UC Lawsuit

Article on the UC Lawsuit

stcynic — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:29:41 +0000

Article on the UC Lawsuit

The Sacramento Bee has an article about the upcoming trial over the University of California's rejection of certain courses from a Christian school for credit in their admissions process. I reviewed the biology textbook when the suit was first filed and there is no question that it should be rejected for credit by any serious school. You cannot pretend to seriously be teaching science when you claim, without evidence, that virtually everything taught in modern science is wrong and that anything that conflicts with their interpretation of the Bible must be wrong regardless of the evidence. It turns out that the physics textbook does the same thing:

While "the university has no opposition to questioning current scientific points of view," he said, certain ways of questioning aren't legitimately academic because they aren't subject to scientific testing.

The Bob Jones physics text, for example, teaches that "the only sure truths are found in God's Word, which is settled forever in heaven. ... The Bible, written by an omniscient God, can never be proved wrong."

That's not science, it's anti-science. Accepting that course for academic credit would be as absurd as accepting a Madrassah class in science that taught that anything that conflicts with the Quran must be wrong. And as the article points out, the plaintiffs just don't have much of a case:

Among many issues to be sorted out at the trial is whether UC's admissions criteria, which permit students to qualify via routes other than approved course work, such as standardized testing, leave Christian school students at a disadvantage.

"We're clearly not trying to keep these kids out," Patti said.

He said graduates of the school in Murrieta have had a particularly high admission rate in recent years. He also said UC's approval rate for courses taught at Christian schools is identical to the rate for schools overall.

The trial is expected to take place sometime in 2007.

stcynic Tue, 10/31/2006 - 03:29

Tags

UC Lawsuit

What "leave[s] Christian school students at a disadvantage" is requiring science standards for science courses. If the kids went to schools that taught science, they wouldn't be at disadvantage. Philosophical debates about causality aside, actions have consequences; these kids should be taught that much at Bob Jones, even if it's couched in terms like sin and damnation.

Anyone want to bet that some folks will be screaming this is religious discrimination? Requiring people to know things ouside of their belief system and all is obviously bias.

. . . I've clearly been reading UD too often.

The Bob Jones physics text, for example, teaches that "the only sure truths are found in God's Word, which is settled forever in heaven. ... The Bible, written by an omniscient God, can never be proved wrong."

I think Gallileo might have a differen opinion on that topice, since the Bible claims the world is flat and the sun revolves around it.

I myself was subjected to these textbooks when I was in high school, and I can personally attest that, although some things are covered fairly well (such as metabolic processes), they do foster a strong anti-science mindset. Their discussion on evolution, as anyone who has read them can tell you, is pure YEC garbage that was almost certainly cribbed from Hovind (no one else still makes claims that crazy). Although these textbooks thankfully did not destroy my interest in real science, it did help put blinders on my studies that persisted for quite some time. I'd hate to imagine what they would do to a non-inquisitive person.

Their history books were even worse (or at least more apparently bad). Most of the sections about the history of foreign cultures ended by saying that these people were rotten sinners who needed Jesus; even my history teacher, who was a member of the right-wing fringe, knew that this has no place in a history textbook.

UC Lawsuit Will Continue

stcynic — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 09:40:26 +0000

UC Lawsuit Will Continue

As expected, the judge in the ACSI lawsuit against the University of California rejected the UC's motion to dismiss and ruled that the case will go to trial. I don't have a copy of the ruling yet, but I hope to have one soon. This is the case where a group of Christian schools is suing the UC because they will not grant credit in the admissions process for a few of their courses. The ACSI claims this violates their free speech and free exercise rights, while the UC says that they have the right to set admissions standards and determine which courses meet those standards and which don't. Having seen the biology curriculum and text, I can tell you that at least in that particular instance, the UC is absolutely justified in rejecting those courses for credit. I think they're on a bit shakier ground with the literature and humanities courses, but I haven't seen those texts.

stcynic Wed, 08/09/2006 - 05:40

Tags

UC Lawsuit

From what I've read about the case, the lit and humanitites books were rejected in part because they were "lifestyle books," (I forget the exact phrase they used) as opposed to texts that addressed specific issues (say presence of Jews in American lit).

They were also rejected becasue they were anthologies without a complete work.

One thing that seems to go against them (UC) is that they have older courses that use qustionable texts or that have dubious content and apparently only recently have started reviewing the courses as new courses arrive (if I remember correctly, a UC spokesman said that they admitted a need to review older courses). I'm no legal expert, but would that (a prescribed program that begins at a given time, assuming it's applied to all new courses) be enough to avoid discrimination?

An off-topic note: it was thanks to this case that I found out this site.

I do have a copy of the ruling now, but I'm leaving the office shortly for a few hours so I won't have time to read it in any detail until later.

Ed,

I would argue that they have the right to accept or deny credits regardless of the texts in use. The university(ies) in question may (or may not) employ "professors" who have little or no credentials. The academic rigor of their program, at first glance, appears to be far below the entry level courses offered within the UC system. An additional question is, does the university in question even possess accreditation?

The suit was filed by a Christian high school against the University of California system. By university do you mean UC? In which case the answer is yes. Are you referring to the high school? That I don't know. But I agree -- in any case the university should be able to decide what courses are acceptable or not.

Something that seems to make the suit less likely to be successful is that many students from that high school have been accepted into the UC system, including at Berkeley (the main focus of the suit).

