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
Hear! Hear!
Jay, I simply posed the question. The better question you raised is whether it is child abuse to utterly fail to prepare your kids for life in the secular world? I can see both sides here, but without doubt teaching science is a legitimate government interest, and teaching individual and of course, mutually exclusive religion, belongs to the churches. They bear the blame of dogmatism and purposeful ignorance, not the believer who is simply trying to do what he thinks (and is taught under penalty of hell fire and damnation)is right.
“When first we practice to deceive”
“Oh, the tangled web we weave…”
“Since when do we go to school to learn things that we agree with or are agreeable to us? We don’t have a right, in the public square, to be free from that which offends our religious sensibilities.”
Except teacher-sanctioned prayer?
“My question is do parents have the right to indoctrinate their children with myth and fairy tales?”
Now who’s being led by their ideology? You should be well aware of the parental rights under the Constitution. Whether we like it or not, parents are responsible for their children in every aspect until proven unfit. Unless you are taking it upon yourself to expand the definition of unfit parenting to include Creationist parents, I guess we’ll just have let parents be parents.
Evidently, government “coercion” of school children is okay when it suits your ideology?
Truely.
We gave Jay glory (and a large benefit of the doubt) now we take it away.. Sic Transit Gloria!
As to teaching Evolution Theory as fact and “alternative lifestyles” etc. Since when do we go to school to learn things that we agree with or are agreeable to us? We don’t have a right, in the public square, to be free from that which offends our religious sensibilities.
Let parents home school their children and teach them any world view they please. But in the public schools, lets teach science.
Deeply,
I do find it amusing. Well, reflected glory is better than none at all
Deeply,
I love this Judith Hayes quote: “If we are going to teach creation science as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction.”
I know! But at least he wasn’t speaking in his official capacity!
Do you find it interesting that “Jay” has neither confirmed nor denied?
Evolution is a theory: kind of like gravity!
Deeply,
What was shocking is that it was a quote from the article!
Jay,
You must be kidding. Do you really believe that evolution is not a time tested, verifiable, and scientifically accurate explanation for the origins of life on the planet. It is not a “theory” in the sense that it is merely states a possibility. In science, theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. There is no hierarchy between facts and theories with facts being higher. The facts are data and the theory explains the data through verifiable and repeatable experimentation. At it’s core evolution is both fact and theory. Even the Catholic Church admits that after centuries of butting heads with the evidence. If you’re asking me if people have a right to be stupid, I would have to say yes but why would they want to be? My question is do parents have the right to indoctrinate their children with myth and fairy tales?
For all you know, they have!! Just not in public! But everyone wears two or three hats, lawyers more than most. I put my religion hat away when reporting to the office….
Deeply,
Now you’ve got me deeply worried. Imagine someone in the Virginia AG’s office saying “my resume is God’s instrument.”
Jay, I have no idea how that applies here since the thrust of the comment was the problem with two masters, but I’ll play along. I am glad to hear that Regent grads work for free! You really do have a sense of humor.
Mespo and Jay, Ignore this interruption and continue your colloquoy;
for those interested in Regents Law Schools rise to prominence:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/06/AR2007040601799.html
I believe that even the most fair minded of us think there was a greased skid operating in favor of the Law School’s graduates.
Imagine a Democratic administration with say, 150 NLG lawyers working for it!!!
“In essence, the conflicting allegiances are forcing them to choose between God and mammon.”
Thank you for establishing that most attorneys are only intersted in serving money!
(And to think someone said I have no sense of humor 🙂
@ Virginia Attorney
About teacher sanctioned prayer in public school: “the risk of government coercion is clearly present against non-believing high school students.”
I’m just curious what other risks of government coercion you are concerned about? Teaching Evolutionary Theory as a fact? Teaching “safe” sex? Teaching alternative lifestyles?
What about all the “non-believing” students who don’t want to hear about all that stuff from their teachers?
Jay, You’ve got knack for appropriating my words but with somewhat skewed meanings and examples. To quote your favorite author, you can’t serve both God and mammon. If you are telling me that Regent produces some moral and diverse people, I agree. The problem is that this was not your initial assertion. You said it was an excellent law school and I just showed you why, from a structural standpoint, it cannot be. If a client’s interests are directly contrary to the tenets of the brand of Christian faith advocated by Pat Robertson, how can any one of Regent’s graduates represent that client? The school has handicapped them with that inane mission statement which I cited in an earlier post. In essence, the conflicting allegiances are forcing them to choose between God and mammon.