David Lat: In terms of coverage of the controversy, what facts or themes do you think have been overlooked?
Adam Key: A lot of people have missed the point about my First Amendment argument. I realize that Regent is not a state actor and I never tried to imply that it was. My First Amendment argument rests on ABA Standard of Accreditation 211(c), which states that religious law schools are permitted to enact policies “only to the extent that these policies are protected by the U.S. Constitution” and that they must be “administered as though the First Amendment of the United States Constitution governs its application.” Regent, as an ABA school, agreed to this policy and thus cannot enforce anything that infringes on the free speech rights of students.
The interview goes on to report that Mr. Key claims that he is filing a complaint with the ABA. If his answer is accurate (I have not researched it) then he might have a point.
David Lat: Okay, let me play devil’s advocate. It’s no secret that Regent is conservative, founded by Pat Robertson, etc. Why did you decide to go there, when there are so many other law schools?
Adam Key: I decided to go to Regent because, at the time I applied to law school in late 2005, it was the only ABA accredited Christian law school. Others schools like Pepperdine (which I also got into) and Baylor have religious affiliations, but are not “Christian law schools,” per se. I didn’t go there because of Pat Robertson, I went there because I wanted a legal education balanced with a Christian perspective. Instead, I’m getting an education in how evil so-called Christians can be to those who are different from them.
Earlier Posts on this Story