Top Law Schools

It appears that its just advice/an opinion by the idiot AG's office. I guess the schools can do with it what they will...but since they are public schools they might have to comply. Would this put a UVA, GMU, W&M at a disadvantage in recruiting talent and applicants?

I should know this, as a potential law student, haha, but don't the very protections he wants removed also apply to straight people? I mean, if you take things like sexual orientation out of the protected status, a wingnut could fire a person for being gay. Thats bad. But then couldn't a gay manager also fire a straight person since they aren't protected either?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... v=hcmodule

Well, regardless of what that guy says, Virginia public schools are and will continue to be very protective of their gay students.

It might mean Liberty and Regent can be more homophobic than they already are though

Just seems like it puts decent VA schools at a disadvantage when trying to attract smart out-of-state people. It just seems like bad business in addition to ignorance and overall evilness.

I hear GMU is conservative, but they aren't stupid. Being in the heart of VA gayest city (Arlington) and literally 2 miles from DC, this puts them at a serious disadtantage unless the applicant is in-state.

I'm not exactly sure what the state AG thinks he's going to do. Storm the colleges with the State Troopers and demand that they start discriminating?

Damn. I figured he was a GTown grad. He actually got his JD from George Mason. I mean they can't even get someone from UVA to be their AG.

Renzo wrote:I'm not exactly sure what the state AG thinks he's going to do. Storm the colleges with the State Troopers and demand that they start discriminating?

Virginia isn't exactly New York dooder. The AG is just staying in line with what the state legislature was already doing. I'd be surprised if the protest over this ever spreads beyond the college campuses.

Gay people should flood GMU's Arlington campus, go to school there, learn in that environment, then go out in the world knowing their weakness!

Kohinoor wrote:

Renzo wrote:I'm not exactly sure what the state AG thinks he's going to do. Storm the colleges with the State Troopers and demand that they start discriminating?

Virginia isn't exactly New York dooder. The AG is just staying in line with what the state legislature was already doing. I'd be surprised if the protest over this ever spreads beyond the college campuses.

No, I realize this. But really, what is he going to do? I don't think that AG has any grounds/authoirity to force the schools to rescind their policies based on the absence of a legislative mandate for said policies. By that reasoning, the schools couldn't punish plagiarism unless the state legislature explicitly told them to.

I'm straight and a UVa alum (undergrad and grad school), and hell yes it would deter me from attending UVa as a law student. (I was about to go there and but was admitted to Chicago off the waitlist and decided to try something new.) And it should make any UVa-bound student think twice: Whether or not the AG can enforce his decree, talented professors (who already can't get partner benefits in VA public schools, from what I understand) have and will turn down offers to teach there. Discrimination does not pay. I hope Virginia voters wise up and kick these idiots out of office.

It seems to me that this edict is merely an avenue for publicly showing the AG's political views. The state, which includes the universities, is free to discriminate on the basis of sexual-orientation regardless of the existence of the university policies. The public announcement was entirely unnecessary, except as a means for expressing the AG's politics. Obviously, the schools have no intention of discriminating, so I can't imagine removing the policies would actually effect anyone's decision. That said, it absolutely keeps me from wanting to live anywhere this guy has power. As most schools are regional, I suppose the latter consideration (i.e. proximity to this asshole) could, indeed, influence one's decision to attend a VA school.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:It seems to me that this edict is merely an avenue for publicly showing the AG's political views. The state, which includes the universities, is free to discriminate on the basis of sexual-orientation regardless of the existence of the university policies. The public announcement was entirely unnecessary, except as a means for expressing the AG's politics. Obviously, the schools have no intention of discriminating, so I can't imagine removing the policies would actually effect anyone's decision. That said, it absolutely keeps me from wanting to live anywhere this guy has power. As most schools are regional, I suppose the latter consideration (i.e. proximity to this asshole) could, indeed, influence one's decision to attend a VA school.

Correct me if I'm wrong here. If I call someone a racial expletive on campus, I'm punished harshly for that because as a matriculant I signed a pledge at some point that probably roped me into not being a dick about race. To the extent that they're prohibited for including similar prohibitions about sexual orientation, LGBT candidates receive less protection from offensive student expression. Now, they can probably still regulate up to a point under other general cordiality requirements, but it does seem like this leaves open a door that was closed before.

The guy is an idiot from a legal standpoint. Conservatives don't agree with homosexuality as lifestyle, and they are challenging it everywhere they can. The issue is homosexuals won't accept that. In California, the issue from Prop 8 is already in the system at the California Supreme court level. The Conservatives will lose that case and appeal to the Supreme Court. At that point the Supreme Court has to deal with the issue of homosexuality as a protected class. We all know what is right as far as the principle of the law is concerned. The Real question is whether the court will obey the principle of the law or the political winds from the right. Either way all hell with break lose...

Kohinoor wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:It seems to me that this edict is merely an avenue for publicly showing the AG's political views. The state, which includes the universities, is free to discriminate on the basis of sexual-orientation regardless of the existence of the university policies. The public announcement was entirely unnecessary, except as a means for expressing the AG's politics. Obviously, the schools have no intention of discriminating, so I can't imagine removing the policies would actually effect anyone's decision. That said, it absolutely keeps me from wanting to live anywhere this guy has power. As most schools are regional, I suppose the latter consideration (i.e. proximity to this asshole) could, indeed, influence one's decision to attend a VA school.

