In a message dated 8/28/2005 2:33:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The admissions office sends the following letter to an applicant:
"You have a course labeled 'American history' on your transcript. 
We've examined the syllabus, and, as far as we can tell, the
course covered only the period from 1763 to 1861.  Because you
have not satisfied our admissions requirement, we are returning
your application to you."
Or, suppose the admissions office writes and says, "we note that you have a course labeled American History on your transcript, but we understand from a review of the curriculum and materials that the course probably emphasized the positive values of exploration and conquest, and employs the pre-Columbian/Columbian distinction to suggest that American History prior to European Exploitation was dark, dank and meaningless.  We are returning your application to you for this reason."
 
Rather than focusing on the Science issue that is so difficult for some to move off of, what will the Constitution tolerate in the way of viewpoint bias in these areas? 
 
Once we flavor the university's objection with implications for religious freedom, is there some constitutional reason why less rigor should apply to the defense of freedom?  Should it tolerate more because religious voices are targeted by the bias?  Should it be less careful of bias because of possible victims of anti-religious bias?
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Reply via email to