In this case, the United States Supreme Court rejected the Christian school’s appeal. The California-based schools wanted courses containing religious basements included in learning at the University of California. However, the university indicated that this would implicate the replacement of science textbooks and other learning books from various fields with the Bible (Tiefer & Shook, 2004). The rights to freedom of expression and religion are protected from interference by the government by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The most fundamental element of liberty of expression is the right of choice or freedom of speech. To have the freedom of speech and expression, liberty permits individuals to convey themselves with no intrusion or restriction from the government (Tiefer & Shook, 2004). The function of the Supreme Court regarding this matter is to facilitate or make sure that the government grants significant justification for the intrusion on the right of freedom of expression and speech anytime it attempts to control the substance of the communication.
The freedom of expression, religion, and governance originates and lies in the establishment clause. It states that the legislative body shall create no law regarding a founding of religion (Tiefer & Shook, 2004). It is used to forbid the central government from creating a state’s place of worship (religion) or extremely linking itself in religious conviction, mostly to the advantage of a single religion over another. The first amendment supports and widens legal representation through the introduction and endorsement of the fourteenth amendment. Its introduction in the constitution of the United States guaranteed national spiritual and social rights. It facilitates equivalent defense and practice of the law and states that any person(s) born or adopted in the United States, and are under discussion to the authority in question, constitute a public of the United States of America and consequently of the State in which they live in. No state has any authority or jurisdiction to create or implement any law that shall condense the immunities and constitutional rights of United States citizens.
All states are restricted from divesting any person or a group of persons of life, property, and liberty, with no appropriate course of action of law. The state is required to give protection to the people under its jurisdiction and is prohibited from denying any individual in its jurisdiction equivalent security (University of California, 1999). The law was introduced years ago and has been in use for decades (University of California, 1999). Thomas Jefferson and a colonial legislator of Maryland argued that the Virginia Statute for religious freedom proclaimed in 1779, stated that no person(s) shall be constrained to regular or hold up any spiritual ministry, place, or worship whatsoever. The people were given freedom and were restricted from suffering because of religious beliefs or opinions.
The requirement set by the University of California is that particular courses in high schools are necessary for admission. The university evaluates what is contained in their teachings to be convinced that they teach and evaluate subjects that arriving students require. The University representatives indicated that some of the schools’ classes in history, biology, religion, and English did not pass the examination – a wrapping up that the Christian schools saw as discrimination and unlawful ( University of California, 1999). The schools offered standard content in their courses and included a religious statement or angle in all subjects. A close examination of textbooks by evaluators from the University of California showed that the books contained misleading and insufficient information for students willing to undertake courses in the institution. These assessments illustrated that the University of California had rational arguments for rejecting college introductory credit for schools with such courses (University of California, 1999).
The courts holding in this case between the University of California and some of the Christian-based schools in California was that the university was not guilty of any charges laid upon it. The high court viewed and weighed the summons and evidence brought before it by both parties. The ruling of the high court upheld the ruling made by a lower court that the rights to freedom of expression and religion of the Christian schools were not violated in any way by the refusal to admission in the university (University of California, 1999). The Supreme Court stated that there was evidence that the University of California had approved other schools that used devout textbooks containing viewpoints based on religion. This occurred because the school’s performances were remarkable and their admission relied on merit. The court, therefore, found no violation of the freedom of religion and expression by the university to the Christian schools.
The panel of judges conducting the hearing and ruling of the case stressed the point that the function of the Supreme Court regarding this matter was to facilitate or make sure that the government grants significant justification for the intrusion on the right of freedom of expression and speech (Tiefer & Shook, 2004). It still has the mandate to ensure that a person or a group of persons does not violate the same rights on another person or group of persons and vice versa.
Tiefer, C., & Shook, A.W. (2004). Government contract law. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
University of California. (1999). California public employee relations, Issues 134-139. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Industrial Relations, University of California.