UC system sued

[JMHACLJ at aol.com]

In a message dated 8/28/2005 12:56:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
stcynic at crystalauto.com writes:

Why not  stick to the actual issue at hand instead of inventing irrelevant  
hypotheticals? The issue is whether a university has the right (or obligation,  
I would argue) to evaluate the pedagogical value of courses when determining  
what credits to accept, what classes to give more weight to, etc. 


 
 
As to "inventing irrelevant hypotheticals," you are simply being bombastic  
in the hopes, I suppose, of dodging the very real and very obvious other sorts  
of judgments that can be justified just as equally.  This is a list related  
to the discussion of law and religion.  It is mainly populated by  professors 
of the subject.  Professors of the subject love to reason by  analogy.  If you 
think that the hypotheticals are irrelevant, you might  offer some basis for 
saying so.  I chose them because I think that they  help point the way to one 
possible problem with the innately stupid choice made  by the UC system:  
bias. 
 
And if you think that pedagogical value of courses is determined by  
employment of universally adopted approaches (the evolutionary presumption among  soft 
sciences), how will you go about deciding the pedagogical values question  in 
those non-ID courses, in the English literature, history, and civics  
courses? 
 
Underneath some of my rhetoric there is a hard edge because I know that we  
begin simply by adopting rules we think fairly supported by our role as 
guardian  of public institutions.  It is only later that we begin issuing bits of  
cloth to targeted populations to insure that our exclusion of them from public  
life is uniformly observed.
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20050828/1d2d29c9/attachment.htm