Yes, the suit was filed against the UC system, so it's accredited. The suit was filed by the Association of Christian Schools International, a collection of Christian elementary and secondary schools. I agree that the university has every right to set appropriate academic standards for admission. That right is not unlimited, of course, and it could be applied in an unconstitutionally discriminatory manner. The question is whether they have done so in this instance. I can really only speak to the content of the science course that they are rejecting, as it's the only one I've actually seen. In that instance, I think the university is absolutely right to reject it. It's not a science class at all, it's an anti-science class. It quite explicitly teaches that if one reaches any conclusion via the scientific method that is contrary to their interpretation of the Bible, that conclusion must be rejected no matter what the evidence says.

I've always argued that you should open the doors and take them in... After all, if they're incompetent or have been permanently damaged, then you can always flunk them.

Of course, that perspective is shaped largely by the fact that I'm majoring in a field that has empty chairs in the auditorium - and possibly by the fact that I come from a country where the universities are public and prohibited from charging tuition fees.

- JS

Update on UC Lawsuit

stcynic — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 08:50:38 +0000

Update on UC Lawsuit

USA Today has an article about the ACSI lawsuit against the University of California system over the lack of accreditation for a few of their courses. Despite rhetoric from the ACSI about the UC discriminating against Christians and trying to keep kids from Christians schools from attending their colleges, the article notes:

UC has certified 43 Calvary Chapel courses and has admitted 24 of the 32 applicants from the high school in the past four years, Patti says.

They have objected to only a few courses that don't fit their criteria, they've certified 43 other courses from the school, and they've admitted 75% of applicants from that school. Such horrible discrimination! The article also notes that a ruling is expected in the next few weeks on the UC's motion to dismiss the case.

stcynic Thu, 01/19/2006 - 03:50

Tags

UC Lawsuit

Wendell Bird and Robert Bork

stcynic — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 08:45:11 +0000

Wendell Bird and Robert Bork

Just noticed this article, about a month old now, about the ACSI lawsuit against the UC. It contains one statement that jumped out at me. Wendell Bird is the lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the case. He's a young earth creationist who was affiliated with the Institute for Creation Research and who wrote the model policy that was later ruled out of public schools regarding creationism in public schools. Here's the statement:

In 1978, when he was a law student studying under Robert Bork -- whose rejected nomination to the Supreme Court was an early battle in the culture wars -- Bird published an influential article in the Yale Law Journal. In it, he laid out a strategy for using the courts to compel public schools to teach creationism alongside evolutionary theory.

His strategy failed, of course. He was the lead attorney for the state of Louisiana in Edwards v Aguillard, the case that ruled that creationism could not be taught in public schools in the United States. But I had no idea he had studied under Bork at Yale. Interesting coincidence.

stcynic Thu, 01/19/2006 - 03:45

Tags

UC Lawsuit

Did he learn anything from studying under Bork? How could we tell?

Article on UC lawsuit

stcynic — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 08:08:22 +0000

Article on UC lawsuit

The Economist has an article on the UC lawsuit available on their website. They tie tha suit together with Dover and Cupertino:

So far the UC case has had less publicity than the argument about whether high schools can teach "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution (currently being fought out in a courtroom in Pennsylvania) or even a ferocious dispute up in Cupertino, where a history teacher claims he was restrained from teaching about Christianity's role in American history (parents had complained that he was acting more like an evangelical preacher). In fact, all these arguments are part of the same battleground, which pits an increasingly self-confident evangelical America against a secular education establishment.

The ACSI, which represents almost 4,000 Christian high schools in America, including some 800 in California, worries that if the Christians' challenge fails, UC's intolerance might spread to other institutions and other states. Moreover, says a lawyer for the plaintiffs, victory would be "a major blow to the arrogance of the ivory towers and their attempt to say that kids from Christian schools can't be well prepared for university."

But of course, the UC doesn't say any such thing. The UC admits thousands and thousands of students from Christian schools every year, including schools which offer the few classes that they are no longer accepting credit for in admissions. Just like the Cupertino case, the plaintiffs' attorneys are relying on distorting and exaggerating the actions of the defendants in order to make their argument sound more reasonable than it is. And the article makes that point as well:

UC denies it practices secular intolerance and "viewpoint discrimination". It notes that it has approved plenty of courses at Christian schools and in the past four years has accepted 24 of the 32 applicants from the Murrieta school. And it says that if the courses had used these textbooks "as supplementary, rather than primary, texts, it is likely they would have been approved."

Which simply leads to a new distortion from the plaintiffs, this time the false argument that the case involves freedom of thought:

What is really being challenged, says the university, is its right to set its own academic standards and admission requirements. In which case the question is what that right implies. The Christian plaintiffs say they have no objection to science students, for example, being taught conventional wisdom, but "their constitutional rights are abridged or discriminated against when they are told that the current interpretation of scientific method must be taught dogmatically, and must be accepted by students, to be eligible for admission to University of California institutions." In other words, what the case involves is not so much the now-familiar tussle over intelligent design, but a student's freedom of speech and thought.

All of which, counters the university, is bogus. As long as they satisfy the A-G requirements, students who are headed into the UC system can believe whatever they choose to and take whatever additional courses--including religious ones--they like.

