One of the many reasons that pro-science people will give against teaching Intelligent Design and other pseudo-science, is that giving students a warped version of science does not adequately prepare them for college. As such, it's possible in some cases that colleges may refuse to admit students who aren't adequately prepared.
Just as was predicted, just such a scenario came true last year in the California system of universities. Unfortunately, those with wasted educations have decided that it's not their fault they haven't met the minimum qualifications, but that *GASP* it's religious discrimination. As such, they did what any good American would do and filed a lawsuit. After reviewing the case, a federal judge has decided to let it go forward.
The lawsuit alleges that the UC system is somehow abridging their right to free speech by not accepting it as magically valid and academically sound. The judge said that the plaintiffs showed that they had evidence that they had been forced to choose between teaching courses that met the qualifications and ones preaching their religion.
Perhaps I'm a bit confused, but if they knew full well what the minimum requirements were, and then intentionally sidestepped them to teach religion, how on Earth did they expect to be taken seriously for admissions? Can I make up a crackpot theory that doesn't meet the fundamental level of understanding and claim that my free speech is being stifled if I don't get accepted?
Furthermore, how is it oppressing free speech to require that such things be taught for admission. It doesn't prohibit the school from teaching their religious views as well.
The lawsuit seeks to force the school to accept and endorse science classes that don't include science and instead promote Christian ideology. Should they win, I forsee another lawsuit on first ammendment grounds arguing that the endorsement of such religious classes violates the seperation of church and state.
Meanwhile, the school maintains that it must "be able to reject high school courses that do not meet its standards or that provide more religious than academic content."
Sounds reasonable to me.