A Major Constitutional Challenge

I want to give you a more thorough analysis of what is at stake in the District Court decision allowing the University of California to discriminate against Christian school graduates seeking admission to the University of California system.  An appeal has been filed with the 9th Circuit. We are going to file an amicus brief on behalf of our members.

Here is an analysis from Erik Zimmerman of our legal staff:

 

Summary of Association of Christian Schools International v. Stearns

 

            The Association of Christian Schools International v. StearnsCase No. 08-56320, filed Aug. 12, 2008pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will likely have a wide-ranging impact on Christian high schools across the country.  Calvary Chapel Christian School, five Calvary students, and the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI) sued several University of California (UC) employees for implementing an admissions process that they believe violates the Free Speech, Free Exercise, Establishment, and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution.

 

            UC has implemented several plans for admission of high school students. Chief among them is a plan whereby students may be eligible for admission if they have completed an approved class program. The university only considers courses that it has approved to ensure that admitted students took courses that provided those students with the knowledge and skills to succeed in their studies at UC. Applicants who attended a California high school must demonstrate proficiency in seven A-G subjects such as history, English, math, and science. California high schools can obtain UC-approval by presenting a satisfactory course description which UC evaluates in light of its A-G Guidelines. While UC occasionally reviews individual textbooks as part of its approval process, it does not interview teachers or observe actual class sessions. UC does not grant approval of courses that fail[] to teach topics with sufficient accuracy and depth or fail[] to teach relevant analytical thinking skills.

 

            Under this admissions policy, UC rejected multiple courses offered by the Plaintiffs for a variety of reasons. For example, a history course taught at Calvary Chapel Christian School was rejected for, among other things, failure to teach critical thinking and modern historical analy[sis] because it

 

instructs that the Bible is the unerring source for analysis of historical events, attributes historical events to divine providence rather than analyzing human action, [and] evaluates historical figures and their contributions based on their religious motivations or lack thereof . . . .

 

            UC rejected a Calvary English course that utilized a textbook entitled Classics for Christians, in part, because the text insisted on specific interpretations of its content. In addition, a Biology course offered at another Christian school was rejected because the texts supposedly characterized religious doctrine as scientific evidence and included scientific inaccuracies. A UC professor declared that the texts teach students to reject scientific evidence and methodology whenever they might be inconsistent with the Bible and thereby fail to encourage critical thinking and . . . scientific analysis. Government and World Religions courses offered by Calvary were also rejected.

 

            The Plaintiffs argue that UCs method of course approval is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to the specific courses at issue. The Plaintiffs believe that UCs review process discriminates against religious viewpoints and regulates speech based on content . . . shows hostility toward religious schools . . . and abridges equal protection. The Plaintiffs also believe that UC is more likely to reject courses offered by religious high schools than those offered at public or non-religious private high schools. Specifically, the Plaintiffs Free Speech argument focuses on whether UC rejected the courses because of animus toward their religious perspective. Plaintiffs Establishment Clause argument is that the primary purpose or effect of UCs policy is to discourage religious education and exhibit hostility toward religious perspectives. Plaintiffs have also brought Free Exercise and Equal Protection claims. The District Court granted UCs motions for summary judgment, and the Plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit.

 

            The outcome of this case is critically important to Christian high schools and high school students across the country. If UC is permitted to reject courses taught from a Christian perspective, numerous other public university systems across the nation could adopt similar policies. This would make it much more difficult for many students at Christian high schools to gain admission to public universities and would force Christian schools to consider changing their curriculum. The American Center for Law and Justice will file an amicus curiae brief with the Ninth Circuit in support of Calvary Chapel Christian Schools challenge to the UC policy.