hmm.... substituting standardized test scores for individual subjects? That's brilliant! Why didn't UC think of that? Oh, wait, they did. In fact, according to its Motion for Dismissal and several other briefs filed, UC permits students to substitute test scores for individual classes. SAT II Subject tests, AP tests, IB tests, and even college classes attended while at college can replace a-g classes (except "f" performing arts - no test available) as long as the student places in the top two thirds of test takers. However, UC doesn't offer remedial classes - that is what California State University and community colleges are for, after all. Across the board, students have to pass rather low minimum standards to get in. And of course, a student can rely solely on test scores to get in under the same requirements used for out-of-state students.
BTW, viewpoint discrimination is covered by the First Amendment (freedom of speech) and is often a test for religion cases.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | September 4, 2007 11:44 PM
Larry's reading of the topics is misleading.
*gasp*
Shocker!
what else is new?
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 5, 2007 2:40 AM
Lary literally can't differentiate between his perfect right to express any nonsene he wishes,...
brain damage will do that to ya.
and yes, your statement, if you know larry, is actually more accurate than you might think.
he really IS incapable of mentally differentiating between the ability to express an opinion vs. supported fact.
once anyone conversing with him realizes this, he becomes humorous, if entirely pathetic. don't expect to have a logical conversation with him though. simply not possible.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 5, 2007 2:48 AM
Note: http:// prefixes have been removed to prevent comment from hanging up.
Kevin Vicklund driveled,
Instead of politely answering my question and providing a specific citation, Kevin just makes a sneering repsonse. I am not going to waste my time returning the gratuitous insults that have been thrown at me and I am going to concentrate on presenting the facts.
Here is what the judge's "Order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) & !2(b)(6)" said:
-- from www.acsi.org/webfiles/webitems/attachments/007875_4.%20Judge%27s%20Opinion%20on%20Request%20by%20UC%20to%20Dismiss%20Case%208-06.pdf
So there, from a reliable source, are UC's reasons for rejecting the fundy science textbooks. The UC apparently did not claim that the textbooks did not present the core material correctly.
Also, UC's "Defendant's memorandum of points and authorities in support of motion for partial summary judgment" said,
-- from
www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acsi-stearns/summaryjudgment0807.pdf
(pages 4-5 of brief, 9-10 of pdf file)
I was previously led to believe that the only alternatives that UC offered the fundy students required that they be within the top 2-4% of high school grads as opposed to the normal requirement of the top 12.5-15%, and I thought that was unreasonable. However, considering the unorthodox approach of the biology textbooks in particular, I think that UC is within its discretion in requiring that the fundy students get a satisfactory score on the SAT II subject test in biology if they claim credit for the biology course in satisfying the UC entrance requirements. Also, if the fundy students fail the biology test, I think that UC should still admit them if they agree to take a remedial course in biology. Also, it would be nice if scores on individual parts of the test could be obtained so that it can be determined how well the fundies are learning evolution theory.
Also, it is noteworthy that UC is asking only for a "partial" summary judgment.
Mary said,
UC offered "dumbbell" ("bonehead") English classes in the 1960's and might still offer them. Not all UC entrants have strong English skills.
Mike said ( September 4, 2007 9:13 PM ) --
The problem with you Darwinists is that you have made a fetish out of Darwinism. Most biologists admit that they don't use Darwinism in their work and a biologist can use the tools of Darwinism without believing that Darwinism is true. Darwinism is just a mickey mouse theory that only tells us that (1) random mutations occur (duh) and (2) fitter organisms are more likely to survive than less fit organisms (duh again). Biologists have an inferiority complex because of Lord Rutherford's remark "all science is either physics or stamp collecting" and are therefore waging a prestige war against other branches of science by boasting that biology has something that the other branches lack, a grand overarching unifiying "theory of everything," Darwinism.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | September 5, 2007 8:11 AM
The same reason I wouldn't let you drive a school bus - you're simply not prepared and would be a danger to yourself and put the children at an unacceptable level of risk. Now, if you spent a month in the classroom and another two weeks of driving under instruction AND passed the bus driver test, no problem.
