Who sets University standards?

[catsittingstill]

randwolf pointed me at an interesting article this morning.

Apparently Calvary Chapel Christian School is suing the University of California over what courses the UC will accept as meeting entrance requirements. For instance, Calvary has a biology course in which the textbook specifies that the bible is always right, and any scientific observations that conflict with it must be wrong.(?!) The UC will not accept that biology course as meeting minimum entry requirements. (I should hope to shout!)

Calvary is playing the persecuted victim and trying to get the courts to force UC to accept this course.

I don't understand why this case hasn't been tossed arse over teakettle down the courthouse steps to the accompaniment of hearty laughter.

Comments

[occams_pyramid]

Presumably there's a lot of money and a lot of covert backing for the suit?

And if it wasn't this one they'd be doing the same thing somewhere else. In fact they probably have - this is the one that's got further than others?

I really would like to be able to set up a springboard projecting over a long vertical drop at the Grand Canyon, with a large sign beside it saying "Gravity Is Only A Theory!"

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I just hope this gets settled quickly, with as little cost to UC as possible.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Maybe because the UC wants an actual decision rather than a settlement? If they get one they can simply cite precedent and tell anybody else to take a hike... if they settle they have to deal with each and every podunk academy that decides they have more lawyers fees than sense.

Same reason IBM hasn't settled with SCO - or bought them out. They want this business with the GPL settled once and for all, and they have the legal beagles on staff to see to it that it happens.

In both cases it *also* means that no one else has to go through the same kind of malarkey - if, for instance, Carson Newman decided it wanted some serious admissions standards, it wouldn't have to go hire some fat-cat Knoxville lawyer to defend itself, but could just write the offending school a letter saying, "See Cavalry vs. UC, you're not going to prevail, now, go 'way, ah say, go 'way, boy, you bother me (/foghorn_leghorn)." Saves *everybody* money in the long run.... it's just good karma to invest like that, something I think even the stodgy old Regents grok, being from California and all.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Maybe because the UC wants an actual decision rather than a settlement?

Oh, I *completely* understand why UC won't settle. The whole point is to have real admissions standards, after all. What I don't understand is why the judge hasn't thrown it out, with an admonition to quit wasting the court's precious time with such bullpucky.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Because the judge understands what UC is trying to do? If you simply dismiss the case with prejudice, it doesn't make case law. It has to go to trial and be decided before it has any meaning for anyone else.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Oh, okay. That makes sense.

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

Is Cavalry the school with the course in faith-based CSI theory, that wants to sue to have their investigators' "visions from God" accepted as evidence in criminal trials?

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

*snort* *choke* It's a good thing I wasn't drinking anything when I read this. (Sidelong suspicous look) Are you being serious, or are you pulling my leg? I can't find anything about it on Google News...

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

"I don't understand why this case hasn't been tossed arse over teakettle down the courthouse steps to the accompaniment of hearty laughter."

Possibly, the judges want to set a clear precedent, hopefully on the side of Justice and Reason.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I hope so.

[dan-ad-nauseam.livejournal.com]

I don't understand why this case hasn't been tossed arse over teakettle down the courthouse steps to the accompaniment of hearty laughter.

It is not sufficiently frivolous. I predict this will go at least to the summary judgment stage, if not trial, at which point, the court is likely to say that the University is applying neutral standards to the nonreligious content of the courses and therefore is justified in rejecting them.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Thanks for explaining. It seems pretty frivolous to me, but then, I'm a biologist :-)

[dan-ad-nauseam.livejournal.com]

"Frivolous," as used by lawyers, would mean, "the allegations may or may not be true, but they are unquestionably without legal merit on their face." A classic (and tragically humorous) case is Tyler v. Carter, 151 F.R.D. 537 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), a copy of which can be found at http://members.aol.com/schwenkler/wcc/tyler.htm.

In the Cavalry case, there is enough legal merit in the allegations that it should survive a challenge both for frivolousness and failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The facts, however, appear to be overwhelmingly against the plaintiff.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Oh, okay. I appreciate your explanation.

[chaoswolf]

Slightly off topic, but could I add you as a friend? Please? Long time Echo's Children fan, hearing your name mentioned by mdlbear and flower_cat all the time. I'm their eldest kid, just to give you a tip to who I am.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Certainly you can! Most people don't even bother to ask. But welcome aboard. Is it okay if I friend you too?

[chaoswolf]

Go ahead. We are friends, after all. *grin*