> Introducing a subjective, belief-driven course as a mandatory requirement within an otherwise objective, fact-based program undermines the integrity of the cu

> Introducing a subjective, belief-driven course as a mandatory requirement within an otherwise objective, fact-based program undermines the integrity of the curriculum and its focus on evidence-based learning. This seems like a subjective belief, but the entire position described at the blog depends on it being objectively true. Having said that, the complaint amounts to 'I object to having to sit through a class with a guest speaker I didn't like hearing', so not terribly consequent. I'm guessing it was like 1 hour out of a 168-hour week? This honestly seems like good workforce training in attending a meeting you don't want to attend. I'm not sure where the author gets the idea that we should be exempted from a course because we don't like hearing something said during one of the classes, religious or otherwise? Like, I am having trouble understanding why the below assertion is true: > individuals [should] have the freedom to opt out of mandatory courses that do not align with their professional focus or are antithetical to their personal positions On another level, the choice is still there anyways: the degree plans of most colleges and universities are available, and we can each choose to apply for degrees with which we agree. The one from the article seems to want its degree to include some education on sustainability. I doubt every college or university in the world does.