|
In a message dated 8/29/2005 7:06:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 8/29/05 4:52:39 PM, Jim Henderson writes: No, that's not what I was trying to say. I think many First Amendment cases can still be won -- some by me, I hope -- because the government is engaged in "standardless, unbridled discretion." What I was trying to say was that Jim's assertion that the UC system was engaged in "standardless, unbridled discretion" when it refused to accept credits from, e.g., a science course that used a young earth creationist textbook, had "little to do with the real world." In other words, it seems to me that the rejection of credits from such a course is a clear example of *applying* reasonable and relevant academic standards, not the absence of standards. (I suppose it's possible that discovery will reveal that the UC system decides which high school courses to accept and which not to accept in an arbitrary and irrational way, but that seems to me quite unlikely.) But Art, I specifically eschewed the discussion on the science courses
because the facts reported in the sources cited by Ed indicated the denial of
accreditation for literature, history and civics courses. So I could get
to the nub of his inquiry about legal bases for litigation via other avenues
then the contentious ID/evolution grounds. And that's precisely what my
posts show.
From your response, I am wondering if the notion that the other kinds of
courses were also subjected to disapproval troubles you in some way because you
have, like Ed, recurred to the science issue.
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.
