ASS'N OF CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS INTERN. v. Stearns

• Decision Date: 28 March 2008
• Docket Number: No. CV 05-6242 SJO (MANx).,CV 05-6242 SJO (MANx).
• Citation: 679 F. Supp.2d 1083
• Parties: ASSOCIATION OF CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS INTERNATIONAL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Roman STEARNS, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California

679 F.Supp.2d 1083

ASSOCIATION OF CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS INTERNATIONAL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Roman STEARNS, et al., Defendants.

No. CV 05-6242 SJO (MANx).

United States District Court, C.D. California.

March 28, 2008.

Jennifer Lynn Monk, Advocates for Faith and Freedom, Murrieta, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Wendell Raleigh Bird, Jonathan T. McCants, Bird Loechl Brittain and McCants LLC, Atlanta, GA, Robert H. Tyler, Advocates for Faith and Freedom, Murrieta, CA, for Plaintiffs/Defendants.

Bradley S. Phillips, Munger Tolles & Olson, Los Angeles, CA, Christopher M. Patti, James E. Hoist, University of California, Oakland, CA, Michelle T. Friedland, Rebecca Gose Lynch, Stuart N. Senator, Munger Tolles and Olson LLP, San Francisco, CA, Craig P. Alexander, Law Offices of Craig P. Alexander, Dana Point, CA, Kristen K. Waggoner, Ellis, Li & McKinstry, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MTION FOR SUMMARY JUDMENT AND GRANTING DEFEDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Docket Nos. 70 & 71

S. JAMES OTERO, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, both filed on August 27, 2007. Oppositions and Replies have been filed as to both Motions. After hearing argument on February 14, 2008 and carefully considering all admissible documents and the arguments made in support of and in opposition to each Motion, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

I. BACKGROUND ...................................................................1088 A. The UC Admissions Process .................................................1088 B. The A—G Guidelines ..................................................1089 C. The "A—G Policies" ..................................................1089 D. The Parties' Motions for Summary Judgment .................................1090 II. DISCUSSION ...................................................................1090 A. The Scope of Plaintiffs' Facial Challenge .................................1091 1. The "Single Religious Viewpoint Policy" ................................1091 2. The "History and Social Science Policy" ................................1093 3. The "Science Policy" ...................................................1094 B. Plaintiffs' Facial Constitutional Claims ..................................1094 1. The Free Speech Clause .................................................1094 a. Viewpoint Discrimination and Content Regulation .....................1094 i. The A—G Guidelines and Policies Must Be Rationally Related to UC's Educational Goal of Admitting Qualified Students ..............................................1098 (a) Are the A—G Guidelines and UC Position Statements Substantively Reasonable? ......................................1099 (1) UC Position Statement on Religion and Ethics Courses .....................................................1099 (2) UC Position Statements on Science and History Courses .....................................................1100 (b) Are the Reviewers Qualified? ...................................1100 (c) Is the UC Course Review Process Unreasonably "Probabilistic"? .............................................1101 (d) Is Reviewing Only California High School Courses Reasonable? .................................................1101 ii. Defendants Cannot Implement Regulations Because of Animus Toward Religion, Even If Those Regulations Are Rationally Related to UC's Educational Purpose .................1102 b. Overbreadth .........................................................1105 c. Unbridled Discretion ................................................1106 i. Plaintiffs Cannot Challenge the A—G Guidelines and Policies Under the "Unbridled Discretion" Doctrine ..............1106 ii. Even If Permitted, Plaintiffs'"Unbridled Discretion" Challenge Would Fail ............................................1108 2. Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses ................................1108 a. Hostility Toward Religious Schools ..................................1108 i. Symbolic Hostility Under the Establishment Clause ................1109 ii. Burdensome Hostility Under the Free Exercise Clause ..............1110 b. Prescription of Orthodoxy ...........................................1111 3. Equal Protection Clause ................................................1112 C. Plaintiffs'"As Applied" Constitutional Claims .............................1112 1. Free Speech Clause .....................................................1112 a. Plaintiffs' Rejected Biology Courses ................................1113 b. Plaintiffs' Rejected History and Government Courses .................1114 c. Plaintiffs' Rejected English Course .................................1115 d. Plaintiffs' Rejected Religion Courses ...............................1116 2. Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses ................................1116 a. Symbolic Hostility Under the Establishment Clause ...................1116 b. Burdensome Hostility Under the Free Exercise Clause .................1118 3. Equal Protection Clause ................................................1119 III. RULING .......................................................................1119

I. BACKGROUND

Defendants are the University of California ("UC") employees responsible for developing and implementing the admissions policy by which applicants are selected to attend UC.¹ Plaintiffs are the Calvary Chapel Christian School ("Calvary"), five Calvary students, and the Association of Christian Schools International ("ACSI").

