BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 668
AUTHOR: Block
AMENDED: March 29, 2011
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 15, 2011
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Kathleen Chavira
SUBJECT : California State University examinations and
undue hardship.
SUMMARY
This bill defines what constitutes an "undue hardship" on
the California State University (CSU) for the purpose of
denying a request to reschedule a test or examination by a
student for whom the test time violates the student's
religious creed.
BACKGROUND
Current law requires the CSU, in administering any test or
examination, to provide an alternative testing time,
without penalty, for any student unable to take the
scheduled test due to a potential violation of the
student's religious creed.
The requirement to provide an alternative testing time does
not apply if administering the test or examination at
another time would impose an "undue hardship "on the CSU
that cannot reasonably be avoided.
In any court proceeding in which the existence of an undue
hardship that could not reasonably have been avoided is an
issue, the burden of proof rests upon the institution.
(Education Code § 89320)
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Clarifies what constitutes an "undue hardship" on the
CSU, for purposes of exemption from the requirement
AB 668
Page 2
that an alternate test be provided for a student if
the scheduled test time violates a student's religious
creed.
2) Defines an "undue hardship" as:
a) Creation of a substantial
financial burden for the institution to
administer the test at a different time.
b) Substantial disruption to the
institution's educational mission by
administering the test at a different location.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . Current law does not define what
constitutes an "undue hardship" for purposes of
denying a student's request to reschedule an exam/test
due to a violation of the student's religious creed.
As a professor and lawyer at San Diego State
University, the author observed a lack of definition
for the university and lack of guidance for students,
and contends that there were instances when a student
was denied accommodation and no reasonable
justification was given as to why the test could not
be given at an alternative time. This measure would
provide clarity to students, faculty and
administrators, as well as promote religious freedom.
2) Prior legislation . AB 24 (Block, 2009), among other
things, contained language regarding the religious
accommodation for testing at the CSU which was
identical to the language in this bill. Those
provisions were ultimately deleted from AB 24.
SUPPORT
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
OPPOSITION
None received.
AB 668
Page 3