If there is one thing that a regular reader of my blog should be convinced of by now, it is that they should take any legal complaints from the religious right with a very large grain of salt and go look up the actual facts of the case before accepting them. So often, their claim is based on an obvious distortion of the facts. When the ADF declared that the Declaration of Independence had been "banned from classrooms" in Cupertino, they were distorting the truth - i.e. lying - in order to make their case sound more reasonable. And it's happening again in this case.

stcynic Tue, 12/20/2005 - 03:08

Tags

UC Lawsuit

UC Lawsuit Response to Motion to Dismiss

stcynic — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 11:15:31 +0000

UC Lawsuit Response to Motion to Dismiss

I still havent' been able to find a copy of the University of California's response brief or their motion to dismiss the ACSI lawsuit, but the ACSI has made the original complaint and their response brief to the motion to dismiss available on their website. I haven't had a chance to go over the reply brief in any detail, but one of their arguments near the beginning jumped out at me. They're arguing "viewpoint discrimination" not merely because the UC has rejected certain courses, but even because of their requirement that the student have taken a certain number of credit courses during high school:

The "a-g" course requirements (Â¶23) essentially involve 15 full-year courses in high school (UC strongly recommends 18) out of the 25 full-year courses that constitute a normal high school load. Christian schools such as plaintiff Calvary require 4 years of religion courses, in addition, so only 3-6 course slots remain available for the total of nonapproved courses, physical education, health, and nonqualifying electives. This main approach to admission is being closed for Christian schools by viewpoint discrimination.

This argument strikes me as weak. There are only two remedies, both of them quite absurd: either the court has to order the UC to lower the number of required credit courses to 11 (meaning anyone could get in even if less than half of their high school time was spent in academic courses), or they have to order the UC to give an exception to students from schools that require extraneous courses and thus reduce the time available for academic courses. No court is going to do that, nor should they.

stcynic Fri, 12/02/2005 - 06:15

Tags

UC Lawsuit

Categories

Education

I went to a Catholic high school where I took four full years of religion. I managed to get the classes needed to get into the University of Pennsylavania. It seems to me that parents choosing to send their children to a religous school are choosing to replace some of the electives that their children would get at a public school with religion classes. As long as there ar least four full years of electives allowed they should not have a problem.

Absurd? MikeP is right. Why can't religion be an elective?

Why does everything religious deserve dissing. What if it was four years of psychology or art or military history, would any of that count? If so, what's the difference?

Are you going to propose that Californians that send their kids to ACSI schools don't have to pay the state taxes that fund California colleges? College for Californians is virtually free thanks to tax subsidy. Sorry, we know you paid, but your kids can't come.

I went to an ACSI school our national test scores kicked the public school's butts, and a higher percentage of students to college. We did every bit of the work my friends in public school did PLUS we had a religion class (More homework - yuk). What should matter in this age of affirmative action is that they can do the work. Period.

If the university gets away with this, I can only imagine what they have in store for homeschooled kids. They way exceed their peers, but they didn't get any electives. Whatever will they do?

If ability to do the work isn't going to be the standard, then the school should become private and make it on their own fundraising ability and tuition/fees and stop discrimination.

Separate school and state.

Jim Babka wrote:

Absurd? MikeP is right. Why can't religion be an elective?

It certainly can be, and I don't think anyone objects to that. But that's not really the issue in this case.

Why does everything religious deserve dissing. What if it was four years of psychology or art or military history, would any of that count? If so, what's the difference?

I've never said or even implied that "everything religious deserves dissing". And for the purposes of this post and the lawsuit it refers to, there is no distinction between religious classes and non-religious classes. The complaint from the ACSI is that the requirement of X number of core classes by the UC system discriminates against students from Christian schools because those schools require 4 years of religion classes in addition to the core academic classes. But the claim of discrimination is wrong both in premise and conclusion. First, the requirement is for 15 core courses, out of 24-28 total courses (depending on whether a school has 6 or 7 different class hours during the school day) over 4 years. Hence, the premise that the 15 course requirement prevents Christian school students from getting in to UC is false, and in fact the UC system admits thousands of students from Christian schools every year. But the logic is flawed as well because the entrance requirements are the same for everyone, regardless of what kind of school they go to. If some Christian schools want to add additional requirements to those core courses, it is their actions, and not the actions of the UC system, that penalize or make it more difficult for their students to meet the college entrance requirements. Again, I pose the question - what is the solution? Should schools allow those from Christian schools to get in with only 11 core courses while everyone else needs 15? Or should they just lower it for everyone and lower their academic standards across the board? Either option is, as I said, absurd and unworkable.

Are you going to propose that Californians that send their kids to ACSI schools don't have to pay the state taxes that fund California colleges? College for Californians is virtually free thanks to tax subsidy. Sorry, we know you paid, but your kids can't come.

No, I'm going to propose that if ACSI wants to prepare their students to succeed in a rigorous and competitive academic environment (as many other Christian schools do very successfully), they're going to have to stop using textbooks filled with lies and nonsense. And if parents want their kids to be prepared to succeed in a rigorous and competitive academic college, they should stop sending their kids to schools that teach the kind of assinine crap that the UC is objecting to. Have you seen the science textbook that the UC rejected? It's breathtakingly bad.

I went to an ACSI school our national test scores kicked the public school's butts, and a higher percentage of students to college. We did every bit of the work my friends in public school did PLUS we had a religion class (More homework - yuk). What should matter in this age of affirmative action is that they can do the work. Period.