Plaintiffs have brought suit against Defendants, alleging that the UC admissions policy is unconstitutional under the Free Speech Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, the Establishment Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause.

A. The UC Admissions Process

Each year, UC must decide which of California's more than 360,000 high school graduates will be admitted to attend one of UC's ten campuses. (Defs.' MSJ 2.) California applicants are admitted to UC only if they qualify through one or more of the following four "Paths":

Path 1: By meeting specified requirements for coursework, grade point average, and test scores.

Path 2: By ranking in the top four percent at participating California high schools.

Path 3: By scoring exceptionally high on standardized tests.

Path 4: By demonstrating the potential to succeed at UC despite not falling in any other category.

(Lynch Decl. No. 1 Exs. 1 (describing Paths 1, 2, and 3), 19 (describing Path 4).)

About eighty-two percent of California applicants who are admitted to UC qualify only through Path 1 or Path 2. (Pls.' Exs. 62, 64.)² To qualify through Path 1 or 2, the applicant must demonstrate proficiency in seven specific subjects: (a) history and social science; (b) English; (c) mathematics; (d) laboratory science; (e) foreign languages; (f) the visual or performing arts; and (g) electives. (Lynch Decl. No. 1 Exs. 4, 17.) UC refers to these seven subjects as the "A-G Subjects."

A student may demonstrate proficiency in an A-G Subject by achieving a sufficiently high grade or score:

(a) in UC-approved high school courses;

(b) in a college course at an accredited university;

(c) on the corresponding SAT II subject test; or

(d) on the International Baccalaureate or Advanced Placement exam.

(Wilbur Decl. ¶ 8.) Nearly all of the applicants qualifying through Paths 1 and 2 demonstrate proficiency in the A-G Subjects by taking UC-approved high school courses. (Defs.' MSJ 4.) Plaintiffs' constitutional claims center on UC's method for approving high school courses.³

B. The A-G Guidelines

For an applicant to demonstrate proficiency in the A-G Subjects through high school courses, she must take a minimum number of UC-approved courses. The number of courses a student must take to demonstrate proficiency varies by subject, ranging from a year-long course in the arts to four year-long courses in English. (Lynch Decl. No. 1 Ex. 4.)

UC requires applicants to take approved courses "to make the UC eligibility standards substantively meaningful and to ensure that the students whom it guarantees a spot have earned their relevant grades in courses that are sufficiently rigorous to prepare the students for study at UC." (Defs.' MSJ 2 (citing Rashid Decl. ¶ 7).)

High schools seeking course approval must provide UC with a satisfactory course description. (Defs.' Opp'n 6; see also Lynch Decl. No. 2 Ex. 93.) The typical course description is three to five pages in length. (Pls.' MSJ 2.) UC evaluates this course description in light of the A-G Guidelines, which provide about one page of general principles per subject area (Pls.' Ex. 61) and hundreds of pages of examples of approved course outlines for each subject (Lynch Decl. No. 1 Ex. 2).

In deciding whether to approve a course, UC reviews the submitted course descriptions to determine whether the course challenges students academically, involves substantial reading and writing, teaches critical thinking skills, emphasizes both analytical thinking and factual content, and develops students' oral and listening skills. (Lynch Decl. No. 1 Ex. 6, at 4; Wilbur Decl. ¶ 10.) UC also seeks to ensure that the course will sufficiently prepare students for UC study. (Lynch Decl. No. 1 Ex. 6, at 4.) Courses that meet these standards are approved.

However, UC will not approve courses that "fail to teach topics with sufficient accuracy and depth" or "fail to teach relevant analytical thinking skills." (Defs.' Opp'n 7.)

Occasionally, UC reviews individual textbooks where the subject area is one where "selected texts tend strongly to guide course content" (such as history, mathematics, and science) and the "course outline raises concerns about whether the course meets faculty guidelines . . . ." (Pls....