Religious-Rights Speaker Stirs UVa Controversy

by James A. Bacon

Three days ago the National Lawyers Guild at UVa condemned the invitation of Erin Hawley, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, to a Federalist Society event previewing a U.S. Supreme Court case touching upon religious freedom. The “progressive” law student group cited the Southern Poverty Law Center designation of the Alliance as an anti-LGBTQ+ “hate” group.

The Federalist Society, a group of mostly conservative and libertarian law school students, invited Hawley to a discussion of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, a pending Supreme Court case. The Alliance Defending Freedom represents the plaintiff in that case, Lorie Smith, who believes on religious grounds that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and refuses to design websites for LGBTQ+ couples.

The National Lawyers Guild (NGL) at UVa “condemns the views of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) as well as the Federalist Society’s decision to give them a platform by inviting them to speak at an event at the law school,” stated the NGL Facebook page in a post that garnered 88 “likes.”

(In the aftermath of the triple-murder shooting at the University of Virginia Sunday night, the Federalist Society canceled the Tuesday meeting “out of respect for the tragedy,” said Julia Jeanette Mroz, president of the UVa chapter. “As a student group, we felt it appropriate to follow the University’s lead in designating today a Day of Observance. No other circumstances bore on this decision.”

(The Society is working with Hawley to reschedule the event this spring.)

ADF, asserted the statement, promotes “offensive and harmful” notions such as the idea that LGBTQ+ people are more likely to engage in pedophilia; that the “homosexual agenda” will destroy Christianity and society; and that sexual acts between consenting adults should be criminalized.

Chris Schandevel, senior counsel on ADF’s Appellate Advocacy Team and 2012 Law alumnus, told The Cavalier Daily that the event is meant to encourage the free exchange of ideas and find common ground. “We believe that our universities really are meant to be a marketplace for ideas, so we are just fundamentally committed to showing up, engaging, having conversations, talking about the issues, that are what we see as some of the most important issues for us as a society.”

“Are we going to try to be a society that requires people to either give up their beliefs or conform their beliefs to be more aligned with everyone else’s?” Schandevel said.

But Sabrina Surgil, a second-year law student and chair of the Lambda Law Alliance, said the invitation could make LGBTQ+ people feel unsafe.

“I don’t know how LGBTQ+ students at U.Va. Law are expected to just do their work and go to class and participate and be able to engage with the curriculum in the same way that straight students are when people who are trying to erase and criminalize our entire existence are allowed the space to speak and to be normalized on such a scale at the school,” she said.

“[LGBTQ+ students] deserve to feel safe at school and we deserve to feel like our classmates respect us, but this is the opposite of respect — this is active hostility,” Surgil said.

“I don’t feel safe here. I really don’t,” said Spencer Haydary, a third-year law student and former Lambda chair. “When people come like this, I don’t feel safe as a queer person, especially with everything that’s going on in this country, and how at a national level queer people are being targeted.”

“It’s very clear that this is a time in our country when queer rights are increasingly under attack,” said Ariana Smith, a NLG member, who said the Supreme Court ruling could affect same-sex marriage.

University of Virginia officials took no position in the controversy. The University’s free speech policy states that it cannot prevent someone from speaking at an event on the basis of their content or viewpoint, said Brian Coy in an email statement to The Cavalier Daily.

“Much like schools, institutes, and other organizations, student groups are free to invite speakers of their choosing to speak at events,” Coy said. “Members of our community are also free to avoid those events or to speak in respectful opposition to the ideas shared at those events.”

This column has been reposted with permission from The Jefferson Council blog.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

74 responses to “Religious-Rights Speaker Stirs UVa Controversy”

  1. Nothing wrong with speaking in respectful opposition particularly if the ADF is actually a “hate” group as it has been designated.

  2. Fred Costello Avatar
    Fred Costello

    The Southern Poverty Law Center should not be treated as the Supreme Court concerning what is and is not hate.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      I agree but the Federalist Society is not exactly a group known for dealing in facts and truth.

