Law Student Adam Key, 23, is learning the practical elements of a first amendment case from his school, Regent University — though not under the usual clinical conditions. He is suing the University after he claims it violated his right to free speech last November in suspending for posting an unflattering picture of Pat Robertson on the Internet. Ironically, his case was heard by a judge who knows something about suspensions and discipline. Judge Samuel Kent, who was disciplined for misconduct himself and has been suspended from hearing criminal cases. He is believed to still be under criminal investigation for sexual assault and other crimes — and could face impeachment with another Fifth Circuit judge (click here).
Key alleges that Regent recruited him with a false promise of a standard legal education, including a community that valued free speech. (For full disclosure, I once gave a speech at Regents on free exercise of religion, free association, and other constitutional rights). He was given a full scholarship. He has added Robertson as a defendant. In his lawsuit, he wants to clean his disciplinary record from Regent, recover fees he paid for his unfinished third semester at the law school, and damages for embarrassment as well as emotional pain and suffering. He is now completing an interdisciplinary studies master’s degree at Stephen F. Austin State University and intends to enroll this fall as a second-year student at the University of Houston Law Center.
Key insists that he merely posted a picture as a joke after Robertson called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. Key changed a picture of Robertson to show an obscene gesture. Wen he was threatened with discipline by school officials, he took the picture down. He later added the picture to a condemnation of the school’s free speech and obscenity policies. Kent will now decide these initials question, despite his own precarious status, click here
While Key has legitimate objections to how Regents responded to his posting, his complaint is a long shot. Such challenges rarely succeed. It is not fraud, even if the school is wrong in how it reacted to the posting. He stands a better shot in objecting to the ABA over the accreditation of the law school, but even that is unlikely to result in serious action. Putting aside the legal merits, Regents has always struggled with its two missions — at least in the view of outsiders. It has a talented faculty and student body. However, it risks the image of a cult of personality when its students cannot exercise first amendment rights in the criticism of the Administration. Robertson’s statement regarding Chavez was bizarre and legitimately subject to scorn. Key was a bit juvenile in his chosen criticism but there is no question that it was an exercise of free speech. Notably, it was Robertson’s counterpart in the religious movement, Jerry Falwell, who helped establish the protection of parody before the Supreme Court in a case against Hustler magazine. (Click here).
Of course, Regents is not a state actor. However, as a legal educational institution, it must do more than teach first amendment values. It must also show a modicum of restraint in allowing such speech within its own community.
For the full story, click here
Jay: You are hopeless, but, lest anyone actually believe your drivel, that “she [Ms. Goodling] actually owned up to her actions in her testimony,” we should all remember that her ethical epiphany occurred only after a grant of immunity. (See Washington {Post, May 11, 2007 article) Before that, she flatly refused to testify or even speak to investigators citing her 5th Amendment privilege. How mafioso! Not quite the Joan of Arc you make her out to be, but about the ethics one would expect given her training. By the way, the scenario you described about my law school days actually did happen, but, my oh my, no one ever considered suspending the student and that was also at another religious and private law school. I guess it was because we actually had to read our copy of the Constitution.
More personal attacks… Another leap in logic for the mysterious Virgnia Attorney…
I’m sure no one from your esteemed law school ever did anything professionally unethical or might have even… perish the thought… been disbarred! *GASP*
Once again, your conclusions about Ms. Goodling do not diminish the quality of the institution itself. And while we’re on the subject, thanks to Ms. Goodling’s character, she actually owned up to her actions in her testimony and exposed the real problem in the DOJ — Gonzales. That’s actually refreshing. That’s actually a good thing. This world needs lots more attorneys like that who will risk their careers because it’s the right thing to do or because it’s in the interest of justice!!! Everyone else? Just trying to save their own hides.
By the way, you practically imply that the only crooks in D.C. come from Regent. You can’t be serious!?
Once again, you hold Regent to the standard of perfection which your own school is not held to.
