The law school at Washington University in St. Louis is currently creating a showcase example of blundered student self-governance that universities nationwide should observe keenly. The Student Bar Association, the law school's student governing body, has twice denied the rights of the Law Students Pro-Life to be recognized as an official student organization. The reason? In the words of SBA president Elliot Friedman, it's because the LSPL's "interests and goals" are too narrow, and thus do not meet the requirements that the SBA has arbitrarily set for recognizing organizations. This clear-cut disregard for freedom of association on WUSL's campus is inexcusable, and it is greatly exacerbated by the fact that the WU administration has refused to intervene to remedy the situation.
In Friedman's letter of denial to LSPL, he cited three reasons why the organization had been denied. First, the members of the LSPL are not truly "pro-life," since they oppose the death penalty. Second, the LSPL "[needs] to consider revamping the organization to encourage and facilitate discussion of the issues as a whole, and not simply the pro-life side of certain issues." And finally, "the membership of the organization should be open to those students both subscribing to and disagreeing with the political viewpoint."
Each of Friedman's claims is more ridiculous than the last. Whether one can be called pro-life and still support the death penalty is among the hottest topics of debate in this country. To take a side in that debate and to use it as a partisan justification for denying an organization recognition is just plain absurd. This is especially true when one considers that the SBA has already recognized other student groups with similarly narrow and one-sided positions. Among these narrow groups are the Black Law Students Association, the Jewish Law Society and OUTLAW, which is dedicated to providing positive support for individuals with alternative sexual lifestyles. If these groups should be recognized (and they should), then certainly Law Students Pro-Life should be as well.
Next, to suggest that an organization should "revamp" itself in order to be approved is akin to demanding that the members of the organization must change their beliefs to meet acceptable standards. This Orwellian concept is anathema to intellectual diversity. The ideal of freedom is built upon many pillars, one of the sturdiest of which is the individual right of a person to believe whatever he wants and to associate with whomever he wants. For a governing body to favor one ideological viewpoint over another, or to demand that the Law Students Pro-Life allow members of opposing viewpoints to join its ranks, is contrary to free association and free thought. It is indeed contrary to freedom itself.
WU Law School Dean Joel Seligman has refused repeated requests from civil liberties groups to restore justice to his school by reversing the SBA's decision. He has justified this by saying, "all of us at this school of law also value democratic process. It would be thoroughly inappropriate for a dean to override or ignore the traditional autonomy of student organizations."
But the mere fact that a democratically elected student body has perpetrated such a violation of basic student liberty does not make the violation any less reprehensible. If anything, the SBA's actions stain the name of student self-governance and necessitate recourse to a system of checks and balances upon the SBA's power.
In a liberal society, certain principles such as freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of conscience are so vital to humane living that they are held above the normal legislative power of any elected body. It is precisely for this purpose, to prevent the tyranny of the prevailing majority, that we have a national Bill of Rights that stands above federal and state statute. Our national legislature cannot strip citizens of these rights, nor can our state legislatures. Washington University in Saint Louis, as a private institution, ironically has the right of free association and thus has the power to deprive its students of their right to free association. But surely they don't intend to send a message to the country that says, "Come be a student here, just leave the Bill of Rights at the door."
Dean Seligman and the WUSL Administration should allow their students to govern themselves within the boundaries outlined by the Bill of Rights. But administrators can and should act as a check upon the SBA's power to ensure that students are not deprived of their basic civil liberties during their time at Washington University. Power in the hands of any legislative body cannot be absolute without tyranny prevailing sooner or later. And in the case of the Washington University School of Law's Student Bar Association, their authority over their fellow students should end at exactly the same place as their respect for the Constitution.
(Anthony Dick is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at adick@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
