Corbett's comments, recorded by the student, Chad Farnan, strike us as having crossed the line separating provocative statements designed to get students to think and indoctrination in the teacher's political views.

Yet the judge found that one of Corbett's statements did violate the Constitution's ban on an "establishment of religion" -- or, in this case, irreligion: That was his description of creationism as "religious, superstitious nonsense." Ironically, this is the one comment by Corbett that should deserve the protection of the 1st Amendment. Mainstream scientists, including believers, agree with him.

We worry that the judge's holding on this point will give an opening to creationists, who have been ingenious in trying to undermine science education in public schools.

That isn't the only problem with the ruling. A proliferation of lawsuits like Farnan's could discourage teachers more tactful than Corbett from engaging their students in lively discussion.

Ruben Rivera was dropping off papers to charter a new gay unity club at Los Angeles City College one recent day when he spotted half a dozen middle-aged people milling around the campus quad.

"God Hates Gays," their signs read.

The protesters appeared in support of Jonathan Lopez, a Christian student who has sued the Los Angeles Community College District, alleging that an instructor kept him from finishing a classroom speech about his religious beliefs and opposition to same-sex unions. Lopez has said he was discriminated against because of his religious views.

A dozen nasty e-mails winged their way to a Pulitzer Prize-winning New York biographer, who had the singular misfortune of sharing a name and occupation with Lopez's instructor.

"Some of them threatened my life," said the New York-based John Matteson, an associate professor of English at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

Attorney David French said he and Lopez didn't know the protesters or approve of their methods.

He said he believed that Lopez's suit struck a chord because conservative and religious voices are often silenced on liberal college campuses.

The suit seeks to strike down a university code prohibiting speech that could offend classmates.

Carl Friedlander, president of the L.A. City College faculty union, said there is no monolithic ideology at the campus.

Rivera, meanwhile, said he hoped that his club, Rainbow Alliance, would include men and women, gay and straight, and would serve as a haven for anybody who feels different.

California's highest court is poised to be the next battleground in the debate over benefits for illegal immigrants as the justices have agreed to hear arguments on the constitutionality of a state law allowing undocumented students to pay in-state tuition at public colleges and universities.

The decision could affect hundreds of illegal immigrant students who attend community colleges, Cal State and UC campuses and who say they would not be able to afford a higher education if required to pay out-of-state tuition, which can cost more than triple the amount that residents pay.

But the outcome could have a broader effect -- at least nine other states, including Oklahoma, New York and Texas, have similar laws providing the reduced fees to illegal immigrants. Although a court decision would not be legally binding in other states, politicians around the country are looking at California as a litmus test for future legal challenges.

"U.S. citizens should have at least the same rights as undocumented immigrants," said one of the plaintiffs, Aaron Dallek, an Illinois native who graduated from UC Berkeley in 2006.

The California Supreme Court case revolves around a 2001 state law, known as AB 540, that permits the tuition breaks. Under the law, illegal immigrant students qualify for in-state rates if they attended a California high school for three years, graduated here and signed an affidavit saying they will apply for permanent residency as soon as they are eligible. The law has remained in effect during the legal challenge.

The undocumented students also have long-standing ties to California and have worked hard to make a better life for themselves and their families, often overcoming substantial obstacles, said Nicholas Espiritu, staff attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, also involved in the case.

"They have earned the right to be there," Espiritu said.

I wish I had known Brewer before he took the superintendent job. I would have advised him against seeking or taking it. The position is impossible. It is the perfect storm of parochial interests, petty politics, ethnic and racial animosities, white flight, poverty, immigration failures, outside interference, crushing bureaucracy, incompetent managers, overwhelming and unmanageable size and a school board of nebulous ability beholden to a maze of outsiders. It was a no-win for Brewer the day he started.

Today, the arts are everywhere, but the audience for them has dwindled, especially among younger people. A new Rand study concludes that schools must expand arts education to build a new audience, which raises the question: Is it the job of schools to create market demand for arts or any other endeavor?

Ever since public education became compulsory, its goal has shifted from producing literate citizens to well-rounded citizens (thus the focus on arts appreciation) to science-oriented, physically fit citizens and then to intellectually able thinkers. In this era of the globalization of employment, the overriding though officially unacknowledged goal is to produce workers who can compete for jobs. Necessary as this is, it often means the diminishment of the arts, physical education and other areas of instruction.

Our expectations for public education reflect our closely held values.

But if our society is placing less value on classical arts, is it proper for schools to try to change a cultural trend?

It has been a long time since our society has articulated a set of values for itself and its schools, beyond higher test scores and better-paying jobs.