      1. walter smith Avatar
        walter smith

        Says the arbiter of SCIENCE!
        Hey, Larry – you and Dr. St. Fau(x)ci (of I AM SCIENCE! fame) did not exactly cover yourselves with glory over Covid policies, vaccination strategy and policy, “safe and effective” and so on. Maybe listening to people who think differently is OK?
        Oh, and let’s not forget there used to be something called religious liberty, which you tolerant, loving Lefty types hate for traditional Christianity, while demanding it for Godless secular humanism woke stupidity.
        Oh, yeah, how come Dr. St. Fau(x)ci and Francis Collins actively worked to suppress the Great Barrington Declaration (which was correct)?
        Yeah, you guys covered yourselves with glory…
        How many people died from your policies?
        Were bankrupted? Isn’t poverty a leading attribute of bad health outcomes? How many people lost their jobs due to you tolerant, loving types who actually don’t know squat except how to abuse power?
        Hey, how many Feds were involved as informants on J6? Is it true the guy who cooked up the fake Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot and got promoted to DC in time for J6 just resigned?
        Everything you guys do is agit-prop. Losing control of the news and the indoctrination camps will eventually happen.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Like I said – I queried VDH for a list of all the shots I have gotten over time … in each case, I trusted the govt and the science – no matter whether it was Polio, pneumonia or COVID.

          And I’ll take Fauci and related ANY DAY over the folks you “trust”. No contest!

          1. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Larry – was Fauci right or not? A Yes or No question.
            Did Fauci and Collins work to suppress the Great Barrington Declaration or not? Yes or No?
            Why would a “scientist” do that? Isn’t the scientific process (since you are Mr. SCIENCE!) about challenge and proof?
            So, let’s go back to why we should have free speech (which is what the article was about – I threw in your patron saint to show examples), instead of people like you and other Lefty authoritarians telling people what they can or cannot say.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Fauci was right. Period.

            And the wacadoodles dead wrong , crystal clear now.

          3. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Larry – he lied about gain of function funding. He lied about masks. He is a political shill. What indicates he was right? Give me a fact. Point to data instead of your stupid, government loving, Dem propaganda repeating false religious “beliefs.”
            Oh, it hurts so bad, Mean Old Larry (Mr. SCIENCE!) called me a wackadoodle (cuz he has no facts on his side)
            Let’s get back to free speech – you might want to try it. Your turn – what was he right about? Other than his assertion of being the God of SCIENCE!
            Is it OK for a mere person like me to question the Great and Powerful OZFauci?
            Is that so scary? And if I am a wackadoodle for asking questions, prove it.
            (Here Larry will go to the Dem provided false studies where the headline is captured and Larry and Troll et al will repeat the headline, but when you actually read beyond the provided headline, you read the assumptions and “limitations” in the study to find the study doesn’t really say that, but the abstract conclusion provides just enough of a headline to set the false narrative. I’ve played this game before)

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            No he didn’t, at all. The wacadoodles spun up conspiracy theories and fabricated his role.

            Ya’ll do PERSONAL ATTACKS like Trump does.

            Makes you wrong from the get go.

          5. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Still waiting for ONE fact. ONE thing our illustrious government got right in Covid policy. Here’s an article from that known Right Wing outlet, The Guardian, saying the experts are thinking there may be a million cancer cases coming from the Covid delays in treatment.
            https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/15/europe-faces-cancer-epidemic-after-estimated-1m-cases-missed-during-covid
            But remember, only Wackadoodles ask questions of the government!
            Which brings us back to the point of the article – Free Speech.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar

            Walter, the govt , this govt, and govts around the world got it “right” IMO and in the opinion of the vast majority of folks except for the wacadoodles who spend all their time on lies and conspiracy theories and denial.

          7. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            One fact Larry. Not your opinion. I can provide you with UVA’s own data showing a case rate for the triple vaxed of 12.5% and a case rate for the evil unvaxed, who were required to be tested weekly, had a case rate of 10%. We could look at VAERS data. The spike in disabilities post vax rollout. The economic destruction. One fact. Hey, Australia just rolled back the Covid mandate. So did Denmark. Rest of the world is catching on. Surely you read the Covid amnesty article in The Atlantic, didn’t you? Why would a magazine for the so-called elite need an article asking for a Covid amnesty?

          8. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Next, the Leftie authoritarians will claim the saved lives. Jeeesh!!!

          9. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Let’s have that debate.
            Did the suppression of early treatment protocols cost lives? (Hint – it did)
            If it is so crazy to ask the question, why did it have to be suppressed?
            So I would follow with why would you suppress treatment that works? (Hint – because if you have effective treatment, you can’t have EUA).
            Why would you suppress a treatment that works to effect an EUA (for a product that doesn’t work and may be more harmful than helpful)?
            I won’t give you the answer there, but it starts with a C and ends with “uption”…

          10. LarrytheG Avatar

            Walter lives in a different world on this. He’s got company.

          11. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Substantive. Waiting for the debate. Waiting for the one thing right. Won’t hold my breath.

        2. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          Hey, Wally, Dr. Gauci and Larry have acknowledged the sky is blue and not falling. BTW, the number of Feds involved as informants on Jan 6h was 85,000 now being transferred to the IRS.

