Now listen up. This is some major league B.S. censorship nanny-state crapola.
The University of California system is refusing to take students from a Christian high school that teaches unorthodox views of biology and history. They say the students will be "unprepared."
I'm not sure when I've heard anything quite so insincere. It doesn't matter whether you slept through biology in high school, you will be aware of Darwin. In fact, these Christian students will have heard of Darwin and his theory, if only in the manner of refutation. Having been taught the "correct" version of the theory of origins has zero to do with one's eventual performance at the university.
Imagine this scenario: Benighted, fundamentalist Christian student goes to a school teaching a highly Christocentric version of history, science, etc. He also happens to be quite intelligent and trots out an SAT score around 1450.
Question: Will this young man have any trouble putting up A's in the University of Californa institutions? Noooooooooooooooooooooo.
Given that is the case, there can be only one reason for the policy recently announced. Intimidation. Welcome to secular totalitarianism lite.
(HT: Ted Olsen at Christianity Today on the web)
20 comments:
Ahem. Haha.
I'll leave my point as made in the original post. You and I both know the hypothetical youngster isn't crippled by having been taught Darwin got it wrong. He'll attend his science class at Cal. Berkeley or wherever and he'll get the gospel good and straight from the priestly class. No problem at all. He'll learn it and take tests on it and can decide in his mind what he thinks for himself.
What Cal. is doing is simply screening this kid out. They don't want his kind there.
Well, L.A. they only accepted the coursework from this particular high school for many, many years. Why the sudden change? If they were documenting inadequate preparation, I'd imagine they'd have to stop accepting many students from poor-performing public schools, even if their grades and SAT's were strong.
There is an accrediting body in the state of California that extends or withholds credentials to secondary institutions. Why does the UC system need to place additional course content burdens on top of those standards? I would have no problem with a private institution making such a decision, but UC is supported by the taxpayers of California and the taxpayers through the legislature therefore have a say in how the school is run. I'd like to know how much of this policy was imposed internally, and how much public discussion there was about it.
The students will be unprepared? What a crock. Over a third of the freshmen entering the UC system every year have to take remedial courses in basic English proficiency. If they're already coping with that level of unpreparedness, I think they could cope with a few evangelicals who need to sit in the library for a few hours and bone up on Darwin.
The UC system also has no problem admitting graduates of Delphi Schools, which are run by Scientologist fruitcakes.
How unorthodox is too unorthodox? Well how orthodox is orthodox enough? Are they going to stop with evolution, or will prospective UC students soon have to be vetted for approved coursework in the history of imperialist hegemony, postmodern nihilist philosophy, and whatever environmental enthusiasm has replaced religious piety this week?
I think the magic bullet in this case is called motivation. Unless the UC System is going to be able to show some link between having attended this school and having performed badly at UC schools, their going to be in big trouble.
No, it's not T. By your logic, the student should only not be admitted if he plans to study biology, but is even that realistic or sense-making? So what if he took a course saying Darwin was wrong? He'll take the college level bio courses and stand or fall on his performance, not his beliefs. At least that's how it should be.
I've got a little secret for you, champ. There are millions of stupid fundamentalist, Darwin skeptics out there with advanced degrees. Ph.D's, M.D.'s, J.D.'s, etc. You just don't know. They don't tell you. I met one the other day with a Pulitzer Prize.
What's really happening here is that a particular view of origins has become part of your little catechism. Unless someone is willing to let go chapter and verse the two of you don't want to allow them into civil society. This is where we were going with Stalin and Mao. Congrats.
Oh, I think it is all too clear that science sometimes functions on the level of a religious belief. This is a good area for further research, but we could expose quite of record of science being conflated with religion just in the last century and a half.
Again, I want to see the record that shows the kids from this school have somehow failed in their many years of attending colleges in the UC system. If you can't show me that (and I'm pretty sure they won't be able to), then this is just mind control masquerading as "concern" over scientific "literacy" as you say.
On another blog where I wrote about this story, I got a very humorous comment back from and individual who said his AP history teacher used Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States of America." He expressed his relief the state university was more forgiving than the UC system in this case.
You've heard what they say. You aren't paranoid if they really are out to get you. Unless UC can show some cause of merit that led them to this policy (e.g. badly prepared students), then it will be clear they were involved in punishment, censorship, etc.
It's not a useful example, T. They also thought the history class was wrong. There is discretionary judgement involved here and it will lose a court case every time. Public officials with discretionary powers mixing in with religion are gonna get the UC System burned. Hide and watch as the mom used to say.
