Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(U.S. Government Sanctioned) Academy Declines to Accredit Va. College-Creationism Rule Cited
Washington Post ^ | May 11, 2002 SGT | Rosalind S. Helderman

Posted on 05/11/2002 8:07:34 PM PDT by codebreaker

Edited 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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: christian; creationism; crevolist; evolution; patrickhenry
Glad to know this school is up and running.

So now our government is telling homeschool kids what to think?

1 posted on 05/11/2002 8:07:34 PM PDT by codebreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: codebreaker
It sounds like Dr. Wallin is violating the very rules he is citing for his actions. How many schools accredited by his organization forbid the teaching of Creation at all, under the guise of "Separation of Church and State", that madeup Constitutional principle of the liberals.
2 posted on 05/11/2002 8:23:59 PM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: codebreaker
Just who are these people who are authorized to "accredit" colleges, for liberal arts degrees no less? Credentialism is one of the major threats to this society and to our children. Homeschooled children are almost automatically better educated than those crippled by standards set up not by sensible human beings but by liberal-left buttinskis.

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.]

3 posted on 05/11/2002 8:38:23 PM PDT by BlackElk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
And I bet there a very few denied accreditation, all regilious in nature to boot.
4 posted on 05/11/2002 9:40:09 PM PDT by codebreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
Excellent point.
5 posted on 05/11/2002 9:40:32 PM PDT by codebreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
I think you have misunderstood the decision handed down by the Academy for Liberal Education. The reason that the college does not receive accreditation is because it proposes to require that its professors teach a particular view. It has nothing to do with the view itself, in this case strict Christian creationism, but that the college requires any particular view be taught at all. This point is consistent with the following quotation from Wallin: 'liberty of thought and freedom of speech are supported and protected, bound only by such rules of civility and order as to facilitate intellectual inquiry and the search for truth.' Any colleges requiring a particular worldview to be included in all courses would be judged in the same manner.

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.

6 posted on 05/11/2002 10:16:01 PM PDT by societyasart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: societyasart
Thanks for your response. I considered your view before I responded and I see the fine point being made. However, if this is the same group that accredits many other universities, even if it is just liberal arts universities, I think there is still a double standard evident here. I don't think they are as concerned about schools who forbid the teaching of certain subjects, or just conveniently choose not to, such as creationism. I may be reaching that conclusion because of the subject in debate and its importance to liberals, Christian conservatives, and the NEA. However, taken purely as a policy, I am not sure the policy would apply to other subjects, such as math being taught only one way.
7 posted on 05/11/2002 11:16:33 PM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: Mind-numbed Robot
You stated: "I don't think they are as concerned about schools who forbid the teaching of certain subjects, or just conveniently choose not to, such as creationism."

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...

9 posted on 05/11/2002 11:47:15 PM PDT by societyasart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: societyasart
This was posted before here, but the source was worldnet.
10 posted on 05/11/2002 11:51:32 PM PDT by Gladwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: societyasart
If they want to teach creationism or intelligent design in a religion course, they would have passed their audit. Teaching creationism in a science class is not kosher, since the first base premise of science is that observed events have a natural explanation. If you believe in supernatural explanations, it really isn't science. This is definitional. Now, if they want to exclude teaching evolution from their biology courses, then maybe they could pass the audit also.

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.

11 posted on 05/12/2002 12:01:45 AM PDT by Gladwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Buck Turgidson, PatrickHenry
His school is causing problems, so I will bump him in this thread too.
12 posted on 05/12/2002 12:03:22 AM PDT by Gladwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: codebreaker
I can't believe in the year 2002 these clowns are still fighting this battle, creationists are a national embarasment.
13 posted on 05/12/2002 12:05:56 AM PDT by ContentiousObjector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gladwin
science is not entirely fact. Much of it is a religion to the atheists.
14 posted on 05/12/2002 12:39:13 AM PDT by FreedomFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FreedomFriend
"Much of it is a religion to the atheists" Exactly how is science a religion to the atheists?

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?

15 posted on 05/12/2002 12:48:56 AM PDT by societyasart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: FreedomFriend
Science has premises, and assumptions; evolution isn't any different. For example, it is assumed that dinosaurs had DNA. What is the evidence for this? There is circumstantial evidence, in that other living things have DNA. Direct evidence of dinosaur DNA is nonexistant, though, isn't it?

I can go thru some of the assumption in other fields if you want.

16 posted on 05/12/2002 12:51:43 AM PDT by Gladwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Gladwin
What precisely is your point in saying that all fields of inquiry begin with assumptions? Be as specific as you can if you don't mind.
17 posted on 05/12/2002 12:59:50 AM PDT by societyasart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: codebreaker
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me Liberty or give me Death!"

Patrick Henry
To the Virginia Assembly, March 23, 1775

18 posted on 05/12/2002 1:03:44 AM PDT by VaBthang4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gladwin
His school is causing problems, so I will bump him in this thread too.

"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.

19 posted on 05/12/2002 4:03:59 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: codebreaker
Remember, friends, that it is EVOLUTION that is the theory, not Creation. I like one comment I heard (paraphrase)...Evolution is about as likely as a tornado going thru a 747 plant and "randomly" creating a fully built 747, gassed up, running and ready to take off".

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.

20 posted on 05/13/2002 7:18:06 AM PDT by Gopher Broke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: codebreaker
Does this mean the nice lefties would fail to accredit an ISLAMIC based college as well?
21 posted on 05/13/2002 7:39:54 AM PDT by Black Agnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Black Agnes
If an institution required their professors to teach the Islamic worldview, of course they would not be accredited....by lefties, righties, or ambidextrous third parties. That should be the point that we all get from this article, but if everyone wants to read it as a "world against the christian faith" then I guess I'll just relent and let you guys see it your way. Its a free country and its your choice....I think...:)
22 posted on 05/13/2002 8:27:13 PM PDT by societyasart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: societyasart
Hope this makes sense...

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.

23 posted on 05/14/2002 9:28:35 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
Thanks for the comments Robot; I'll respond to a couple of them and then try to just leave this one alone...you said:

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.

24 posted on 05/14/2002 10:29:39 AM PDT by societyasart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ContentiousObjector
creationists are a national embarasment.

If you are going to cast aspersions, at least spell your words correctly.

25 posted on 05/17/2002 12:40:50 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson