Furthermore, the State of California has agreed that in public and private schools, students do not have to accept everything that is taught, and cannot be required to hold a state-prescribed viewpoint:That argument is amazing, if not completely unreal. In essence, these folks are arguing that, because UC has a policy against being dogmatic in science, their own massively dogmatic "science" curriculum must be accepted as valid. To put it another way, they are basically trying to say, "if you don't allow me to be dogmatic, then you are being dogmatic".Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically. Dogma is a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific test and refutation...
To be fully informed citizens, students do not have to accept everything that is taught in the natural science curriculum, but they do have to understand the major strands of scientific thought, including its methods, facts, hypotheses, theories, and laws.
California State Board of Education, Science Framework for California Public Schools,
“State Board of Education Policy on the Teaching of Natural Sciences” ¶¶ 3-4 (2003).
Plaintiffs support, and do not object to, understanding the major strands of scientific
thought, methods, facts, hypotheses, theories, and laws. 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.
There's nothing like watching people who are willing to fight for the right to never have their beliefs challenged by the harsh winds of reality.
1 comment:
What is ironic? It simply states that the State cannot dictate a particular view on scientific questions. Therefore, as long as the textbooks cover the required material (and they do. UC did not dispute the scientific material in the book), there is not a problem. UC can't come in and say, "We don't like that you say certain parts of evolutionary theory are wrong or that God is greater than science." You also have left out the fact that UC has approved for the science requirement classes such as Sports Medicine and Agricultural Biology. So much for high standards. This smells of UC not liking Christian content in books that still meet requirements.
UC's main point is, according to the rejection letter, that the material "is not consistent with the viewpoints and knowledge generally accepted in the scientific community." However, the rejection checklist listed no deficiencies in the material. Also, UC has not shown that using the textbooks leads to lower performance in college. That would I think be a nice objective measure. Instead the plaintiffs state that their students scored higher on average on the ACT/SATs than those admitted to the UC system.
Another interesting point is that out-of-state students do not face the same requirements and are allowed in based on (lower) ACT/SAT scores. I would think treating private school students as out of state students for assessing college readiness makes some logical sense.
The complaint is an interesting read and not pathetic whining. Why a college system gets to dictate textbook usage for college admission is nuts from the start. The whole point of the ACT/SAT system to to demonstrate college readiness (I believe they work fairly well) and remove the wildly varying standards of grades, teachers, schools, and textbooks. Why UC doesn't stick with that instead of being the thought police, I leave up to you to decide.
Post a Comment