« Christian bookstore manager martyred in Gaza City | Main | Making Sunday Sexy »
October 8, 2007
Religious Freedom or Religious Sloth?
A story in today's Chicago Tribune illustrates one of the tensions of living in an increasingly secular society. The article, "Religious-based education on trial: Christian high schools sue University of California, alleging bias in admissions," discusses a lawsuit that an association of Christian schools is suing the University of California because "the admissions policy at the university unconstitutionally discriminates against them because they teach from a religious perspective."
More specifically the plaintiffs claim that "UC follows the policy of rejecting any course in any subject, even if it teaches standard content, if it adds teaching of the school's religious viewpoint."
The University denies it, of course: "That statement simply is not true," said Christopher Patti, counsel for UC. "There is no prohibition on religious content in UC a-g courses," he said. "If the course adequately teaches the subject matter and adequately teaches the skills that students need in that subject, then the fact that it may also make reference to other theories doesn't disqualify it, even religious theories."
Without knowing more the details of the case, on the surface it seems like another battle in the culture wars than in cultural confusion.
The University, for example, refused to give credit for a course called, "Course: Special Providence: Christianity and the American Republic," the text of which was "American Government for Christian Schools" (Bob Jones University Press). The reason rejected was that " Content was not consistent with the "empirical historical knowledge generally accepted in the collegiate community."
Now this could indicate that the University has a narrow, Enlightenment understanding of what constitutes history--it may, for example, rule out miracle a priori as an explanation for an event.
Or it could mean that the textbook and class have not prepared students to participate in classes and conversations that will take place in a modern, secular university on the topic of history. A university has the right and obligation to ensure that when students step on campus, they are familiar with terms, theories, and perspectives that constitute the conversation on campus on any given topic.
Christian schools have an obligation not only to teach from a Christian perspective, but to thoroughly immerse their students in the worldview and perspective of the secular university if they expect them to attend there. This strikes me as a reasonable requirement of the university, but a necessary requirement of those who hope to bring Christ's salt and light to academia. If we demonstrate that we have not listened to or thoroughly understood the point of view of those with whom we disagree, why would they ever give our point of view a hearing?
Comments
An excellent insight into the issue! It seems like this idea also applies to the recent firing of the CCU prof who required a Jim Wallis text in his class. Love or hate Wallis, but you cannot engage in a debate with someone without familiarizing yourself with their arguments.
Christians committed to evangelism cannot just plug their ears and stick their head in the sand whenever we hear an idea that challenges our ideals.
Posted By: Matt K | October 8, 2007 12:12 PM
The issue here is not that the texts leave out anything. What UC does not like is that the texts include the Christian perspective along with the secular perspective. For instance, in the biology text students are given a thorough understanding of the theory of evolution. However, they are also exposed to the "theory" of creation.
So, what is it they aren't learning?
It is the same with history. All the events are there, the conflicting views within a certain era are discussed. However, these events are viewed through the lens of there being an engaged God in control of the history of the world.
So, what is it they aren't learning?
A good Christian education goes beyond a secular education. It does not ignore the teachings of the secular world, it simply evaluates them with a glass shaped by Biblical truth. If there is something wrong with that, then may we ever be wrong!
Posted By: Jonathan P | October 8, 2007 12:41 PM
Some religious institutions have a more difficult time adhering to academic standards than others. I couldn't access the story, but I'll bet most of the Christian schools in California don't have this problem. When a secondary school teaches in its history classes that certain events are part of "God's Special Plan," that's pretty radical and you're going to have plenty of Christians disagreeing with it as well. I feel badly for the kids that get that kind of indoctrination rather than a normal, fact-based history curriculum. Kudos to UC, and shame on the schools that teach such stuff and the parents that send them there.
Posted By: Patrick | October 8, 2007 2:47 PM
Having once reviewed Bob Jones University Press textbooks...unless they have greatly improved in quality and scrupulousness, U.C. was probably correct in rejecting a courses for credit that used one a BJU textbook..
On the other hand, public school textbooks are usually just boring (at least to me), full of small errors, I'm told, and usually not especially well written (which is self obvious. I do remember one on Nebraska history, from my childhood, that kept my interest, so I don't think all of them are so tedious, and teachers can introduce their own reading lists as well.
In order to make up for the thin and attenuated writing, public school texts have lots of flashy illustrations, sometimes dubious back story sidebars and such. Why we make our children walk around with heavy, clayed paged, coffee table sized textbooks; when a lightweight paperback and a CD/DVD-Rom would be so much more compassionate on their immature spines....
One BJU Press textbooks that I looked at, on American History, if memory serves, gave Franklin Roosevelt a grudging, pejorative little paragraph, but James Garfield got a large sidebar. Garfield may deserve more respect than he gets in standard texts, but FDR, love him or hate him, deserves all the space, and probably more, that he usually gets. The book's condescending dismissal of the Civil Rights Movement was pretty pathetic as well. But that was back when BJU still wouldn't allow interracial dating, so perhaps newer texts are more understanding of the movement.
In a BJU science High School level book, a student would have gotten the impression that the refrigeration cycle has to be powered by electricity. Of course, that's the sort of mistake that public school texts usually make as well.
If memory still serves, the book had a sidebar on the Three Frauds of Evolution...though only one was a fraud, the other was lost during WW II, and the last was a short lived, very obscure, mistake. Pildown, Peking and Nebraska "Man," if my needs-coffee brain is still working. The Peking Man fossils are still missing, so one can write anything one wants to...if you're not all that scrupulous about what is fairly reliably known.
Too bad I don't have the book in the article. I'm sure it would be entertaining, if nothing else.
BJU Press books weren't boring to read, like the public school books I've read, but only because they were so, sometimes hilariously, outrageous. I'm not sure how many "Many Scientists" are, but I'm confident that most scientists don't believe for a second that a super-continent spit up into today's five continents during a few short months in the early Iron Age, as I remember a grade school level book's claim.
Posted By: Greg | October 8, 2007 4:32 PM
I attended the University of California during my undergrad years, as well as conservative Cal Baptist (CBU), which is among the top recipients of graduates from the Christian school in the lawsuit. I can speak with certainty that most of the graduates I met were unable (or unwilling) to interact with any information presented at CBU that went against their former learnings. I was so shocked by the unsophistication of most of their worldviews (which rarely held up when challenged by the world away from their parents). My wife and I have sworn to never even consider these particular Christian schools for our future kids.
PS: My conservative credentials: CBU Theology grad, current student at a very conservative seminary in the deep south. etc. etc. (not a "california crazy")
Posted By: Michael | October 8, 2007 8:22 PM
This stuff strikes me as being similar to a Pakistani elementary math text that says, "2+2 is, by the Will of Allah, 4." Is it any wonder that it is impossible to take such things seriously?
Posted By: Chuck | October 10, 2007 12:17 PM