I still havent’ been able to find a copy of the University of California’s response brief or their motion to dismiss the ACSI lawsuit, but the ACSI has made the original complaint and their response brief to the motion to dismiss available on their website. I haven’t had a chance to go over the reply brief in any detail, but one of their arguments near the beginning jumped out at me. They’re arguing “viewpoint discrimination” not merely because the UC has rejected certain courses, but even because of their requirement that the student have taken a certain number of credit courses during high school:
The “a-g” course requirements (¶23) essentially involve 15 full-year courses in high school (UC strongly recommends 18) out of the 25 full-year courses that constitute a normal high school load. Christian schools such as plaintiff Calvary require 4 years of religion courses, in addition, so only 3-6 course slots remain available for the total of nonapproved courses, physical education, health, and nonqualifying electives. This main approach to admission is being closed for Christian schools by viewpoint discrimination.
This argument strikes me as weak. There are only two remedies, both of them quite absurd: either the court has to order the UC to lower the number of required credit courses to 11 (meaning anyone could get in even if less than half of their high school time was spent in academic courses), or they have to order the UC to give an exception to students from schools that require extraneous courses and thus reduce the time available for academic courses. No court is going to do that, nor should they.