Ruling Favors Christian Students' Discrimination Claim Against UC
by Jim Brown and Jenni Parker
August 16, 2006
(AgapePress) - - A federal judge has rejected the University of California's motion to dismiss a lawsuit that accuses it of viewpoint discrimination against Christian students. Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta filed suit last summer against the UC system, claiming it prohibits high school students from receiving academic credit for courses taught from a Christian perspective. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, California, after six Calvary Chapel Christian School students claimed their religious views had hurt their chances of being accepted to a UC campus. Joining Calvary as a co-plaintiff is the Association of Christian Schools International, which represents 800 religious schools nationwide.
The claimants' lawsuit accuses the UC system of violating Christian students' rights by rejecting private Christian school courses such as Calvary's "Christianity's Influence on American History" and "Christianity and Morality in American Literature" as too narrow, meanwhile giving credit for other schools' curriculum offerings, including courses like "Jewish History" and "Ethnic Experience in Literature."
The lawsuit, officially called Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Stearns -- Stearns being a special assistant to the University of California system's president -- centers on three electives offered at Calvary Chapel School that UC officials refused to certify for admissions credit. Although no Calvary Chapel students have been denied admission outright, high school students who want to attend one of the system's campuses must complete a sequence of UC-approved college-preparatory courses.
The lawsuit challenges a UC admissions requirement that private schools maintain a core of state-approved courses and asks the court to order the university system to recognize the Christian-themed courses. And, although the UC Regents have argued that the university can set its own standards under the First Amendment, Judge James Otero ruled last week that the school's attorneys alleged sufficient facts to allow all of its federal constitutional claims to go forward.
Bob Tyler, an attorney representing Calvary Chapel, says colleges and universities should not punish Christian students simply because of viewpoints expressed within their schools' curricula. "This case really is about the future," he asserts; it's "about preventing the UC school system from continuing in a pattern of discrimination that will ultimately be applied against all Christian schools."
Tyler describes the judge's decision to allow the lawsuit to proceed "a great initial victory" in a case with broad implications for schools across the U.S. that offer courses taught from a faith-based point of view. He believes UC rejected Calvary's courses not because they lacked sufficient academic content, but because the university officials did not like the viewpoints from which the courses were taught.
"It's quite possible and likely," the students' attorney contends, "that if we don't win this lawsuit, our school and every other Christian school that teaches from a Christian perspective in the future will have difficulties in having a sufficient number of college prep courses that will be pre-approved for credit into the UC school system."
According to a report in Riverside, California's Press-Enterprise, Judge Otero wrote in his decision that, if the UC system did in fact refuse to give credit to Calvary's courses based solely on their religious viewpoints, "such action would run afoul of the limits of the defendants' freedom to determine its admission policies." The judge also noted that the UC Regents' assertion of the university's constitutional right to set its admissions standards does not shield it from "the prohibition of engaging in content-based regulation or viewpoint discrimination."
Otero also ruled, however, that University of California officials named in the lawsuit could only be named as defendants in their official capacity. What this stipulation means, in essence, is that UC officials will not be held personally liable should the court award damages in the case.