The problem with this is that schools have to make a determination on who gets in based on predictions of whether they can do the work. You can never truly know who can and can't do the work until they're there. So they have to rely on the inexact science of prediction and on evaluations of the course content and pedagogy. Let's say you have one spot available and two students applying for it. They have similar grade point averages and SAT scores. They took similar courses in all of the subjects except science. When it came to science, Student A had a conventional science class with a standard science textbook that gave a thorough overview of the central explanatory theory in biology and the vast range of evidence for that theory. Student B had a class using the Bob Jones University biology text, which declares in no uncertain terms that the sole standard for determining the truth of scientific theories is not the evidence it explains, but whether it agrees with a literal interpretation of the Bible. It further says that any time the scientific data appear to contradict that interpretation, the data must be false and the scientists must be lying to them. And that book is filled with the most ridiculous claims about the earth being only a few thousand years old, and with the absolutely false argument that if scientists can't create a universe in a lab, they can't determine anything about how the universe formed. Are you seriously going to tell me that the university is not acting reasonably to decide that the student whose class has filled his head with such nonsense is less prepared than the student whose science class contained reliable information on the subject? And would you think differently if the one filing the lawsuit was a Muslim Madrassa school, complaining that they won't give credit for a Muslim "science" course that teaches that all science must conform to a literal interpretation of the Quran or it must be wrong?

You have to also bear in mind that what is being objected to is the content of a few courses. The University is not saying that they won't accept Christian students or students from Christian schools; they accept thousands of them every year. Even within the ACSI, only some schools use the rejected curricula in those few classes being objected to. It's the ones who insist on using obviously substandard textbooks, filled with falsehoods, that have a problem.

If the university gets away with this, I can only imagine what they have in store for homeschooled kids. They way exceed their peers, but they didn't get any electives. Whatever will they do?

You're missing the critical distinction here. The objection is not to homeschooling, or to Christian schooling. Not all Christian schools use the same curriculum, nor do all homeschoolers. But if the curriculum they use is as godawful as the science curriculum that the UC is rejecting, then they are absolutely within their authority to refuse to give credit to such courses. This has nothing to do with rejecting courses that are Christian; it has only to do with rejecting courses that teach egregious nonsense. They cannot be expected to give science credit for courses that are blatantly anti-science.

And I would add that there are many Christian universities out there who would reject such courses as well. If you are going to teach the rank idiocy that is young earth creationism, you are not preparing students for a real academic environment. Such students may be prepared to attend a Liberty University or a Bob Jones University, two bit colleges that teach the same garbage. But a student who received that type of preparation in science is not going to be prepared for teh science courses at any Christian university worth its salt. They would be no less unprepared for Baylor, Depaul, or even Calvin College than they are for the UC system.

Jim Babka at December 3, 2005 03:24 PM

Absurd? MikeP is right. Why can't religion be an elective?

Why does everything religious deserve dissing.

Um, I believe that I agree with what I believe you are intending. I very much miss the fact that my public high school curriculum (Cincinnati suburb, 1962-67) did not include a comparative religion course. I have had to piece "comparative religion" together ever since, and it has not been easy. I recognize, though, that it is very difficult for instructors to avoid the pressure to proselytize, which is probably one reason why the US public schools just want to avoid the whole thing.

Andere Laender, andere Sitten--other countries, other practices. In Germany, for example, the public schools provide for school periods in which different "establishments of religion" can provide religious instruction to their pupils, with the concurrence of the parents and the pupils. The instructors are selected and paid by the "establishments of religion." They are held in the public school classrooms.

It is not an ideal compromise, but it is a practical compromise. As far as I can tell, that compromise has largely forestalled the isolation that can result from parochial and conservative christian schools evident in the US.

It is ironic that, a couple of years ago, one of the RCC religion instructors in a school in the Saarland (western Germany) was outed as being a lesbian, and she was fired by the RCC. According to Der Spiegel, she was such a popular instructor that the students revolted, got the school to hire her directly, and she continued in her classes.

Regarding I went to an ACSI school our national test scores kicked the public school's butts, and a higher percentage of students to college. I'm not sure that I would give much credence to that. Your ACSI school may very well have induced "substandard" performers to leave, which would have boosted the test scores of those who remained. Indeed, it has been widely reported that Paige, GWBush's former Education Secretary, did that when he was head of the board of education in Houston TX.

Comparative religion, as opposed to religious indocrination, is anchored in most social studies curricla today. It is Ohio's state standards, and I teach significant units every year. Even when I was a student, not long after raj, if I have read his posts correctly, it was a popular one semester elective at my school. This does not diminish raj's observation that many schools and teachers are afraid to touch it.
As for the previous poster's claim that every thing about religion is "dissed," well that is pure rubbish. This country is dominated at all levels by religious zealots. The leading republican candidate for governor here in Ohio is running commercials that begin with his baptismal certificate and move on to catechism. I'm sure he is terrified of being dissed for daring to show his beliefs. Hah!