        3. LarrytheG Avatar

          THe wacadoodles along with Trump have these personal vendetta based on lies and conspiracy theories.

          These guy LOSE elections for the GOP these days.

          1. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            So why don’t you produce a fact? Show me the one thing right in Covid policy. Explain the censorship of the Great Barrington Declaration.
            And, to get back on the subject of free speech, explain how shutting up people you disagree with makes sense…particularly when the people you say were correct were WRONG!
            Wackadoodle doesn’t work. Maybe try RACIST! (but won’t work either…)

      2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        I disagree with much of the Federalist Society positions, but I have not had any reason to think they played fast and loose with facts and truth. If you are going to make a statement like that, you need to back it up.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_(website)

          and if you Google , you’ll find credible confirmation of some of their issues.

        2. Apparently, Larry does not know that The Federalist Society and The Federalist magazine are not the same thing.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar

            Utterly shocked I tell you.

        3. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Alito?

      3. William O'Keefe Avatar
        William O’Keefe

        On what basis do you make this assertion? Where are your facts?

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          The Supreme Court and their under oath definition of stare decisis.

        2. LarrytheG Avatar

          There is ample evidence including in the Wiki.

          They have a “reputation”.

          1. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            You also have a reputation for not citing facts and you once again didn’t.

          2. Also, as I mentioned above, Larry is confusing The Federalist Society with The Federalist magazine. They are two separate entities.

          3. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            So, we’ll give him thew benefit of the doubt. I’m not that familiar with the magazine but from what I’ve seen it doesn’t place a high priority on facts and accuracy.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      You’re right. But then, not sure the contrast is as much as you think.

  3. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    How about a televised talk by Ted Kaczynski? Heck, he only hated an airline… maybe a few other things. Alex Jones? I’ll bet he could use the money.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      I wouldn’t pay either of them but I’d listen if they were effectively interviewed.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        I suppose Alex’s trial transcripts are available. My opinion is that was one helluvan effective interview. Ted’s manifesto is available and reads like a Rush Limbaugh show.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          “interview”? I like that.

          https://youtu.be/yM3zg0nJOj8

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Ah, Charlie…

      2. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        Please, Steve, Jones could not even be effectively examined in court without deflection and denial.

    2. DJRippert Avatar

      Ted Kaczynski’s writings should be required reading for all college students. He was evil and he was crazy but he wasn’t necessarily wrong in his philosophy.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        evil, crazy but not wrong ? ???

  4. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    It is disappointing that a group of law students would object to someone speaking on campus. It would have been more effective if the National Lawyers Guild had invited Hawley to speak and engage in a debate or round table discussion.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Not comparing , but would you be okay with David Duke or the KKK or Holocaust deniers? Is there a line?

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Seriously Larry, if by some miracle Adolph was giving a lecture, you wouldn’t want to hear it? If only to see evil personified? People still need to read the book if you want to understand the period.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Plenty of existing folks that are that way.

          So you’re okay with any/all right?

          I think you said you were on Twitter, right? So you know the depth of the cesspool.

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Adolph? Oooh, that’d be tough… don’t know if I could concentrate on the talk wondering if someone in the auditorium would do the right thing.

    2. Oops.

      Comment moved to correct thread.

  5. The classic free-speech conundrums: Must we allow people whom “everyone” disagrees with to have a public forum? Does it matter if they simply draw different conclusions from the same facts or are “reckless with the truth”? Who is “everyone” and how do they get to decide? Law students, more than most, ought to offer better arguments than “we deserve to feel like our classmates respect us.”

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      I think one can conceive of some groups whose “free speech” is repugnant and so untrue as to question the premise – consider folks like Alex Jones.

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Well, clearly somebody on campus issued the invite and booked the hall.

      The story here for me is the pathetic assertion by somebody that merely having such opinions expressed at all made them feel unsafe. How? That is a psych symptom if there ever was one. Will their heads explode or what?

      Way too much time and energy is wasted here on BR warring against efforts at racial diversity. The real threat is the war on intellectual diversity and debate. That is the fight worth making.

    3. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Well, clearly somebody on campus issued the invite and booked the hall.

      The story here for me is the pathetic assertion by somebody that merely having such opinions expressed at all made them feel unsafe. How? That is a psych symptom if there ever was one. Will their heads explode or what?

      Way too much time and energy is wasted here on BR warring against efforts at racial diversity. The real threat is the war on intellectual diversity and debate. That is the fight worth making. Monolithic, narrow-versioned ideological purity is the opposite of education, especially at the college level.

      Everybody also ignoring the history of the Lawyer’s Guild?

