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
Vincent,
I don’t disagree that anyone with a deep-seated agenda, bias, hatred or prejudice (liberal or conservative) can most certainly be an ineffective assistance of counsel in a given case when it blinds proper analysis of justice and the law. Every generation of lawyers faces this problem.
But the problem with Virginia Attorney’s claims, which I’ve continually pointed out, is that simply labling someone and dismissing them out of hand is poor evidence of anything. Virgina Attorney’s opinion of Pat Robertson or Regent University does not make it so. He (or she) would have us believe that anyone associated with that institution must have been brainwashed in some kind of sinister “ideology.” Yet Regent has an extremely diverse student body of strong, independent-minded law students and alumni, and the facts simply do not support Virginia Attorney’s claims.
Regent Law appears to exists to confront the negative stereotypes that plague Virginia Attorney’s profession, not to add to it. And nobody is perfect. But Regent Law’s Christian mission and perspective undoubtedly works to provide a greater sense of moral duty and higher personal and professional standards beyond the bear minimum requirements of the attorney Code of Professional Ethics.
Because that’s what every client wants, right? An attorney that upholds the bear minimum of professional ethics?
Amen to that.
Deeply,
My thoughts exactly. Sekulow knows it’s a game of wits and circumstances and that no one wins or loses all the time.
Deeply,
Scary!
No, I came to the same conclusion reading all his posts just now. For one thing JS has a sense of humor and I didn’t see any of it above!
Hi Mespo,
As you were posting your response, I was finishing mine. Talk about synchronicity.
Deeply,
That’s not Jay Sekulow. I am sure he knows better.
VC: Undoubtedly, Jesus was a liberal. Anyone who castigated the religious orthodoxy of the time as hypocrites, drove the pay-day lenders from the temple, and who actually lived among, felt compassion for, and advocated on behalf of, the poor and wretched would find it tough sledding to finagle an invitation to a Bush-Cheney rally. I don’t feel sorry for him though, he’s got friends and family in higher places than Kennebunkport.
Jay,
You’re citing an example that falls (for a change) within my very limited area of expertise.
Can you give me more details: what city, community center, etc. Is the case under litigation? If so, where is it? Was it the Woodside case and are you Jay Sekulow!?!
A distinct honor for all of us here if so. JS is a very good advocate and I have the highest respect for him.
But to answer your question. Of course they could trust such a lawyer in exactly such a situation! If you are JS, you know that!
To those not in this conversation: Jay Sekulow is a prominent not to mention pre-eminent advocate working for the ACLJ and is a familiar face to the ACLU in separation cases. He is a graduate of Mercer and has an advanced degree from Regents. He is very well respected by all sides and a very nice guy.
Jay: I just complimented you and you go and get all goo-goo eyed again. If you’re going to use an example, how about one that actually comports with the law. In your scenario, the citizen is clearly involved in a personal choice to pray and teach the Bible to interested persons albeit in a public building. Unlike my scenario, in which a public right to education is involved, and where the risk of government coercion is clearly present against non-believing high school students. Since the prayer and the class are not officially sanctioned by the town, no establishment clause issue is involved, and the only issue is the first amendment/equal access rights of the citizen. If the town allows other groups to use the facilities, the case would likely fall under the rule in Board of Education v. Mergens, 496 US 226 (1990) in which the secular US Supreme Court (that you neo-cons love to hate), specifically ruled that the denial of a religious club’s right to meet after instructional hours in a public school violated the Equal Access Act when other such groups were permitted to do so. I can tell you that any lawyer familiar with this area of the law would take the case you describe and likely win. In fact, if the scenario is true let me know, I’ll take it. As an aside, Jay Sekulow argued and won the Mergens case and guess what–he has a degree from Regent. Unfortunately, the degree is a PhD in history. His law degree is from Mercer University. I wonder if he could have argued the other side of the case?
Jay: With all due respect – a liberal, as Jesus is purported to be, would be the only choice for me. If one wants to protect religious freedoms, or to avoid zealots forcing religious dogma down one’s throat, liberals whether of a Republican or Democratic pedigree would be the only potential choice for a simpleton as me.
Equally, if that person were a Muslim, I think the same choice would apply. However in this discussion of pure conjecture among strawmen – if that man were to be a Muslim and the State provided him with legal representation that happened be a declared neo-conservative, perhaps Pat Robertson for instance, the founder of Regent, also the same person that publicly recommended that the assassination of Hugo Chavez wouldn’t be such a bad thing, I fear that Muslim would find his respectable derrière seeking an appeal. No?
The liberal law school crowd clearly elevates its extremely leftist ideology over its teaching mission resulting in a disservice to its students and the clients they will one day serve.
Another simple example: Citizen D, an elderly person, seeks to pray a blessing over his meal delivered to the local Civic Community Senior Center where he also leads a short Bible study a few days a week for anyone interested. The City officials concerned about “separation of church and state” forbid all seniors from any prayer or Bible study in the Community Center and threaten to stop delivering their meals in clear violation of federal and state law and of their Constituional rights. Could a liberal law school graduate effectively represent the interests of that citizen? Could anyone trust one of their lawyers given the school’s strict-separationist or anti-religion bias?
