Mike the Usurper wrote:

On Dec. 12, the Federal District Court in Los Angeles will hear a lawsuit filed by a consortium of Christian high schools against the University of California system for refusing to credit some of their courses when their students apply for admission.

And if I were a university, I wouldn't count a course that said Thomas Jefferson was the anti-christ as something worthwhile either.

The Jefferson quote is over the top, but I don't see this quoted content as being grounds to refuse credit. You may be required to understand Thomas Jefferson in order to get into college, but you should not be required to like him. In order to refuse these students the State must establish that they do not gain the basic knowledge needed in order to comprehend college level material from these classes. If that is the case it will take a lot more then a few quotes to demonstrate it.

U: I did some more digging. This quotation sounds like the UC system might have some reasonable objections:

For example, a course titled "Christianity and Morality in American Literature" was rejected because it used an anthology as its only textbook — whereas UC requires that students read assigned works in their entirety; anthologies may not be the only required texts in literature courses.

On the other hand, the complaint includes some troubling statements which seem to indicate that UC has a problem with the perspective of the content rather then the content itself:

As a result of the orientation/approach of the texts in question, which expressly prioritize religion over science, a course relying on these texts as core instructional materials does not meet the faculty’s criteria for the UC subject “d” laboratory science requirement.

IMHO, denying a student entrance into public colleges soley because you don't agree with the religious point of view of the content they learned in private high school classes is precisely equivelent to requiring public high school classes to be taught from a religious point of view. It attempts to use the power of the state to force other people to accept a perspective on religion. That is an affront to the First Amendment.

RE: Here's the Problem With Emily Dickinson - New York Times