A BYU 3L posted a very in-depth comment about BYU in the prawfs blog. I think you would be interested to see what it says. If you feel up to addressing the 3L's comments with your blog, I'd be interested to see your response.

anon,

Thanks for the heads up. That comment wasn't posted when I wrote my post. I started to write some thoughts, but I am being hustled out the door for the family outing. More later ...

Gordon, thanks for a thoughtful post; you'll also see that Jason Solomon has continued the discussion at Prawfs. I'm very much enjoying these exchanges. One slight correction: although I did quote a commenter talking about religious homogeneity, and it did spark my own post, I don't think I was suggesting that religious institutions are necessarily homogenous, religiously or, especially, otherwise. I certainly don't equate religous institutions with a lack of viewpoint diversity, and agree completely with Rick's comment on Jason's post, which suggests that there is plenty of viewpoint diversity at many a religious institution. My post was really about the virtues of a shared sense of underlying mission at many religiously affiliated schools, which I think can and does suffuse disparate aspects of the curriculum and can contribute mightily to the virtues of an educational experience at such schools. But that sense of shared mission is not, at least at many such schools, a straitjacket, and in any event it can be capacious enough to allow for a host of different questions and answers -- although, at their best, such institutions bring a seriousness of purpose to talking about these questions and answers. Cheers, Paul

Thanks, Paul. Correction noted.

Anon, I posted a response to BYU 3L's comments over on Prawfs, but I will copy them here for convenience ...

Turning to BYU 3L's comments, I can imagine the sorts of discrimination BYU 3L describes, though I think it would be a grave mistake for readers to assume that all or even most BYU Law Professors routinely favor Mormons over Non-Mormons. Again, I will speak from my personal experience, since that is what I know best. Last semester I taught Securities Regulation and Law & Entrepreneurship, with 100 students between them. If you asked me who were the non-Mormons in my classes, I would not have the faintest idea. As I write this comment, you could tell me I had any number of non-Mormons in my classes, and I would have to take it on faith, because I simply don't know.

Likewise, I have hired research assistants, agreed to supervise papers, and been asked by students to assist with clerkships, and I could not tell you in any instance whether those students were Mormons, unless the topic arose in subsequent conversation. It is simply not a relevant factor for me in deciding whether to aid a student, and I know many of my colleagues feel the same way. I don't doubt that BYU 3L has had the experiences related, and I am sad to hear about that, but it would be a mistake for readers to assume this problem is pervasive at BYU Law School.

Re tuition, BYU 3L didn't mention that the "double tuition" for non-Mormons is still only $18,480 for the coming year. (For Mormons, the tuition is $9,240.) Why the difference? The Law School is heavily subsidized by tithing dollars of Church members. Just as state law schools give better tuition deals to taxpayers than non-taxpayers, BYU gives a better tuition deal to members of the Church.

This comment is already too long, but let me add two more quick observations. First, while I wish that BYU 3L had received a more positive experience at BYU, I think his experience is fairly typical of anyone who is a member of a small minority group when interacting with members of the majority group. Having spent most of my adult life as a religious minority, I could tell you lots more stories than those shared by BYU 3L about discrimination against me because of my faith. In most instances, being on the receiving end of such treatment feels pretty horrible, but discrimination is not unique to BYU or Mormons. (I wish it were uniquely absent among us, but it isn't.)

Second, just in case you think me callous and insensitive to BYU 3L's experiences -- maybe you think I have no idea what BYU 3L feels like? -- I should disclose that I attended BYU undergrad as a non-Mormon. Yes, I paid the higher tuition and I was sometimes subject to the subtle (or not) slights described by BYU 3L. So while our experiences are not perfectly symmetrical, I feel confident in expressing some kinship of experience.

Professor:

Thank you for your thoughtful response to my original comment.

I responded again. Much like Mr. Horwitz, I am quite enjoying these exchanges as well.

Hoping you had a good 24th,

-BYU 3L

Just wondering whether Cardozo Law School has bargain tuition rates for Jews on the theory that Yeshiva U. is heavily dependent on Jewish charity.

This whole notion of there being benefits of religious homogeneity in a law scholl is offensive and quite surprising. Unless the school is specializing in canonical or talmudic law, what's the relevance of the school's being affiliated with a religiously-connected university? The legal system and process in our country exists in the context of a society invented to foster diversity, to emphasize the values of non-establishment, and to enable peaceable inter-ethnic and multi-creed interaction.

Fred, You cannot seriously assert that BYU and Cardozo are good analogs on funding. And even if they were, so what? Why should BYU care in the least about Cardozo's tuition policies?

By the way, Cardozo's tuition is $42,200 for 1Ls, compared to $18,480 for non-Mormon law students at BYU. Don't you think it's immoral to impose that sort of tuition burden? (For those who are slow, that last question was intended to be tongue in cheek ... at least, mostly tongue in cheek. I must say that I am very pleased to be associated with a law school that does not require most of its students to incur large debts.)

Your second question -- "what's the relevance of the school's being affiliated with a religiously-connected university?" -- seems more serious, though your analysis is weak, even by the lower standards that apply to blog comments. You seem to be boxing shadows. Do you have any idea what it is like to learn law at BYU? I suspect not. But you have a very vivid imagination.

Re diversity, you might benefit from reading Rick Garnett's posts and comments at PrawfBlawg on institutional and viewpoint diversity.

Re "values of non-establishment," I have no idea what you are talking about. Is this an argument against religiously affiliated law schools generally? If so, see Rick Garnett again. If not, I am completely lost.

Re "enabl[ing] peaceable inter-ethnic and multi-creed interaction" ... these are noble goals, but are you seriously suggesting that BYU law graduates are more limited than graduates of other law schools in their desire to achieve these goals or their ability to pursue these goals competently? Data, please!

It's probably worth reminding yourself that law school is but one slice of the life experience of a law student. Like students at other schools, our students have engaged the world in myriad ways, and by and large, I am very impressed with their maturity and sophistication.

'values of non-establishment' is a short-hand reference to the notion that the judiciary in the US operates under the mandate of the non-establishment clause, such that the administration of justice is religion-neutral and religiously-affiliated law schools are of necessity teaching about such a system, thereby making the affilation essentially irrelevant to the content of what is being taught if they are doing their job properly.

without the benefit of data, and without myself having the burden of having to sound like an academic, which i am thankfully not--just a practitioner in the canyons of NYC--i assert to you that he oe she who advocates for or defends a tuition schedule that discriminates based upon religious affiliation has the burden of proof on virtually any issue that virtually anyone cares to raise about it.

It should be noted that at $18,480 the tuition is still subsidized. It is interesting to see posters who feel it is somehow wrong for a group to subsidize the tuition of its members more than the tuition of those from outside.

Kind of like churches that have two different schedules for rentals of their buildings -- one for members and a different one for outside groups.

Or insurance companies that have one schedule of benefits for policy holders and another ($0.00) for those who do not hold policies.

The world is filled with organizations that treat members differently than non-members.

Consider the New York Bar. I suspect they may well have different rates for CLE for members of various sections and non-members -- and the Courts there are probably a bit sticky with lawyers who aren't members of the New York Bar but who would like the benefit of practicing in New York courts.

BTW, I enjoyed taking classes at BYU. One of my favorite memories was watching Rex Lee take a a con law class and persuade them all not to only understand busing and integration, but to believe in it.

Because the students were required to examine the implications of their (assumed) shared beliefs. They could not pass off their disagreements on the simplistic ground that they held different values than their classmates. This was real learning, not indoctrination.

That would have been my experience as well.