Finally, just pretend there was internet 25 years ago. Now go back in time to your law school days, accept a full ride scholarship, agree to that institution’s polices, then turn around, post a crude picture of your Dean or Chancellor online accessible to all the world and then you’ll find out whether your institution congratulates you for your so-called right to free speech!
Give me a break.
Hey Jay! The numbers still don’t lie, and you failed to mention the most famous Regent Law graduate of all, who epitomizes and personifies my feelings about the school and its “mission” — why none other than the disgraced, ideologue Monica Goodling. You remember her, she’s the one who made mincemeat of the law she was sworn to protect and handicapped the DOJ with her ilk for a generation. Apparently, oaths don’t mean much at old Pat Robertson U. Funny how that one skipped your mind! As Bill Maher noted (and you conveniently posted on your own gushing website), I wonder why she didn’t rush right back to Regent to find her lawyer when she got caught violating the law. No, she got a lawyer from a respected law school. Unlike you, I trust more in what people do rather than in what they say–and,of course, Monica Goodling has made my case for me. And finally, as for asking law school students about the place, let’s start with the subject of this article, Adam Key. On second thought, don’t go to law school, you’re immune from reason. I suggest you apply for a position on the Republican National Committee-your talents are better suited for their “work.”
The only sentimentalism and wishful thinking in this entire discussion is yours — the idea that Pat Robertson (Yale Law Alumn) can’t possibly have a “legitimate” law school.
Well, you’re wrong.
Regent Law grads know your wrong. Just ask alumni such as the current Virginia Attorney General and alumni working at (and making partner in) private practice firms in Virginia such as Williams, Mullen, Clark & Dobbins; Hunton & Williams; Huff, Poole & Mahoney; Kaufman & Canoles; Vandeventer Black; and other fine firms across the nation.
The ABA knows you’re wrong. Regent Law teams have gone head to head in several national competitions and done very well. They won the 2006 ABA National Moot Court Competition in Chicago, IL. They won the 2007 ABA National Negotiations Cometition in Miami, FL that Harvard Law won the year before. Regent Law students have won numerous best brief awards throughout the years.
Regent Law Professors know you’re wrong. (Many of them earned their Juris Doctors from other fine, top tier law schools.)
You continue to decry some “ideology” that the school espouses. You’d have to ask the law students about that one. I suppose you could ask any liberal, or conservative, or libertarian, or Democrat, or Republican, or Independent, or Protestant, or Catholic, or Mormon, or Christian, or atheist, or single, or married, or male, or female student that goes there.
Regent Law might be young, but it is hardly illegitimate. Regent is an excellent young law school that continues to build on its successes.
So you don’t like Pat Robertson? Lots of people don’t. However, your conclusions about him and his role in the founding of Regent University does not diminish the quality of the institution itself, especially the law school.
Sorry Jaybo, you don’t get to put words into my mouth. I said ideology over reason is Regent’s problem, not religion. I won’t for a moment concede that anything done by Pat Robertson and his gang of robber barons has anything to do with religion. He just found a time-honored way to make money by bilking the religious and that is truly his and their ideology. That’s why it’s so insidious. Like you, he uses religion like a bludgeon, and then, when others object, he plays the victim to goad the faithful into supporting his “righteous” fight against the non-believers. It’s pathetic. Notice, I never criticized other religious institutions who sponsor legitimate law schools, just the neo-con thugs who run this one. Why don’t you go to law school? You’ll see it teaches the mind to decide issues on verifiable evidence instead of sentimentalism and wishful thinking–two modes of thinking which you have obviously mastered.
“[Regent Law] refuses to value reason over ideology.” Faith & Religion = Dark Ages. Got it. Thanks again anonymous attorney.
Jay: “Good thing you posted anonymously.” ??? My, my your neo-con fangs are peeking out from behind your Jesus mask. I think Samuel Johnson’s observation on scoundrels needs a face lift. It is truly religion that is their last refuge in the modern age.
Listen, the Regent article clearly states that the stats reflect February bar results. The stats you point to, evidently do not. But you obviously hold Regent to a different standard than other law schools anyway. And I would regret most of the spiteful things you said if I were you as well. But there they are. Good thing you posted anonymously.