There is no discretionary judgement between 2.9 and 3.0. It is or it isn't. Quite different from the case at hand.
In effect, UC is saying "Stop knocking Darwin" AND "Stop building up the Christian role in history." To achieve that they have stopped accepting students from this high school. Is it in any way conceivable they'd do this to a school emphasizing certain minority racial contributions (whether academically sound or not)?
T, you ignorant slut. (Yes, it's a joke. Anbody over thirty remembers it from SNL.)
I'll answer with a very astute comment from another website on the same topic. (T, he's a biology grad as he mentions.)
"Publius and Actus, the only two alternatives are that either God played a role in the development of life or He did not. Why should we decide which it is before we look at the data?
"If we decide a priori that He played no role, what will we do if the data says that He did? I'm not saying that the data actually says so, I'm just pointing out that we should follow the data where it leads, not where we want it to go.
"ID merely points out that, first of all, life is highly improbable given only randomn, natural processes; and secondly that there are some elements of biological systems, particularly at the biochemical level, that cannot (at this time) be explained by appeal to natural selection. Will we be able to explain them by natural selection given more data? Maybe, maybe not. An ID-er can't rule it out, and likewise an evolutionist shouldn't be able to say that we certainly will.
"ID is not an excuse to stop looking for natural explanations. By all means, keep looking for them. ID is a recognition that there may be a point where natural explanations don't work anymore. Science is a tool that explains part of reality, not all of it. Asking science students to ignore God in their analyses is like asking literature students to ignore authors when analyzing a book. It just doesn't work.
"Also, your concern that students will be unprepared is not borne out. I recently graduated from a a major midwestern university in biology, and ID-favoring students were ridiculed, but not because they were incompetent. The professors just lost their professionalism. One doesn't have to believe in materialistic Darwinism in order to understand it. On the contrary, one can only criticize it ingtelligently if he does understand it, because it is a robust theory.
"I agree that the evidence for descent with modification by natural selection is indisputable. What ID criticizes -- often from a purely scientific point of view -- is the less-supportable assertion made by Darwinism that life began because of random natural processes and that every single element now found in biological systems can have its origin explained entirely by random natural processes."
T ... whether you *think* someone should have graduated is irrelevant to the debate.
The UC system graduates many thousands of students each year that probably should not graduate; the exact number being purely subjective to *whom* you ask and what criteria is used.
Further, the debate is really *NOT* about creation/evolution; it is about how much autonomy a school ought to be given in its curriculum.
What the UC system is doing is, in essence, restricting the autonomy of private schools.
Perhaps you'd complain if the UC system required all entering students to have taken, and passed, calculus?
From the tenor of your post, I'll have to assume that *any* government restriction (or standard) is OK?
What about No Child Left Behind?
Fundamentally, I disagree with ANY governmental imposed (and arbitrary) restriction placed on a private school.
You are right; a school ... *ANY* school ... ought to pay the consequences of giving their students a piss poor (sorry, I couldn't think of a better word) education.
Ah ... but wait, what about government schools? Should they be exempt?
To explicitly single out a small set of schools ... based on a TEXTBOOK ... is pretty sad.
Maybe the UC System should post a list of all books that are OK and then burn the rest?
"Which government are you talking about? This standard came from the school itself, it wasn't imposed on the school by some bureaucratic government body."
I equate the UC system with "government" in that it is a public institution, funded by taxpaters.
Re NCLB: "It is a perfect example of a stupid government regulation pushed on schools (i.e. the opposite of the case at hand)."
Quite the contrary. Fundamentally, they are identical; they both use the same means (government regulation) to the same "do-gooder" ends (allegedly better educated students).
CLA is right. It's the UC system, not any one of the institutions. That's a governmental authority.
"I disagree with your confounding the school administration with the government in general. There is a definite difference between the two."
Some difference, yes. But because it is a public university which uses public funds to hold its tuition rates at a predatory level (ie, well below the true costs), then they become something akin to government.
I stand by my statement. To clarify: When a handful of people have control over taxpayers money, THEY (ie, those in control of the money) are part of "government".
Examples: The board of regents at UC, the Dept of Agriculture, or the US Senate.
Your question regarding farmers and welfare recipients as "part of the government" is a separate issue. I suppose this would be more akin to a UC student being part of government.
"By that definition everything and everyone is part of the government. I have control over my tax refund which most certainly comes out of tax payer money."
You're being silly. Your tax refund is YOUR MONEY ...
I'm sorry, I can't tell if you are being serious or not ... you must be kidding and I fell for it.
Post a Comment