of State educational institutions. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized this to be the case when it recently noted: “when judges are asked to review the substance of a genuinely academic decision, ... they should show great respect for the faculty’s professional judgment.” Gossett v. Oklahoma ex rel. Bd. of Regents for Langston, Univ., 245 F.3d 1172, 1181 (10th Cir.2001) quoting Ewing, 474 U.S. at 225, 106 S.Ct. 507. This is the case because University’s are licensing institutions. They of necessity determine the competency necessary for obtaining accreditation from their own degree programs. Given this, there is more than a reasonable relationship between ATP’s purpose of assuring that its graduates are competent to take on challenging roles, and the ATP’s c (6th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1066, 108 S.Ct. 1029,
holding that transfer rule denying eligibility to students transferring from public to private schools did not violate the students rights to due process or equal protection of the laws as provided by the fourteenth amendment holding that students could not be exempted from general reading requirements because of parents religious objections to schools reading curriculum holding that the unilateral placement of a student by the parents in an unapproved school is not by itself a bar to tuition reimbursement but public schools may not place students in unapproved schools holding that schools have no duty under the due process clause to protect students from assaults by other students even where the school knew or should have known of the danger presented holding prospective jurors may not be excused from jury service in a capital case because based on religious beliefs they voice general objections to the death penalty