Susan: Don’t ever be dis-spirited. Change doesn’t come with an election or a new president or a slogan. It starts inside the citizenry as a whole. Remember Bush’s strong approval ratings after 9-11 and the media’s free pass to allow him to push his agenda through. Somewhere along the line, people like you and I decided he crossed the line and began to doubt. That doubt found champions like Olbermann, Hegel, Murtha, Feingold, Abrams (father & son), Natale Maines, and Turley and countless others from all walks of life who knew down deep something was desperately wrong. No candidate or speech did it for us–we did it. Now Bush is at 18% approval, is a lame duck, and apparently can’t get the National Anthem through the Congress. We should all be every proud that we live in a country where the public’s opinion matters, and society can change. That is not the norm. The reason I like my job is that, in my own very small way, I get to be on the edge of that social change. I like to think Professor Turley feels the same way. That’s why I so enjoy this blog. I am very happy you decided to be more involved with the law and learn about it. As I tell high schoolers, from the moment you get up until you lay your head on the pillow at night, the law is there to protect you in ways you cannot even imagine. It is really fascinating how we have developed this intricate system that we lawyers call the “seamless web.” Be ecstatic — there never was a better time to be alive!
Mespo, your reply is very comforting and very appreciated, especially to those of us not in the profession of law. Over the past couple of years, I have taken a far greater interest in the mechanics of law and criminal justice as a whole by reading a great deal more about both than I did before. Only recently have I found my way here, and thanks to JT’s hard work and researching, I’ve learned even more. What I have learned, however, is both disturbing and alarming, and what’s even worse, the majority of citizens would prefer NOT to know about these alarming trends, and just “hope for the best.” I confess to being formerly guilty of this kind of apathy myself, but no longer.
Of course, we exercise our right to vote, and I vote in every election. But when the officials we elected in November 2006, whom we counted on to correct some of these terrible wrongs, have also refused to do what we wanted them to do, what do we do next? And will the next election in 2008 really change anything, or simply bring more of the same, if not even worse? We have too many serious questions and problems, and not nearly enough answers or positive solutions. Sorry for sounding so gloomy today, but at times I find it very hard to be optimistic.
Susan: You have every right to expect that your lawyer will further your interests and not his own ideology at your expense. That is rule one of the profession, some recent and not so recent scandals not withstanding. The problem is that you have no way of knowing who has the hidden agenda. I am positive that Goodling didn’t put her religious/conservative mission on her resume. So how’s the average citizen to know? That’s why I am so adamantly opposed to these ideologues. They get to reek havoc with the immense powers we lawyers enjoy, and most clients will never know the difference. How would we have known about Goodling (ostensibly our lawyer) unless another lawyer, David Iglesias, came along. Iglesias, a conservative republican who put his duties to the profession above his own ideology, is the real hero here and not Goodling. And finally, please don’t deprecate your role as the “average citizen.” We are supposed to be hear for you not the other way around. Sometimes we forget that, but there would be no need for us if there was no you.
I know I’m just a lowly non-lawyered average citizen here, but I agree with Mespo that America needs more independent lawyers with no clear ties to religious ideologies than Evangelical lawyers with an obvious religious bias. Obviously, both types of attorneys have the same right to practice law, but if I ever needed an attorney for any reason, I’d seek the services of the independent lawyer who zealously advocates for his/her client. Just my preference. 🙂
Deeply: No about two hours east of there, but that is a fine law school. My beef with Regent is the same as my beef with any institution that loses sight of its mission. We don’t need more Evangelical Christian lawyers just like we don’t need more Baptist, Hindu, or Catholic lawyers. We need more independent lawyers willing to use the law to represent their clients zealously and thereby to benefit the society as a whole without the baggage of personal ideology. Nazi Germany had lawyers as did Stalinist Russia and many other totalitarian regimes. The common thread among those lawyers was adherence to a zealous ideology coupled with the philosophy that the law serves that ideology and is, in essence, a mask for that power. That is the antithesis of our tradition.
The Regent crowd elevates its Christian mission over its teaching mission resulting in a disservice to its students and the clients they will one day serve. A simple example: Citizen B seeks to enjoin a public high school from officially sanctioned Christian prayer before class in a clear violation of federal and state law. Could a Regent graduate effectively represent the interests of that citizen? Could anyone trust one of their lawyers given the school’s Christian bias and stated mission to “bring to bear the will of our Creator, Almighty God, upon legal education and the legal profession?”
Finally, I appreciate the kind words from VC, and deeply and even Jay. These discussions are more than just college bull sessions. They allow one to test and explore deeply held positions in the face of sometimes withering fire from a worthy adversary. That beats watching American Idol any day!
Can I step in for a moment too?
My two cents: Regents seems a partisan ideological law school. No doubt about it. But that is no great sin, since many many such schools existed on the liberal end of the spectrum. Turn about is fair play I guess.
Regents is not yet in the first tier, it is young but has a good faculty, and it may get there eventually. Nihil Obstat.
I don’t like the fact that Regent’s products seem like cookie cutter ideologues with fast tracks in the conservative legal world. But again similar pathways and uniformities have existed for decades on the left so I can’t really complain.
Mespo, by any chance did you go to Washington & Lee? I know its unlikely but I have to ask….
Gents:
It has been my pleasure to follow this discussion from the beginning. You both give me hope for America. It is easy to find merit in either argument. And while there are ad hominem elements to both positions, your argument has been most enjoyable for a number of reasons, not least of which, is that you have both respected each other, and respected this very nice hang out that JT has generously provided.
I’m not even going to interfere more than I have by weighing in with my opinions. I just wanted to commend you for defending your strong opinions, yet limiting yourselves to some sarcasm and one or two over the bow.
Very hopeful indeed – thanks.
Sorry, I don’t fault people or private institutions for taking advantage of their Constitutional rights and privileges in either case. Regardless, Ms. Goodling still risked her career and reputation in exchange for her truthful testimony. She could have lied and protected the establishment. But she didn’t. And D.C. is better for it.