Have a good night Virginia Lawyer mespo727272.
“…Regent is a lying, biased, second-rate law school, that is destroying the profession and that doesn’t deserve the same right as other law schools to publish favorable information simply because of their Christian world view.” Those are your words not mine. I would say neo-conservatism world view masquerading as Christian world view. But except for the Christian victim card which I never said, you’ve got it about right. By the way, the UR stats exactly match those on the Internet Legal Research Group website. Wonder why Regent’s don’t match? Oh I know, see first sentence. Nice of you to hit and run.
“Regent spin.” “Cherry-picked stats.”
There you go again…
How’s this for “cherry-picked” from Richmond U’s website:
“The statewide rate for first-timers who received their degrees from ABA-accredited law schools was 77 percent, while Richmond’s rate was 86.4 percent.”
(Gee, that language sounds familiar.) How about this beauty:
“The first-time pass rate for the top three-quarters of the graduating class was 97.4 percent. Of the 78 students who graduated in the top 75 percent of their class, all but two passed the exam.”
I don’t fault Richmond U for that! Any law school will frame the bar stats to reflect a positive image. But I guess, according to you, Regent is a lying, biased, second-rate law school, that is destroying the profession and that doesn’t deserve the same right as other law schools to publish favorable information simply because of their Christian world view. Is that what your saying?
One can only imagine the depth of scorn and other derogatory insinuations with which you might have pounced upon Regent Law had that institution dared to put forth favorable stats ignoring the entire bottom 25% of their class!
I’m afraid we’ll have to chat again another time.
Take care.
Jay: Thank you for reading us the Regent spin. For the truth, see the Internet Legal Research Group website which is impartial. You again fail to mention that your crowd is still substantially below the 74% overall rate which I verified today with the State Board of Bar Examiners. The other Virginia Law Schools typically pass between 85-95% of their graduates, so Regent is still dead last. Glad you took to attempting some “research” instead of just shooting your mouth off, but the bottom line is that if three University of Richmond Law professors didn’t go over to Regent and drag them kicking and screaming into the 21st Century with their Bar review course, your guys would still be in the mid 50’s. Why don’t you tell us how many left-handed, polo wearing, first time bar takers from Regent passed the Bar. That would give us about the same information as the cherry-picked stats that the Regent Remark gives us. Find me an impartial source and I’ll at least believe they finally made the grade up to “average.” And as we know, everybody wants an “average” lawyer. Give me a break about the “shock” and quit playing the hurt feelings card. You said it was an excellent law school and I just proved it isn’t even close. I did so because your contention is a disservice to all the ones that are indeed excellent. Sometimes the truth is cold and hard.
Virginia Lawyer, thanks for keeping me honest. I would never intentionally mislead anyone on this issue, and I have worked to locate and to provide the basis of my factual statements and personal opinion.
Accordingly, the Spring/Summer 2007 Regent Remark had this to say:
“This past February, Regent Law first time Virginia
Bar takers continued to excel as they received a
83.3% bar passage rate for the state of Virginia.
Regent first time bar takers exceeded the 64.07%
state examination passage rate for all first time
takers and the 66.31% for all first time takers
who received a J.D. from an ABA accredited law
school. The achievement of these Regent Law
graduates is a further testament to the success [of]
programs and policies implemented by the law
school back in 2000 to increase its bar passage
success.”
So, evidently I was indeed off by 1.7% and I hereby clarify that these statistics reflect FIRST TIME TAKER RESULTS of the Virginia Bar Exam. Of course, I am satisfied that this outstanding accomplishment is praiseworthy of such a young law school! Love them or hate them, Regent Law is an excellent law school which is growing an excellent reputation and they are here to stay.
Would you discount Brigham Young Law (Mormon), Notre Dame Law (Catholic), Cardozo Law (Jewish), or any other school simply because they affliate themselves with religious entities or systems of belief or particular faiths? Are their lawyers all second rate, inferior ideologues that are betraying the profession also? I suggest that it is absolutely disingenuous to discount an institution such as Regent Law simply because they value the Christian faith.
