This is a difficult story. At its face value, if we understand what actually happened, the University of Kentucky denied an appointment to an astronomer because he had Christian creationistic views. The University people were afraid he'd disseminate such views as if they were science or in contradiction to what accepted science says.
We personally do not think that a creationist belongs in a science department if his (or her) views preclude acceptance of the scientific approach to material problems. We would say such views make a person unqualified for the job. But that's the job as we see it. For example, s/he might be able to argue that this or that result or experiment failed because God intervened. Such post hoc explanations are totally unacceptable within science....but if God exists and can meddle in the world they would be perfectly legitimate (whether testable or not is a relevant question, however).
Is our objection to such an appointment reasonable, or is it just our version of tribalism--we want our view and only our view in our community? If we're honest, this is a difficult question. Of course, scientists as a rule are convinced that empirical rather than biblical methods are needed to understand the world, and more importantly that they provide a better understanding of the world.
But creationists, at least the sincere ones, don't agree. Whatever their reasons. Among other things, fundamentalists disagree as to what constitutes evidence (for example, many would say they have direct communication with God, which is beyond the kind of Enlightenment-derived empirical science but--to them--a legitimate kind of evidence or proof about reality). And in universities, especially public ones, which are supposed to be centers of learning, and if we believe in democracy, what right does one group have to take over the criteria of knowledge? After all, roughly half of Americans (and who knows what fraction of Kentuckians!?) do not accept evolution as the explanation for life.
Honest assessments make this a very problematic issue. Those of us in science don't want shallow, ideological loony tunes on academic faculties of which we are a part. But most voters may. This is a clash of belief systems and is very frustrating for both sides. Again, here, we're being generous and crediting the 'other side' with legitimately, honestly held views rather than just conveniently political tribal ones.
If we insist that we're right, then we don't really have a 'democratic' view of how things should be. It's a problem because, despite many failings and vanities in science, science really does seem (to us) clearly to be right when it comes to a comparison of theological literalism. But science, too, has a history of clinging tightly to wrong ideas! Ask Galileo what he thought of Aristotle's cosmology!
Can a publicly supported university refuse admission to a student, say for graduate work, who is a fundamentalist? S/he could perhaps properly be informed of the minimal likelihood of forming a PhD committee or something like that, if it's the case. But admission?
These are difficult, serious, legitimate questions. Anthropologically, they can be understood in terms of how culture works. Politically and legally, within our own culture, the issues are less clear. But we should think about them.