Can college reject religious high school courses?
January 31, 2010 by Taylor HanniganPosted in: From the Courts, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views
A Christian high school claimed a university shouldn’t be allowed to reject high school courses it deems too religious. Did a court agree?
The University of California does not approve high school religious or ethics courses unless they “treat the study of religion or ethics from the standpoint of scholarly inquiry, rather than in a manner limited to one denomination or viewpoint.”
The school says the policy is needed because the study of religion is multidisciplinary and should not focus on one tradition or point of view.
An association of Christian schools, a Christian school and five of the Christian school’s students sued, claiming the policy violated the Free Speech Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.
A federal appeals court disagreed. It said the plaintiffs did not show how the policy could lead to the suppression of protected speech. The policy does not stop high schools from teaching what they want, and it does not prevent high school students from taking any course they want to take, the court reasoned.
The evidence showed the university rejected some religious or ethics courses not because they included a religious viewpoint but because they were not college preparatory, lacked necessary information or materials, or had other procedural defects.
Cite: Ass’n of Christian Schools Int’l v. Stearns.
Should colleges have the right to discount high school courses based on their religious content? Tell us what you think in the comments section below.
HigherEdMorning delivers the latest HigherEd news once a week to the inboxes of over 200,000 HigherEd professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to HigherEdMorning!
Loading ...
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:12 pm
An offshoot of this policy exists in relation to college transfer credits.
Many schools accept courses that are “too religious” only as open electives. For the course to be considered as fulfilling a humanities general education requirement, it has to be “multidisciplinary”.
I think this is equitable. It’s not unlike a student who has taken a course in “accounting for government agencies” being told that it does not have the breadth to be considered Accounting 1.
February 3rd, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Having taught religious courses in a Catholic high school, it would seem that it is valuable to have students study morality, the history of Christianity, etc. However, students also took a full load of academic college preparatory courses, amny more than in most public schools. And the school was fully accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools.
February 3rd, 2010 at 6:21 pm
I agree with the court. Also, as a religion minor in college, I think there is a big difference between a “religious course” and a “religion course.”
February 3rd, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Could this doctrine be exended to science courses that follow the letter of the Book of Genesis?
February 4th, 2010 at 9:36 am
The goal of any thorough-going Christian religious institution to teach ALL subjects from a Biblical perspective. From the perspective of such institutions, “multi-disciplinary” is often a catch-word for a secular vs a Biblical perspective on a particular subject. Thus the court’s ruling gives colleges in CA the right to reject ALL courses taught by such Christian high schools. Thus the court’s ruling does indeed suppress protected speech. The end result of such a ruling becoming case law throughout the nation would be the end of Christian high schools.
February 4th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
To Ralph: Yes; in fact, this began as a dispute over the biology curriculum. See: http://ncse.com/news/2008/08/victory-california-creationism-case-001374
To Phil: Sorry, no. This is a great talking point, until we try to get underneath the term “Christian”. The dispute in California was not over the Christian context of the teaching an learning, but over the fact that the materials used in the courses — particularly biology courses — was scientifically and pedagogically deficient. As Anne pointed out, it is possible to meet both objectives and teach modern science accurately within a theological context. In this case, the result was to leave out or downplay biological knowledge because of a conflict with a theological doctrine about the nature of Scripture.
It is, as Dr J pointed out — and as the court found — a matter of the adequacy of the materials and instruction and was decided by the UC System in the same way as other course prerequisites and equivalencies are decided — on the science, not on the theology,
February 5th, 2010 at 10:46 am
AJ,
Thanks for telling the “rest of the story”. The article fails to mention that the issue at hand was that the classes that the students were taking were creationist biology courses and did not meet the academic standards required by the university.
“God made it that way” is not an acceptable answer on a biology test and is not in any way preparing the student for the critical thinking skills required at the University or life.
February 5th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
As a science professor who is also committed creationist, it is my goal that my students have a better understanding of evolution than their secular counterparts. You can teach what evolutionists believe without believing it yourself and that is all that should be required.