Liz Ditz on UC Lawsuit

stcynic — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:28:59 +0000

Liz Ditz on UC Lawsuit

For those looking for more information on the lawsuit between the Association of Christian Schools International and the UC system over approval of their courses, Liz Ditz wrote a pretty thorough review of the situation back in August.

stcynic Wed, 11/30/2005 - 09:28

Tags

UC Lawsuit

Request for Help

stcynic — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:01:20 +0000

Request for Help

The lawsuit between the Association of Christian Schools International, Calvary Chapel Christian School and the University of California system over the UC's refusal to give credit for certain courses taught in Christian schools is going to trial on December 12th, according to the New York Times. I would like to follow that trial nearly as closely as I did the Dover trial, but I don't know anyone involved in it the way I did in Dover. I'm looking for either a public webpage that has the briefs, motions and even depositions and transcripts (when they are available) posted to it, or someone with PACER access who is willing to email me anything they can find on it. The case is taking place in the Federal District Court in Los Angeles, but that website doesn't appear to have anything at all. So any of my legal readers out there who can find or access such information, you will receive my undying gratitude and a gold star on my refrigerator.

Slight correction: the hearing on Dec 12th is on the UC's motion to dismiss the lawsuit. I would love to see the briefs filed by both sides on that motion.

stcynic Tue, 11/29/2005 - 10:01

Tags

UC Lawsuit

The briefs aren't on PACER. Item 18, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss the first, second, third, and fourth "Causes of Action" dosn't have a link on PACER. The complaint isn't on PACER either. Apparently the opposition brief was rejected because of a failure to attach proof of service. Oops!

Docket:
08/25/20051COMPLAINT against Defendants Roman Stearns, Susan Wilbur, Dennis J Galligani, Robert C Dynes, Office of the President of the University of California, Michael Brown, Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (Boars), Regents of the University of California.(Filing fee $ 250 paid), filed by plaintiffs K. B., G. S., S. O., W. L., Association of Christian Schools International, Calvary Chapel Christian School, M. T., C Young.(pj, ) (Entered: 08/30/2005)
08/25/2005 20 day Summons Issued re Complaint - (Discovery), Complaint - (Discovery)[1] as to Roman Stearns, Susan Wilbur, Dennis J Galligani, Robert C Dynes, Office of the President of the University of California, Michael Brown, Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (Boars), Regents of the University of California. (pj, ) (Entered: 08/30/2005)
08/25/20052CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs K. B., G. S., S. O., W. L., Association of Christian Schools International, Calvary Chapel Christian School, M. T., C Young. (pj, ) (Entered: 08/30/2005)
08/25/20053APPLICATION for attorney Wendell R Bird to Appear Pro Hac Vice. FEE PAID. filed by plaintiffs K. B., G. S., S. O., Association of Christian Schools International, Calvary Chapel Christian School, M. T., C Young. Designate Robert H Tyler as local counsel. Lodged proposed order. (pj, ) (Entered: 08/30/2005)
08/25/20054APPLICATION for attorney Jonathan T McCants to Appear Pro Hac Vice. FEE PAID. filed by plaintiffs K. B., G. S., S. O., W. L., Association of Christian Schools International, Calvary Chapel Christian School, M. T., C Young. Designate Robert H Tyler as local counsel. Lodged proposed order. (pj, ) (Entered: 08/30/2005)
08/25/2005 FAX number for Attorney Wendell R Bird, Jonathan T McCants is 404-365-9731. (pj, ) (Entered: 08/30/2005)
08/25/2005 FAX number for Attorney Robert H Tyler is 951-296-5068. (pj, ) (Entered: 08/30/2005)
08/25/20055NOTICE TO PARTIES OF ADR PILOT PROGRAM filed.(pj, ) (Entered: 08/30/2005)
08/26/20056INITIAL STANDING ORDER for cases assigned to Judge S. James Otero. (sv) (Entered: 09/01/2005)
10/05/20057PROOF OF SERVICE Executed upon Regents of the University of California served on 9/6/2005, answer due 9/26/2005. The Summons and Complaint were served by substituted service, by leaving copies service, by Federal statute, upon Susan Von Seeburg, University Counsel, authorized to accept service of process. Due Dilligence declaration not attached. Original Summons only copy returned. (yc, ) (Entered: 10/06/2005)
10/05/20058PROOF OF SERVICE Executed upon Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (Boars) served on 9/9/2005, answer due 9/29/2005. The Summons and Complaint were served by personal service, by personally delivering copies service, by Federal statute, upon Michael Brown, Chairman. Due Dilligence declaration not attached. Original Summons only copy returned. (yc, ) (Entered: 10/06/2005)
10/05/20059PROOF OF SERVICE Executed upon Michael Brown, Chair of Boars served on 9/9/2005, answer due 9/29/2005. The Summons and Complaint were served by personal service, by personally delivering copies service, by Federal statute, upon Michael Brown, Chairman. Due Dilligence declaration not attached. Original Summons only copy returned. (yc, )(yc, ) (Entered: 10/06/2005)
10/05/200510PROOF OF SERVICE Executed upon Office of the President of the University of California served on 9/6/2005, answer due 9/27/2005. The Summons and Complaint were served by personal service, by personally delivering copies service, by Federal statute, upon Susan Von Seeburg, University counsel Due Dilligence declaration not attached. Original Summons only copy returned. (yc, )(yc, ) (Entered: 10/06/2005)
