Decius wrote:

On Dec. 12, the Federal District Court in Los Angeles will hear a lawsuit filed by a consortium of Christian high schools against the University of California system for refusing to credit some of their courses when their students apply for admission.

In order to refuse these students the State must establish that they do not gain the basic knowledge needed in order to comprehend college level material from these classes.

Is that, in fact, the criteria, or are you simply stating that it ought to be? I don't disagree, but I'm curious.

I think this case is far more interesting than the ID movement which, though well supported and high profile, is also, i find, transparent and simpleminded (which is not the same as saying it's not a threat of course). This, however, raises some interesting questions.

At the risk of falling into the trap of basing an argument on too little information, I've some comments.

The example you found of the UC rejecting the course on the basis of the text being an anthology vs. a full novel sounds like a fairly arbitrary one. Certainly it's the school's right to determine that anthologies don't suffice, and base acceptance on that determination, but it doesn't speak to the subtleties of this issue.

The "troubling" example you found is far more fascinating because it does potentially insinuate that a book which teaches science from the standpoint of Christian beliefs cannot adequately teach science. That dangerously close to saying that Christianity and Science are incompatible (which is, of course, hogwash) though not precisely the same. It depends a great deal on how the material is presented, in my opinion. If the scientific method is left intact and the physical principles presented fully, including the mathematical proofs behind them, then that's fine. If for even one moment, the books resorts to a "because God ordained it so" as a *reason* some physical principle exists, without indicating either that there's higher level math required to understand it or that presently we don't understand it, then it is doing the students a disservice.

The question, as you say, comes down to whether it's the religious *perspective* that UC is rejecting or if, in fact, these courses fail to adhere to reasonable educational standards. In fact, it calls into question the entire concept of what standards *are* reasonable, which is the greater prize in this battle, I think. For me, I think, that comes down to two things. The first is if the Christian perspective is the *only* one taught. It's perfectly fine to discuss the problems that Twain or Dickinson had with God or with Religion. I'll even say it's good insofar as that's much a part of who they were. However, if in so doing, the texts or instructors leave out the influence these authors had or fail to analyze the work in historical context and so on, then students learned only which authors and historical figures didn't concur with their view of God. This is inadequate. The second metric is whether the materials or instructors, as described above, rely on Faith as the structure on which to support their history, literature and science educations. Faith works wonderfully and is necessary for religion, but has little place in a process which *ought* to be developing the inquisitive side of young minds. Education should emphaisize that which *isn't* known and that which requires additional thought or analysis. It should train kids to think freely, analyze material and then come to conclusions about those things. If you wish to train them to do so while first thinking of how Christian principles apply, fine, so long as you don't train them to stop thinking once they have.

This is a problem for religions across time and space, of course. How do you tell someone that they may use their minds to find Truth for themselves, but simultaneously tell them that certain things are simply Fact, taken from the hand of God? It's a delicate task and one that's often bungled I think. The minute a teacher must say "That's simply the WAY THINGS ARE." they've stopped teaching and begun indoctrinating. If any topic is off limits for analysis, then the fundamental purpose of education has been subverted. Samuel Johnson offers a relevant quote in that vein, to wit

Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it.

Thus, I indicate, examination of all things can only be good. If your philosophy is too weak and tenuous to endure questioning, then perhaps it ought not to survive.

One last thought and then I'll get back to work. From a pragmatic standpoint, what sense is there in denying an education to those students who, if you are confident in the value of your curricula, *most* need it? I'm not saying the universities should begin accepting students who truly can't do the work, or are wholly unprepared, but it seems to me like a wonderful chance to expose these young folks to another paradigm. To an educational system in which God is not placed at the center. If their minds are strong and flexible, they will succeed and, I think, grow as people. Isn't that the point? I do not say this because I think that the UC system (or university in general) will subvert and eliminate their religious upbringing, but because I believe intellectual challenges are necessary to cement that upbringing in a foundation of Reason. If some, instead, find other paths, then that too is their God given right. -k]

RE: Here's the Problem With Emily Dickinson - New York Times