Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I haven't written much about the controversy over the last few months at the College of William and Mary. Last year the college decided that since the university chapel was being used by a variety of religious groups for events it would be a good idea to have a cross on display at the front of the chapel only for those events that were Christian. So they took down the cross and brought it back out and put up for Sunday services and for any events held there by Christian groups. When non-Christian groups held meetings, they could put whatever symbol was appropriate for them.
This perfectly reasonable policy change was, predictably, met with howls of outrage from the religious right. One aggrieved alumni withdrew a $10 million donation to the college, groups like the ADF put out breathless and hysterical press releases condemning the decision as a PC attempt to destroy Christianity, the usual blather. There was such a freakout that the college had to reach a "compromise" and the cross is now back on display in a glass case in the chapel.
But that wasn't good enough for a loopy Wm. and Mary grad named George Leach, an attorney who was disbarred in 2003. He filed a pro se lawsuit (which means he represented himself) against the school for violating the free exercise clause. A judge has, correctly, dismissed the case. Howard Friedman explains:
An alumnus of College of William & Mary has lost his lawsuit (brought pro se) challenging the new policy put in place by the school's President and Board of Visitors regarding the display of a cross in the Wren Chapel on campus. The cross is now displayed in a glass case along with a plaque explaining the state school's Anglican roots. This follows an initial controversial decision to display it only when requested by a group using the chapel and on Sundays. In Leach v. Nichol, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38763 (ED VA, May 29, 2007), the court held that plaintiff lacked standing. His only allegation of actual injury was that he "suffered pain and weeping" after the initial decision to remove the cross.The court held further that even if plaintiff had standing, he did not demonstrate any violation of his First Amendment rights: "The Wren Chapel remains open for worship, the cross may be displayed on the altar at the request of the Chapel's users, and nothing forbids the plaintiff from bringing a cross or a Bible of his own into the Chapel for use in exercising his religion."
Another frivolous lawsuit down the tubes.
Comments
"His only allegation of actual injury was that he "suffered pain and weeping" after the initial decision to remove the cross."
I couldn't help but lol at that.
Posted by: Michael | June 1, 2007 9:35 AM
I cracked up at the "pain and weeping".
Posted by: Glenn | June 1, 2007 10:06 AM
The US religious right has caused me a great deal of "pain and weeping", and I've never set foot in either of the Americas. Can I make up some bullshit to claim standing and sue Pat Robertson et al.?
Or maybe all the people who were so touched by the Passion of the Christ can sue Mel Gibson: after all, they "felt Christ's pain" and were "moved to tears".
Seriously, this new "pain and weeping standard" sounds like the best idea in jurisprudence since AIDSbola-laced sliced bread.
Posted by: hellocthulu | June 1, 2007 10:44 AM
Wow, I knew that the cross was removable, as we're planning on getting married in the chapel, and it mentioned that fact on the web information. But had no idea that anyone had had a problem with that, or that there was this big faux controversy. Seriously, WTF? It's a state school, though the original (pre-Revolution) charter specified it would include the study of divinity. Can't help but wonder if part of the freak out is due to the type of people who like to claim that all the founding fathers who went there went to "divinity school," as Ed mentioned a couple weeks back.
FWIW, part of the reason why we want to get married there is because it's so religiously neutral. The main reason is that it's a super old building and historically important, and is the coolest place that we can reasonably get, for very little money. Seeing all the religious crap at the recent wedding of the mutual brother of Royale and myself made the b/f comment that he hadn't realized how allergic he is to churches, and that he was glad that the only thing that I care about as far as "my dream wedding" is that the religious trappings be as nonexistant as possible.
"Pain and weeping" indeed. Really, how often does he go visit that particular chapel to worship? You want to see "pain and weeping," the only thing that I can see myself going Bridezilla over would be someone forcing their religious trappings on us. Dammit, it's a freaking state school! I have no problem acknowledging the historical religious roots, that's fine, but there was this other little historical document that happened nearly a century after the founding of the school that had something to do with not wanting a state religion.
There's been so many ugly rulings lately from various courts, it's refreshing to see one that affects me personally that has a lick of sense behind it. Thanks for mentioning this, Ed, can't believe I was oblivious to the whole faux controversy. Googling "wren chapel cross" really blew my mind. People with way too few real problems to worry about.
Posted by: Djinna | June 1, 2007 10:58 AM
I suffer pain and weeping every time Coldplay release another dad-rock shitfest. I really should consider litigation.
Posted by: Matthew Young | June 1, 2007 11:06 AM
Actually, never mind being facetious - that is a tragedy. The school reached a nice, even-handed compromise and the hysteria has turned it into an issue. I can't imagine anything fairer than their original solution.
Posted by: Matthew Young | June 1, 2007 11:08 AM
This is similar to the claims by the religious right that it is illegal for children to pray in schools. Its quite legal, and if you're a child attending a public school in the US, feel free to pray to yourself in school. It won't help you on your test, but that's your decision.
Posted by: Brian Thompson | June 1, 2007 11:25 AM
Yet another case where I look at it and think "What possible argument did this person think they had that might have caused the case to be ruled in their favour?"
Posted by: G. Shelley | June 1, 2007 1:39 PM
Right, Shelley. Sure, he suffered "pain and weeping" -- but where does he mention the "rending of garment(s?" Or the "wailing and gnashing of teeth?"
If it wouldn't draw proper attention from God, it's unlikely to impress any court.
Posted by: Sastra | June 1, 2007 4:23 PM
Ed Brayton's doublespeak -- When Glib writes it, he's "ignorant," when Wendy does, she's right
by Glib Fortuna @ 4:42 pm. Filed under ACLU, 1st Amendment, History, News
Last week, I posted on a column by ACLU dissident Wendy Kaminer. A day later, Ed Brayton commented on it also. I agree with Wendy, Ed agrees with Wendy, I agree with Ed's take on this column, Ed agreed with me. All rosy except for one disconnect -- Ed Brayton doesn't agree with himself!