10/05/200511PROOF OF SERVICE Executed Susan Wilbur served on 9/6/2005, answer due 9/26/2005. The Summons and Complaint were served by sustituted Service, by leaving copies service, by Federal statute, upon Susan Wilbur. Due Dilligence declaration not attached. Original Summons not returned only copy. (yc, ) (Entered: 10/06/2005)
10/05/200512PROOF OF SERVICE Executed upon Roman Stearns, Special Assistant to the President served on 9/6/2005, answer due 9/26/2005. The Summons and Complaint were served by substitued service, by leaving copies service, by Federal statute, upon Susan Von Seeburg, University Counsel. Due Dilligence declaration not attached. Original Summons not returned. (yc, ) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
10/05/200513PROOF OF SERVICE Executed upon Robert C Dynes; President of the University of California served on 9/6/2005, answer due 9/26/2005. The Summons and Complaint were served by substitued service, by leaving copies service, by Federal statute, upon Susan Von Seeburg, University Counsel. Due Dilligence declaration not attached.. Original Summons not returned. (yc, ) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
10/07/200514DENIED STIPULATION AND ORDER by Judge S. James Otero : regarding to respond to the complaint and subsequent briefing schedule (yc, ) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
10/11/200515PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff K. B., G. S., S. O., W. L., Association of Christian Schools International, Calvary Chapel Christian School, M. T., C Young, upon Dennis J Galligani, Assoc VP for Student Academic Services served on 9/25/2005, answer due 10/15/2005. Original Summons not returned. (yl, ) (Entered: 10/12/2005)
10/20/200516AMENDED STIPULATION to Extend Time to Respond to The Complaint and Subsequent Briefing Schedule; ORDER by Judge S. James Otero that Defendants shall have until 10/28/2005 to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint; Plaintiffs shall have until 11/14/2005 to respond to any motion to dismiss; and defendants shall have until 11/21/2005 to file any reply. The hearing if any on motion to dismiss shall be scheduled for 12/12/2005. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS. (jp, ) (Entered: 10/21/2005)
10/28/200517DECLARATION of Belinda Morales regarding authenticity of documents filed by Defendants Roman Stearns, Susan Wilbur, Dennis J Galligani, Robert C Dynes, Office of the President of the University of California, Michael Brown, Regents of the University of California. (ca, ) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
10/28/200518NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss the first, second, third, and fourth "Causes of Action" filed by defendants Roman Stearns, Susan Wilbur, Dennis J Galligani, Robert C Dynes, Office of the President of the University of California, Michael Brown, Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (Boars), Regents of the University of California. Motion set for hearing on 12/12/2005 at 10:00 AM before Honorable S. James Otero. (ca, ) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
10/28/200519REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re MOTION to Dismiss the first, second, third, and fourth "Causes of Action"[18] filed by defendants Roman Stearns, Susan Wilbur, Dennis J Galligani, Robert C Dynes, Office of the President of the University of California, Michael Brown, Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (Boars), Regents of the University of California. Request set for hearing on 12/12/2005 at 10:00 AM before Honorable S. James Otero. (ca, ) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
10/31/200520NOTICE of Filing Corrected Stipulation [Appendix 1 to Request for Judicial Notice, filed October 28, 2005] filed by defendants Roman Stearns, Susan Wilbur, Dennis J Galligani, Robert C Dynes, Office of the President of the University of California, Michael Brown, Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (Boars), Regents of the University of California. (jp, ) (Entered: 11/03/2005)
11/02/200521APPLICATION AND ORDER of Non-Resident Attorney to Appear in a Specific Case by Jonathan T. McCants as counsel for Plaintiff Association of Christian Schools International, Approved by Judge S. James Otero.(yc, ) (Entered: 11/03/2005)
11/07/200522ORDER by Judge S. James Otero granting [3] Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Wendell R Bird on behalf of plaintiffs K. B., G. S., S. O., Association of Christian Schools International, Calvary Chapel Christian School, M. T., C Young, designating Robert H Tyler as local counsel. (jp, ) (Entered: 11/15/2005)
11/14/200523PROOF OF SERVICE filed by plaintiffs K. B., W. L., Association of Christian Schools International, Calvary Chapel Christian School, was served on 11/11/2005. (yc, ) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
11/15/200524NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Judge S. James Otero, ORDERING plaintiffs opposition to motion to dismiss submitted by Plaintiffs K. B., S. O., W. L., Association of Christian Schools International, M. T., C Young, Defendant Roman Stearns received on 11/14/2005 is not to be filed but instead rejected. Denial based on: no proof of service attached to document.(pj, ) (Entered: 11/22/2005)

