With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". requirements. Plaintiffs formulation of her hybrid right would suggest that the combined rights of Free Speech and Free Exercise require that university students be allowed exemptions for religious reasons from certain degree requirements that offend their beliefs and yet still be permitted to obtain the same degree as other students who cannot avail themselves of the same exemptions. Such a constitutional mandate would undermine the ability of the academy to ensure that its graduates have the competency that their degrees represent. Courts facing nearly identical claims as the one confronting the court in this matter have come to the same conclusion. See, e.g., Kissinger v. Board of Trustees of the Ohio State Univ. College of Veterinary Med., 5 F.3d 177, 179-181 (6th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Mozert v. Hawkins Co. Bd. of Ed., 827 F.2d

A: holding that student could not be exempted on free exercise grounds from curricular requirement of performing surgery on live animals
B: holding that possession of marijuana is not protected by the free exercise clause of the first amendment
C: holding that claims based on grounds not objected to at trial cannot be considered on appeal
D: holding this court may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even if different from the district courts grounds
A.