LawandOrder wrote:So what if he is homophobic and opposes legal rights for gays? That is his right. Are you a homophobe-phobe?
Discriminating someone on the basis of their sexual orientation - treating them differently or harming them in any way - is wrong, whether you think that sexual orientation should be named as a protected category or not. Oppose explicit legal protection for homosexuality if you'd like, though as a prospective lawyer you should be prepared to argue that position. But it is never
alright to be a homophobe - or to condone the actions of other homophobes.
On topic - UCLA has no business being on any "most liberal" list when one of its most cited scholars (both in academia and in public) is Eugene Volokh... and, as has been pointed out, Berkeley is the home of John Yoo.
And this basically brings up the key: after the great Harvard ideology civil wars in the '80s and the political correctness mayhem of the early '90s, the top law schools that are somewhat scholarly try to have at least some mixture of conservative and liberal voices on faculty and tolerance - and encouragement - of debate among students. Of course, it's difficult to impossible to attain numerical balance, since the majority of young people who form the student body today vote for the Democrats and self-identify as either liberals or "moderates" who agree with a number of liberal views... and that most people with graduate degrees are in the same boat. Even engineering faculties are likely to be liberal or moderate-lean Democrat. The point is that the days of the conservative student being marginalized while liberals run amok burning bras and bibles are in the past. Conservatives are much likelier to have their voices tolerated and heard, and liberals are much less likely to be activists.