Skip to comments.(U.S. Government Sanctioned) Academy Declines to Accredit Va. College-Creationism Rule Cited
Posted on 05/11/2002 8:07:34 PM PDT by codebreakerEdited on 09/03/2002 4:50:29 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Patrick Henry College the Purcellville based Christian college founded two years ago primarily for home school students, has been denied accreditation from a national group because it requires professors to sign a statement of faith including that they will teach creationism.
The college of about 150 students, which will graduate its first class this month, is appealing the decision by the American Academy for Liberal Education, a private group funded by the U.S. Department of Education to accredit liberal arts colleges.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
So now our government is telling homeschool kids what to think?
Maybe one answer to this is a massive search and destroy mission against every gang of bureaucratic busybodies who think that they have some business tampering with the education of your children. We can set up our own institutions and defund the ones that exist. Won't happen next week but it ought to be a long-term goal and an immediate priority.
Are you in business? Do you hire people? Why care whether or not they met the standards of people who are convinced that we are descended from monkeys? That diversity is more important than substance? That Ho Chi Minh was a frustrated America-loving nationalist who turned to communism because we would not oust the French? That Karl Marx was good because he was a liberal in a hurry? That business is bad and socialism good? That religion is for chumps? Why not hire people who share your beliefs and values and will do a solid job for you and really be part of your team?
You certainly need credentials to be a brain surgeon but any business degree can be replaced by on the job training and a library card. With liberal arts majors, the library card will suffice. Hire the homeschooled above all because their experience as self-starters, self-managers and achievers not pampered phony government-schooled "self-esteem" sponges (unearned division) [There, there poor baby, did they expect budgums to know the WHOLE alphabet before high school graduation? How inconsiderate! Just go off to your fisting class and don't think any more about it. When you get to your accredited college, you can get credit for remedial alphabet.]
Does this mean that the college cannot teach classes the way it wants? Of course not. Does this mean that employers who value an education backed by a creationist worldview cannot hire graduates of this college? No again.
It simply means that the school will not be included among those that do not "require" a religious viewpoint to be taught along with the secular curriculum.
Forgive me if I have misunderstood your post; I look forward to a response if you feel it necessary.
What schools in particular did you have in mind??? I don't know of any that forbid teaching anything as a subject, but I may be misinformed.
The issue here is not creationism being taught as a subject, but that it is a worldview required to be incorporated into ALL classes. Presumably, if a private, secular institution required all professors to sign a document saying that they would incorporate evolutionary biology in all courses, then that school too would be denied accreditation. You cannot force a particular worldview, be it Christian, evolutionary, or Shakazulu, into the classroom and expect to be accredited. And as I said before, I think that this is consistent with Wallin's statement.
You also stated: "I am not sure the policy would apply to other subjects, such as math being taught only one way." Do you see now why I think this comment misses the point? The problem isn't any one course being taught a particular way or even at all but instead that there is a worldview attached as a requirement to all courses. This infringes on the "liberty of thought" from the outset and is why such schools will not receive accreditation until they relax this requirement of their professorate. I mention again that lack of accreditation does not deny the college the right to exist or teach their students in whatever way that they please.
Hope this makes sense...
It would be similar to teaching New Age ideas about how people get sick in a germ theory or microbiology class.
It sounds to me like they are picking a fight with the accreditation agency. They don't have to have accreditation. There may be some government and military jobs that their graduates would be excluded from, but if it is a matter of principle, then they should stick to their guns.
Anticipating a possible answer, what exact part of science (other than evolution - I'll grant you this for sake of argument) do you propose is a matter of faith?
I can go thru some of the assumption in other fields if you want.
To the Virginia Assembly, March 23, 1775
"My" school? Hey, I grabbed this name because I admire the guy and the name was available, and so did they. And because of this name, I do feel an odd affection for that school, and I wish them well.
I cannot believe that in this day and age, God's people (or "nuts", as you say, ContentiousObjector) must fight to get the truth out...Evolution is crap and the left only keeps it alive because it keeps them from admitting there is a God to which they must submit.
You make complete sense and you explain your point of view well. It may well be that I am misunderstanding the decision or the article, however, I simply have another view of it.
I can't see why having a particular view of the world, or having a definit theme for a collge or school, should in any way affect its accredidation. I also doubt, because of my jaundiced view of the educational establishment, that were this other than a Christian school that accreditation would be a problem. In todays PC climate, can you imagine a Muslim school being treated the same, regardless of their view of creation? Schools have no difficulty pushing homosexuality, feminism, or the leftist philosophy as a world view. Their accreditation is never threatened. If they were, most of our elite schools would lose theirs.
Regardless, accreditation should depend upon the quality of the teaching of the subject matter, i.e, the three R's, reading, riting and rithmatic, regardless of the setting it is cached in.
I can't see why having a particular view of the world, or having a definit theme for a collge or school, should in any way affect its accredidation. I also doubt, because of my jaundiced view of the educational establishment, that were this other than a Christian school that accreditation would be a problem.
But it should affect its accreditation as a institute of free thought (perhaps an oxymoron, but when can hope) if everything has to be filtered through a particular perspective of the world. If this perspective is Christian, Muslim, Zulu, homosexual, feminist or otherwise. And you should know that MANY secular schools (most very small) fight tooth and nail for accreditation and are denied often for some of the same reasons as Patrick Henry - their curriculum is not broad enough in scope to foster unfettered "intellectual inquiry and the search for truth." Perhaps you and others in the forum don't find this last objective particularly necessary or maybe even something to be guarded against in some respects. And if so, fair enough; there certainly is plenty of room in this big world for people to disagree about what makes a institute of education a good one. But I think this is the more accurate source of the criticism for this article - not that the decision is unfair or exclusionary, but that the standards of the board aren't the right ones to use. What do you think?
Schools have no difficulty pushing homosexuality, feminism, or the leftist philosophy as a world view. Their accreditation is never threatened. If they were, most of our elite schools would lose theirs.
I can only speak from my experience in larger universities, but homosexuality, feminism, leftist thought and any other hated subject (wink) are pushed no harder in every class than is Christianity or other worldviews. The important word in this sentence is "every" because that is the difference between these universities and PH. PH, as I read it from the article, attempted to have all classes incorporate Christian doctrine in their curriculum. To do this, many other views like those listed at the beginning of this paragraph would probably not be taught (I know many of you are cheering at this possibility) and their probable exclusion is detrimental to a unfettered pursuit of knowledge. Again, I respect anyone's right to disagree with this objective for education, but if that is one's beef with this article then it is a different matter than simply saying that the decision handed down is biased against Christian viewpoints or attempts to exclude these from a college education.
If you are going to cast aspersions, at least spell your words correctly.