And I, for one, am shocked at the level of contempt in your words to discredit Regent University and to paint those folks as you have.
Jay: By the way, 2007 results are out. Regent’s back down to a 61% passage rate (with a minus 13% differential from the norm of 74%), again contrary to your previous assertion that it’s “above the 70% average of all law schools in Virginia.” Same web site as previously cited. Are your pants on fire yet?
Jay: The 85% refers to neither. It’s propaganda made from whole cloth and referenced nowhere. The problem for you is that you will disregard and cloud the truth to prove your point and that makes you what you accuse others of being– either a liar or a dupe. Neither is particularly attractive, regardless of your “profession.”
I must be an “ideologue” now? Please. So much for professionalism. Let’s just focus on the issue at hand. It’s been awhile, but the 85% refers to either their national pass rate or their pass rate among Virginia takers.
“Regent brings down the average for everyone else.”
EVERYONE else? My, you certainly are full of yourself (and your law school). You must think that comparing well established law schools, i.e. maybe even the one where Thomas Jefferson himself taught in Virginia, is somehow fairly compared to other relatively new law schools. They all start somewhere, and they can compete with the best of them including yours.
The problem with your profession is self-absorbed attorneys like yourself.
Jay: As an UPDATE, I checked the 2006 pass rate for the Virginia bar by Regent Law School graduates on the Internet Legal Research Group website which is otherwise accurate and the pass rate was 67.5% not 85% as you stated. (That’s about the degree of legal precision I expected from an ideologue.) Sixty seven percent is certainly better, but still below the 74% overall pass rate which of course is slightly skewed since Regent brings down the average for everyone else. Face it, it’s second rate by any standard because it refuses to value reason over ideology and it shows.
Jay: The problem is that the lawyers now practicing are in that crowd and many are ideologues like you, which ,of course, is a betrayal of the profession. By the way, those are two year old stats which are the best available since the 2008 Bar results haven’t been reported yet. Regent doesn’t publish its passage rates on the web site for 2007 by the way. I checked with the Board of Bar Examiners and they don’t have your figure either. So I am just wondering how you know. The five year average is 54.6% though. These facts really are pesky aren’t they? There is no grudge just because I graduated from another Virginia law school, I just know the facts and have had years of observation. I wouldn’t want the rest of the Country getting any wrong ideas.
Thanks for the 3 year old stats Virginia Lawyer. I guess you have a grudge too.
Facts:
—Regent Law’s admission standards continue to rise every year.
—Regent Law’s bar passage rate is currently above the 70% average of all law schools in Virginia. (UPDATE: 2006 Regent pass rate 85%)
—Many Regent Law professors hail from top-tier law schools including Yale, Harvard, Chicago, Virginia, Georgetown, etc. and several have held full partnership positions in prestigious law firms.
More @ http://oldfordroad.wordpress.com/2007/04/28/bill-maher-blasts-regent-law-school/
Virginia bar pass rates for all applicants
in the state of Virginia*:
2005 – 74%%
2004 – 72%
2002 – 73%
2001 – 73%
Reegent Law School pass rates
for Virginia Bar:
2005 — 61%
2004 — 53%
2003 — 48%
2002 — 44%
1995 to 2000 numbers were abysmal and were habitually last in the Commonwealth.
Any questions?
— A Virginia Lawyer for 24 years
“A modicum of restraint?”
The fact that Regent Law recruited him at all speaks volumes to Regent’s desire to maintain diversity among the student body and to have diversity of ideas and to promote free speech. No one stopped Mr. Keys from doing what he did. But the right to free speech does not equal the right to be free from any resulting consequences.
Mr. Keys decided to bite the hand that fed him in a very personal and offensive way. He accepted a full ride scholarship and then turned against the institution and ignored its policies despite agreeing to follow them. So who really made false promises?
Regent Law is an excellent law school. Mr. Keys is simply an ingrate. I’ve highlited some recent accomplishments at this link: http://oldfordroad.wordpress.com/2007/04/28/bill-maher-blasts-regent-law-school/