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]
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.
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.