ACSI v. Stearns should be declared non-justiciable
I reported in the preceding post that the district court judge ruled against the plaintiffs in ACSI v. Stearns.
The concept of non-justiciability is discussed in articles on this blog  .
I was going to further investigate the details of ACSI v. Stearns, but I now feel that further investigation would be pointless because I feel that trying to resolve this kind of dispute in the courts is not practical or realistic. It is turning the courts into textbook accreditation agencies. For the following reasons, courts are ill-suited for this function:
(1) Fully evaluating textbooks is very time consuming, and the courts must rely to a great extent on the opinions of biased evaluators representing the litigants.
(2) The judges are not experts in the subjects of the textbooks being evaluated.
(3) The evaluations require arbitrary and subjective decisions.
IMO the main question in these textbook evaluations is whether the books present the core or standard material adequately and just add a religious viewpoint. The plaintiffs charged that UC previously accredited textbooks that have non-Christian special viewpoints (and that therefore might not present the core or standard material adequately), but the judge in this case did not respond to that charge.
The ACSI v. Stearns opinion shows the potential size of the burden on the courts. The opinion says that UC rejected more than 175 courses proposed by ACSI schools (see page 8 of the opinion) during the relevant time period (though some of those rejections might have been for the same reason). The plaintiffs submitted untimely expert witness reports on 38 rejected courses (see pages 8-9 of the opinion) and timely expert witness reports on 5 rejected courses (see pages 12-18 of the opinion). And ACSI v. Stearns cannot possibly be conclusive because each challenge to a course rejection must be judged individually.
IMO the only easy way to assure that the core or standard material is included in the course materials of accredited courses is to require the fundy schools to use standard, non-Christian texts and use supplemental materials to add the Christian viewpoints. Fundy textbooks should not be allowed except as supplemental textbooks. The same goes for all other textbooks that present a narrow viewpoint. IMO the courts should declare ACSI v. Stearns to be non-justiciable and require that UC deny accreditation to all high-school courses that use a narrowly focused textbook as the sole or main textbook.
Why do the fundies insist on having Christian this and Christian that? I think that one of the reasons for that is the extreme hostility that the courts have shown towards religion -- or anything even suggesting religion -- in the public square. Examples: Three court decisions -- Kitzmiller v. Dover, Selman v. Cobb County, and Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish -- ruled against evolution disclaimers in public school science classes, though the disclaimers were just sops to the fundies (and other Darwin doubters) because only Darwinism is actually taught. Because of the mere threat of a lawsuit, big bad Los Angeles County caved in to demands for removal of a tiny cross from the county seal.