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Surely you can envision a group that would espouse such extreme views… that it would challenge the concept of “free speech”.

        No? not a single group?

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Speech? No. No violence, no Brown Shirt or Antifa behavior, but I’m pretty much a hard liner on free speech for purposes of debate. I’m fine with former commie front groups line NLG playing on the field of ideas. (Once pretty far left of the ACLU…)

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            Not violence but advocacy of violence as “free speech”.

            okay with that?

            Okay with a talk by a child molester, someone who advocates torture and shows photos?

            anything?

          2. And if someone yells “movie!” in a crowded fire house?

            😉

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Jean D’Arc?

          4. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            As long as it’s free free-speech.

        2. SH, I used to feel much more the way you expressed it before the past years’ exposure to (1) a president whose free speech knowingly/recklessly promoted falsehoods to support his government policies, and (2) knowingly/recklessly promoted violence against those in government who resisted him. A public soapbox for such an abuser of free speech has to be carefully circumscribed at least.

          But a college campus ought to be the exception — if there’s any place where all comers should be allowed to speak “for purposes of debate” it’s to a college audience. I completely agree, “The real threat is the war on intellectual diversity and debate [itself]. That is the fight worth making.”

          What to do when the snowflakes complain about the heat? Should they be entitled to keep their campus heat-free, indeed frozen in “ideological purity,” rather than learning how to cope with life as it really is?

          There is the quandary of hate speech, of promotion of lawlessness and insurrection, that pushes the other end of the spectrum. But that is no excuse for a future lawyer complaining she must be shielded from contentious debate because she “deserves respect.”

          1. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            She’s going to be pretty useless in a real courtroom….

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Walter is a good example of free speech, IMO. i can just envision him doing a campus “talk” on Fauci and COVID.

            Are you okay with Alex Jones types coming on campus to spout lies and conspiracy theories?

            Nazi Skinheads saying “we will not be replaced” or that the Holocaust did not happen?

          3. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            I agree with Steve. As long as folks are not using their freedom of speech to incite violence, they should be allowed to speak. At one time, the ACLU went to court to protect the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Ill., the home of many Holocaust survivors. https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie

          4. There is speech that is harmful to the public, and speech that harms individuals. Sometimes they overlap.

            Speech that harms the public is dealt with by laws that regulate it. It has to be speech that’s pretty extreme for such a law or regulation (or campus “policy”) to survive court review under the 1st Amendment, but there is illegal public speech, like hate speech and inciting-a-riot speech.

            Speech that harms individuals is dealt with by lawsuits for damages resulting from libel (written) and slander (oral). After many years of courts leaning too far, in my opinion, towards excusing defamatory speech, Alex Jones got what he deserved IMO.

            So, you ask, “Are you okay with Alex Jones types coming on campus to spout lies and conspiracy theories?” No. But there’s a way to deal with that. And he has been dealt with, for past lies etc., in a way that should give a rational man pause before he repeats the mistake.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            “free speech” is the right to say what you want. It does not guarantee that you can exercise it anywhere you want.

            For instance, if you got up in front of the BOS to then spout hate towards blacks or Jews – you’d be interrupted and escorted out the room.

            Is that “denying” someone their free speech rights?

          6. No it isn’t — we agree completely – but the BOS should have a policy or rule in place that says to the public you can’t talk like that here. Separetely, there can be consequences later on (as w/ Alex Jones) if you deliberately say things harmful to other individuals.

        3. LesGabriel Avatar

          It is hard for conservatives to think in terms of who they would deny free speech protections to. I would even listen to the SPLC or BLM so that I could understand better their viewpoint and those who concur with it.

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        I can see why having such views expressed on campus could make someone feel unsafe. They have guns on that campus.

        1. Maybe they should have the 1st amendment the 2nd protects too.

        2. But how can that be? They have laws and rules forbidding guns on campus.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            I guess they need to investigate any reports of guns on campus then… Hey, wait a minute!

  6. This is dumb. It’ll be resolved.

  7. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    As long as there are no speaker’s fee…

  8. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    How many lawsuits has the Southern Poverty Law Center had to settle?

    1. Great question. . . .

      1. Fewer than Rupert Murdoch, I would guess.

  9. Randy Huffman Avatar
    Randy Huffman

    I went to their web site and did a quick search for Erin Hawley’s bio, here it is. In reading ADF’s web site, there are a few things on their platform I would not agree with, but to call them a hate organizations is pure politics/cancel culture, and in my view, hate in of itself. There should be no controversy, let her speak!

    https://adflegal.org/biography/erin-morrow-hawley

Leave a Reply