The ACSI website has a copy of their complaint.

http://www.acsi.org/web2003/default.aspx?ID=1181

They're having the trial on my birthday? Aw, I feel so honored.

Yeah, I've got a copy of the complaint. What I really want are A) the brief supporting the motion to dismiss and B) the defendant's reply brief to the complaint. And if possible, the plaintiff's reply brief to the motion for dismissal.

The defendant's brief in opposition was rejected for failure to attach proof of service. I don't think there'll be a reply brief until the plaintiffs correct their deficiency. Time's running out.

If this is going to trial Dec 12th, I'd be interested in attending. Anything concrete such as court, judge, firm date/time?

I'd be interested in reading the complaint and the briefs. I'm not sure what the issue is. It is not unusual that, when a student transfers from one institution to another, the second institution determines whether to give academic credit for courses that had been taken at the prior institution. If the second institution had no course that was an analog to a couse given by the prior institution, or if the requirements were different, what would be the basis for the second institution to grant credit if the student wants a degree from the second institution? Irrespective of any religious issue.

(Parse it)

Bruce Beckman wrote:

If this is going to trial Dec 12th, I'd be interested in attending. Anything concrete such as court, judge, firm date/time?

The hearing on December 12th is not the trial, it's on the defendant's motion to dismiss the case. It will determine whether there will be a trial or not. That hearing is taking place in the US Federal District Court in Los Angeles, the judge is S. James Otero. But the docket changes often in such cases, so if you're planning to attend, it's best to call the court the day before and make sure the hearing is still going to occur. If you do go, please provide us with a report.

Ed,

Emma Pease informed me that Otero would not be hearing arguments Dec 12th. Rather, he will be considering dismissal based on briefs only. Does anyone have copies of any of UC's briefs in this case?

UC Lawsuit Editorial

stcynic — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 08:57:51 +0000

UC Lawsuit Editorial

I'm sure most of my regular readers remember the lawsuit filed against the University of California system (see here, here and here) because they won't give credit for certain classes used by some Christian schools in that state that don't meet their academic requirements. The San Jose Mercury News had an excellent editorial on the subject last week that I forgot to mention here. Despite the inflated rhetoric about religious freedom being thrown around by the plaintiffs, the News wasn't fooled as to the real issue:

The suit appears to be baseless -- a case of substandard academics hiding behind a false cry of religious persecution. But the suit must be taken seriously, because a victory by Calvary Chapel Christian would weaken UC's ability to require strong curriculums and would open the door to more bad science and sectarian courses in high schools.

UC and the California State University systems have the authority to determine standards and qualifications for admission. One way they do this is to set prerequisite subject requirements, known as a-g, for all applicants. By examining textbooks and course outlines, a committee of UC admission officials certifies whether courses that public and private schools offer are up to standard.

The issue is not whether religious and private schools should be able to teach religion or other courses tied to the core mission of their schools. They have a right to. The issue is what can be used for college entrance requirements.

Let's bear in mind here what the plaintiffs are claiming. They are claiming that these standards are a violation of the Christian school's rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It's right in their complaint. But the UC does not prevent them from teaching such classes, it's only setting standards for what it will accept as meeting their academic requirements for admission. They are further claiming that the UC is discriminating against Christians. But as the News pointed out, they approve lots of other courses from Christian schools:

UC says it has certified about 80 percent of courses that California high schools submit as prerequisite-worthy. Among the approved are three science and 40 other courses at Calvary Chapel Christian School...

Not all Christian schools agree with the suit or will be affected by it. The science courses at Valley Christian, a high school in San Jose whose graduates have attended every UC campus, already meet the prerequisite standards, as do all courses except religion courses taught from a doctrinal perspective. The biology course uses a non-religious text but includes a discussion on creationism and "intelligent design''; Valley Christian has been upfront about that, Jonathan Burton, Valley Christian's principal of academics, told us.

"I've never felt that UC policies have violated principles we have tried to teach,'' Burton said.

The News editorial also came with a sidebar that included quotes from the science textbook being rejected, clearly showing why the UC is justified in rejecting it. I've quoted some of it before in the above articles. It is filled with incredibly bad arguments like this:

Considering plagues, wars, famines, and other problems affecting population, eight people at the time of Noah's Flood would have multiplied to almost 4 billion people today. That figure is about correct. Evolutionists, claiming that man evolved a million years ago, have problems explaining why, using the same mathematical calculations, there are not an astronomical number (10 to the 27,000th power) of people on the Earth.

This book isn't just unscientific, it's anti-science. It begins with the premise that any conclusions reached scientifically that contradict their interpretation of the Bible must be false. It repeats this claim over and over again in what is clearly an attempt to innoculate students against scientific findings. It would be perverse to accept that sort of course as a legitimate science credit at a real university. It would be every bit as ridiculous as allowing a course in astrology be used as credit for astronomy.

stcynic Thu, 10/13/2005 - 04:57

Tags

UC Lawsuit

My thoughts on ID at Talking Past Each Other

It strikes me that much like the DI's contradictory statements on ID development, the conservatives are arguing simultaneously for improving the standards and achievement scores in our schools through rigid curriculums that include things like ID and creationism. Aren't these somewhat mutually exclusive??

For laughs here is some ID style science that works perfectly with the CCC school's choice of biology text:

Subject: New Element

A major research institution has announced the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science - "governmentium." It has 1 neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons and 111 assistant deputy neutrons for an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons that are further surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like sub particles called peons.

Governmentium has no electrons and is therefore inert. It can be detected however since it impedes every reaction it comes into contact with. A tiny amount of governmentium can take a reaction that normally occurs in seconds and slow it to the point where it take days.

Governmentium has a normal half life of three years. It doesn't decay but "re-organizes", a process where assistant deputy neutrons and deputy neutrons change places. This process actually causes it to grow as in the confusion some morons become neutrons, thereby forming isodopes. This phenomenon of "moron promotion" has led to some speculation that governmentium forms whenever sufficient morons meet in concentration forming critical morass. Researchers believe that in Governmentium, the more you re-organize, the morass you cover.

The Invented Legal Basis for the UC Lawsuit

stcynic — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 08:10:09 +0000

The Invented Legal Basis for the UC Lawsuit

One of the most fascinating things about the lawsuit against the UC is that they appear to have pulled the legal arguments out of thin air. For instance, the ACSI states in their newsletter:

ACSI seeks to preserve the right of Christian school graduates to attend the college or university of their choice.