Correct me if I'm wrong here. If I call someone a racial expletive on campus, I'm punished harshly for that because as a matriculant I signed a pledge at some point that probably roped me into not being a dick about race. To the extent that they're prohibited for including similar prohibitions about sexual orientation, LGBT candidates receive less protection from offensive student expression. Now, they can probably still regulate up to a point under other general cordiality requirements, but it does seem like this leaves open a door that was closed before.

The policies regard admissions and hiring. The state can fire a professor for being gay, regardless of the school's anti-discrimination policy. Homosexuals are, unfortunately, not a protected class.

mhernton wrote:The guy is an idiot from a legal standpoint. Conservatives don't agree with homosexuality as lifestyle, and they are challenging it everywhere they can. The issue is homosexuals won't accept that. In California, the issue from Prop 8 is already in the system at the California Supreme court level. The Conservatives will lose that case and appeal to the Supreme Court. At that point the Supreme Court has to deal with the issue of homosexuality as a protected class. We all know what is right as far as the principle of the law is concerned. The Real question is whether the court will obey the principle of the law or the political winds from the right. Either way all hell with break lose...

The actual constitutional principles are very complex and their application to homosexuality ambiguous. While I agree with you on what is "right," the issue is far from simple. My master's thesis was an all-inclusive look at the myriad factors that will come into play in a future Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage. My humble prognostication was that the Court would rule that homosexuals are a protected class and that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional. However, both sides of the battle are extraordinarily strong, from a jurisprudential standpoint.

scat_cat wrote:I'm straight and a UVa alum (undergrad and grad school), and hell yes it would deter me from attending UVa as a law student. (I was about to go there and but was admitted to Chicago off the waitlist and decided to try something new.) And it should make any UVa-bound student think twice: Whether or not the AG can enforce his decree, talented professors (who already can't get partner benefits in VA public schools, from what I understand) have and will turn down offers to teach there. Discrimination does not pay. I hope Virginia voters wise up and kick these idiots out of office.

No offense, but do you tend to overreact this much in other aspects of your life? This won't affect the law school, or the school as a whole much, if at all.

Sauer Grapes wrote:

scat_cat wrote:I'm straight and a UVa alum (undergrad and grad school), and hell yes it would deter me from attending UVa as a law student. (I was about to go there and but was admitted to Chicago off the waitlist and decided to try something new.) And it should make any UVa-bound student think twice: Whether or not the AG can enforce his decree, talented professors (who already can't get partner benefits in VA public schools, from what I understand) have and will turn down offers to teach there. Discrimination does not pay. I hope Virginia voters wise up and kick these idiots out of office.

No offense, but do you tend to overreact this much in other aspects of your life? This won't affect the law school, or the school as a whole much, if at all.

In fact, the partner benefits issue may have already affected the law school. The very smart and openly gay Pam Karlan doesn't teach at UVa anymore, for example. It's hardly an overreaction--there are plenty of nondiscriminatory law schools to choose from, and little things like the departure of fabulous professors can tip the balance.

As to the legal issues... Gays and lesbians are not presently a protected class under the federal equal protection clause, though some state supreme courts have applied heightened scrutiny through their state constitutions and Lawrence v. Texas conspicuously avoided the issue. The AG's actions do, however, reek of animus per Romer v. Evans (striking down Colorado's Amendment 2, a voter-initiated constitutional amendment reversing city-specific non-discrimination policies).

Sauer Grapes wrote:

scat_cat wrote:I'm straight and a UVa alum (undergrad and grad school), and hell yes it would deter me from attending UVa as a law student. (I was about to go there and but was admitted to Chicago off the waitlist and decided to try something new.) And it should make any UVa-bound student think twice: Whether or not the AG can enforce his decree, talented professors (who already can't get partner benefits in VA public schools, from what I understand) have and will turn down offers to teach there. Discrimination does not pay. I hope Virginia voters wise up and kick these idiots out of office.

No offense, but do you tend to overreact this much in other aspects of your life? This won't affect the law school, or the school as a whole much, if at all.

yeah seems like people are blowing this way out of proportion

Schools aren't going to use this as an opportunity to discriminate, they don't want to, and it would be incredibly stupid. The Republicans are just posturing to score some points with the social cons... WORST case scenario students form some student organization that won't allow gays to join. Gays try to join... School steps in on their behalf, but the organization appeals to VA law saying gays aren't protected. The ACLU and School admins will go up against the VA state government in a show down.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2 ... -the-times

Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) of Virginia said Wednesday that gay state workers would be included under nondiscrimination laws – a dramatic U-turn to his previous position and that one that may offer a curt warning to Republicans to steer clear of the culture wars heading into the November election.

Why is everyone going nuts over this???

All the AG is saying is he believes he doesn't have the legal right to put non-discrimination laws on state universities and instead is referring it to the General assembly.

The post is SOOOOO liberal...look at the title "end gay protections". WTF? He just said he feels he doesn't have the ability to do anything about it.

Seriously, why do liberals blow EVERYTHING out of proportion???