| |
|
--Fridgezilla wrote:--
I'm reminded of that story a while back about the freshmen who objected to being set a book on Islam to study. Is this a sign of people (and their parents) demanding that education teaches them exactly what they want and no more, nothing challenging? This seems to defeat the whole point of having trained teachers in the first place. If you want to learn just about specific issues, you can make your own syllabus.
I'm on the American Family Association's mailing list to scare myself every few days or get a good laugh. It turns out that they're the ones behind the lawsuit:
AFA Action Alert!
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Sued for Forced Reading of Koran
The American Family Association Center for Law and Policy filed a lawsuit against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on behalf of three students and two alumni, alleging that the school's summer reading program requiring incoming freshmen to read and meditate upon a book about the Quran is unconstitutional.
Students received a postcard from the University informing them that the readings were mandatory for participation in small group discussions about the Quran on August 19. In addition, students are required to listen to portions of the Koran recited in Arabic, and to meditate on how the sound affects them. Among other portions of the Koran included on the CD is a call to prayer.
On its Web site, the University later changed its policy requiring the readings to allow students whose own religious faith is offended to choose not to read the book. However, those students choosing this option are required to write an essay defending their decision not to read it. Students have not yet been formally notified of the change in policy.
"The use of coerced attendance transforms this exercise from an academic one to a religious one, complete with the chanting of the call to prayer which freshmen had no choice but to endure," said Stephen M. Crampton, Chief Counsel of the CLP. "The hasty addition of an opt out clause like this one does nothing to lessen the unconstitutional effect of the program. If anything, it only heightens the problem by exacerbating the divisiveness," Crampton added.
"Pitting students who object to the forced reading of the Koran against those who do not is the modern equivalent of requiring the objecting students to wear yellow stars of David," said Michael J. DePrimo, Ligitation Counsel for the CLP. "The University claimed that one purpose of the program is to enhance a sense of community between students and faculty. This opt out program does precisely the opposite," DePrimo commented.
The book, translated and with commentary by Michael Sells, an "Islamicist," includes flowery passages from the Koran, but omits passages such as surah 4:89, which states that "those who reject Islam must be killed." "The book presents a very one-sided view of the religion of Islam, and is a transparent endorsement of a particular religion by a state university. This promotion of a particular religion the constitution squarely prohibits," said Crampton.
The lawsuit seeks an injunction prohibiting the program from going forward as scheduled on August 19, as well as nominal damages. |
|
|