But until then, you're not competent to a school bus. Even if you think you are.
Same with these kids. They may be bright, but they're woefully (at the fault of their parents) unprepared for Berkeley. Send these kids off to a Community College where they can take the necessary coursework to get up to Berkeley's standards, then let them apply.
Posted by: Moses | September 5, 2007 9:54 AM
BTW, Larry and Carol are here! Wow, what a treat...
Posted by: Moses | September 5, 2007 10:16 AM
Now, tell me again, which amendment covers viewpoint discrimination? The concept, not necessarily the exact phrase.
BTW, which book of the Bible contains the word "trinity"?
Posted by: Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD | September 5, 2007 12:11 PM
I already answered this. First Amendment, freedom of speech. Often but not by any means always tied in with religion cases, which are also First Amendment.
Or to be more explicit: Larry's point was correct, if circuitous in the reply.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | September 5, 2007 12:48 PM
Kevin,
Larry's point is only partly correct. "Viewpoint discrimination" is only illegal when it is done for reasons such as stifling free speech or prohibiting religious expression. In this case, since UC has attached no penalty to schools which offer pseudoscience courses or to students who take such courses, there is no constitutional issue.
What UC has done is to determine that particular courses don't cover the material it wants to see in particular subjects adequately enough to prepare students for college-level work in these subjects. So, the courses can't be used by a UC applicant as proof of competency in those particular areas. This is discrimination on the basis of academic quality, which is perfectly constitutional.
The fact that Calvary Chapel wants to teach academically worthless classes full of bogus material in furtherence of its religious agenda is irrelevent. Students who take such classes INSTEAD OF the approved college-prep coursework are not prepared for what they would face at UC, and should lose out to students who are better qualified, of which there are more than enough to fill all ten UC campuses. Students who take the disputed classes IN ADDITION TO a regular UC-approved college-prep curriculum (which Calvary Chapel offers, by the way) will be judged according to their performance in the approved coursework, just like any other applicant.
Posted by: Mary | September 5, 2007 1:26 PM
Mary, please don't read more into my statemnt than is there. I don't see any reason not to point out when Larry makes a correct statement or to disregard it merely because he said it.
Larry's point was that "viewpoint discrimination" is covered by the same amendment as "separation of church and state", in response to a rather silly challenge by TB. That was the only point of Larry's that I was addressing. You, I, Josh, and albatrossity (and others) spent a month last year at Thoughts from Kansas explaining to Larry everything else in your post.
In fact, several of us, including you and me, detailed the various options students had when applying, which lays lie to his claim:
In fact, I believe I pointed out that the top 2-4% option was not available because it still requires the full 15(+1) a-g courses to be taken (the option acts to guarantee admission, whereas all the other options act to qualify for admission). If he was led to believe that, it was because he refused to listen to us or read any of the defendants statements - deliberate ignorance.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | September 5, 2007 2:05 PM
Mary, please don't read more into my statemnt than is there. I don't see any reason not to point out when Larry makes a correct statement or to disregard it merely because he said it.
OTOH, Kevin, pointing out that even a broken clock is correct twice a day isn't really worthy of noting.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 5, 2007 2:29 PM
!! I think I just became homicidal! Hey biology guy you're smart ;-) I like you...
Posted by: elyse<3 | September 5, 2007 4:33 PM
Mary said (September 5, 2007 1:26 PM) --
"UC has attached no penalty"? UC has attached a big penalty -- UC has made admission harder for graduates of those schools who took courses using particular textbooks.
The judge's "Order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) & !2(b)(6)" said (page 6): -- from www.acsi.org/webfiles/webitems/attachments/007875_4.%20Judge%27s%20Opinion%20on%20Request%20by%20UC%20to%20Dismiss%20Case%208-06.pdf
Mary said,
As I said, UC did not allege that the science textbooks do not cover the core material adequately. Again, here is what the judge's "Order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) & !2(b)(6)" said: You Darwinists are not going to be satisfied with any biology textbook that does not say that Darwinism is the greatest scienti