I can't imagine what makes them think that anyone, Christian or otherwise, has a right to attend the college or university of their choice. When I was turned down as a transfer student to the University of Chicago, I wasn't happy about it, but I certainly didn't think my rights had been violated. Students are turned down by the university of their choice all the time. That is at worst a minor inconvenience; it has nothing to do with rights.

The complaint filed by the ACSI contains a list of alleged constitutional issues, most of them either non-existent or not violated by the UC policy. Here is the first paragraph of the complaint, laying out the legal bases for the suit:

Plaintiffs state this complaint against defendants, for viewpoint discrimination and content discrimination by defendants toward Christian school instruction and texts, which violates the constitutional rights of Christian schools and students to freedom of speech, freedom from viewpoint discrimination, freedom of religion and association, freedom from arbitrary governmental discretion, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from hostility toward religion.

How many red herrings does this paragraph contain? Let us count them.

A. The notion of "content discrimination" is absurd in this context. Any and all university standards for giving credit are "content discrimination" - they all discriminate based upon the content of the course they are evaluating. That is not illegal. The only way to make a case against this is to make a case against any and all attempts by a university to evaluate which courses to accept for credit. By that standard, a school could have a class that consists of nothing but the reading of Harlequin romances, call it biology, and if the university refuses to accept that as a credit in biology they are engaged in "content discrimination". Obviously absurd.

B. The claim of a free speech violation is even more absurd. The UC policy does not prevent anyone from speaking on any subject whatsoever. They are free to say or write whatever they want. The freedom to do so does not mean that others have to accept anything you say or write as evidence of pedagogical value.

C. The same is true of "freedom of religion and association". No one is being prevented from practicing their religion, or from associating with anyone they wish. The right to freedom of religion does not mean that others have to accept your religion as being adequate as a science course.

The only relevant legal question in this case will be whether the action taken here is arbitrary or reasonable. If the court determines that the criteria as applied here are reasonable and aimed at the entirely legitimate university function of evaluating the preparation of potential students, the university wins. All of these claims of imagined rights being violated will not matter a bit.

stcynic Wed, 08/31/2005 - 04:10

Tags

UC Lawsuit

Not knowing at all what they intend to mean by the phrases: "viewpoint discrimination... arbitrary governmental discretion... (and) hostility toward religion," it certainly sounds like i want some of those freedoms. Oh wait, i do don't i? Unless they are referring to desiring the government to take action to stop people from saying things like: "what you lookin at?" and "christo fascism."

I would of course greatly enjoy less Patriot Act enforcement legislation, thus freeing me from overbearing arbitrary governmental discretion; but i seriously doubt the ACSI are willing to go to the mat for me to protect my cognitive liberties in my propensity for the ritual use of entheogens for example. I suspect they too have their own desires to enforce their version of arbitrary governmental discretion.

I also noticed the ACSI's invocation of the student's supposed right to attend the college of his or her choice. My thoughts on it are here.

When I started at Ohio State Univ in 1967, I was told that anyone who graduated from an accredited high school in Ohio could enroll at the univ. By the end of the first quarter (they were on the quarter system) a substantial portion of them were gone.

The process was rather upsetting, since more than a few of those who "were gone" had become close friends.

Regarding the subject matter of the post

ACSI seeks to preserve the right of Christian school graduates to attend the college or university of their choice.

they might have the right to enroll at the college or univ of their choice. But that doesn't mean that they have the right to stay there. Given the fact that there are limited state resources, it strikes me that the resources should be devoted to people who are more likely to graduate.

"ACSI seeks to preserve the right of Christian school graduates to attend the college or university of their choice."

Yeah, that was an incredibly stoopid(tm) statement. COuldn't they have a stronger argument?

I simply can't pass up the urge to comment on this case (this is my first time, by the way). I agree that the UC should have the right to decide if a particular curriculum meets or does not meet its standards. I went to a small, Christian high school in California (I graduated in 1998), and I can assure any doubters that the ASCI-recommended science curriculum is scientifically bankrupt. Don't even get me started on the health curriculum.

Nevertheless, I did very well on my standardized tests, and I was a foreign exchange student to Belgium under the Rotary Youth Exchange so I felt confident that I would get into a UC school even if the more selective ones were still out of my reach. Then came the rejection letters. Like Ed (and thousands of high school seniors around the country), I was upset that I did not get into my choice schools. But it was strange that I didn't get into ANY schools. It wasn't until UC Davis sent me a separate letter explaining that there was an error in my application that I became suspicious. It turns out that the UC systematically rejected my application because they didn't even know my school existed.

So I screamed at my former guidance counselor over the phone (I was still in Belgium during this fiasco) to fix this mess. My high school should have been registered. I recognize that my situation was entirely the fault of my high school, but I'm still pissed off at the UC system (except UC Davis). I know that every rejected student feels entitled to an explanation, but I was entitled to at least a phone call to inform me that my school apparently does not exist. This was not a standard rejection. And if UC Davis could take the time to send me a letter, why couldn't the others? But don't chalk this up to misdirected anger. I was angry with UC for its apathy, but I was livid at my high school for its incompetence.

Epilogue: my apologetic high school honored my request to withhold my diploma another year so I could reapply as a freshman. They took care of the UC paperwork and I reapplied to the same UC campuses and to the University of Washington using the same application information I had used the previous year. I got into most of my UC choices (except Berkeley and UCLA) and I got into the UW. I enrolled at the UW and graduated Cum Laude with a double BA in finance and French. The ACSI and the UC can both bite me.