Back in December, I wrote a post one one of the key topics hit by Kaminer's piece -- the ACLU's virtual silence on university campus freedom issues: ACLU, where are you? Campus tyranny and the ACLU's silence
I wrote, in part:
As "the foremost defender of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights," you'd think that the ACLU would be laying waste to the fascistic regimes that have implemented and enforced the constitutional abominations known as speech codes and "non-discrimination policies" on university campuses all across the country. I don't believe in criticizing a group when an individual case arises and that group happens to not have been involved in that singular incident. However, the university campus as whole feels it (yes, I speak of "it" as a monolith because this issue is a fixture at most public universities in the country, I'll get to that) is exempt from the First Amendment...supposedly the ACLU's bread and butter. No other government entity has so systematically and unapologetically violated, as a matter of published policy, the very basic freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment....
The ACLU allows the fascism (no, this is not hyperbole, it's calling a spade a spade) to continue without comment because those strong-arm policies marginalize the very people, ideas and organizations the ACLU would gladly see just dry up and go away.
But where the ACLU has purposely failed, others have stepped in strong. It's amazing that it takes "radical Right" organizations to draw the line in the sand and stand up for liberty on campus.
AND
Imagine the ultra-wealthy ACLU, with its half-billion dollar endowment and $150M annual operating budget, having done this (initiating a project like what the Alliance Defense Fund has with its Center for Academic Freedom ) ten years ago. With ADF's CAF having won so many victories in such short order, the result of this "what if" would not be so hard to predict.
Ed Brayton responded: And More STACLU Ignorance
Bzzzt. Thank you for playing, Glib, but this one is utter nonsense. You cite FIRE as a group actively opposing such speech codes, and I applaud that; I'm a huge supporter of FIRE myself. But if you'd done just a tiny bit of research you would have found out, for example, that FIRE was founded by Harvey Silvergate and Alan Charles Kors, both staunch civil libertarians and ACLU supporters. In fact, Silvergate has been on the board of the ACLU of Massachusetts for over 30 years now...
You might have found out that the ACLU has often intervened along with FIRE in cases that they work on. For example, their suit against the University of Maryland; their intervention in a case at Occidental College; and in the Rhode Island case; in the various cases involving the Muhammed cartoons; and at Columbia University. You might have found out, also, that they've often issued joint open letters with FIRE in various cases. And you could have found out all of that, and much more, just from the FIRE website...
A little bit more research would have turned up even more information that might have prevented you from looking quite this ignorant. You might have found out that the ACLU has a strongly worded position against campus speech codes.
There's more bellowing about the ACLU's strong, strong presence in the fight for campus freedom, but this gives you an idea. Oooooooh -- "strongly worded" position. I bolded the thing about the "Prophet" cartoons also because Kaminer absolutely savages Brayton's mention of that sorry episode in the ACLU's (Wendy says recent, I say long) history of hypocrisy.
I addressed this in a later post: John Leo's great City Journal piece- the ACLU's silence on campus speech
It was pointed out when I previously posted the ACLU's relative silence on campus speech suppression that the ACLU itself has a "policy" on campus speech codes and that ACLUers are on the board of FIRE. My answer: so what? A single 13 year-old statement and few letters here and there to universities over the years hardly excuses the ACLU from its conspicuous non-involvement in fighting the most tyrannical institutions in America. It has representation on FIRE's board? Again: so what? Syria, Sudan and Saudi Arabia were on the UN Commission on Human Rights.
Leo brings the real reason to the surface -- the conflict between the ACLU's support for boutique radical causes and the money that flows from this has forced this organization to sacrifice any pretense of being true defender of the First Amendment. These speech codes and other various freedom and thought-killing university policies that silence any opposition to the radical multi-culti, homosexual agenda are set up specifically to favor those same groups that the ACLU has aligned with -- politically and financially.
I'll again point out the enormous size of the ACLU's budget and endowment and its proud claim of filing 6,000 cases a year as the "foremost defender...yak, yak, bull." This makes the ACLU's sideline position that much more conspicuous and completely inexcusable. Again...what if, just what if, the ACLU had a Center for Academic Freedom.
Now to last week's column: American Liberal Liberties Union
Despite its professed commitment to religious liberty, for example, the ACLU tends to absent itself from cases on college campuses involving the associational rights of Christian student groups to discriminate against gay students, in accordance with their religious beliefs. But conservative students might be grateful for the ACLU's absence. Consider its intervention in a successful federal court challenge to an unconstitutional speech code at Georgia Tech, brought by the Alliance Defense Fund in 2006 on behalf of two conservative religious students. The ACLU of Georgia filed an amicus brief proposing a substitute but still overbroad "anti-harassment" policy that included a prohibition on "injurious communications . . . directed toward an individual because of their characteristics or beliefs." In other words: Students should be punished for sharply criticizing or satirizing each other's beliefs if their remarks are deemed "injurious." Occasionally an ACLU affiliate does intervene in defense of politically incorrect speech and vigorous debate on campus. But the Foundation for Individual Rights In Education (FIRE) has become a much more reliable advocate for the rights of all college students, regardless of ideology or religion. (I serve on both FIRE's advisory board and the board of the Massachusetts ACLU affiliate.)
Gee, sounds like EXACTLY what I said about the ACLU's spectatorship on campus tyranny...even down to pointing out the groups who actually ARE doing something about it in the ACLU's stead. I'm not saying that Kaminer got the idea from this site, but the similarities in our arguments and examples (mine from December, hers from late May) are uncanny.
So, Wendy Kaminer must be an ignoramus and must be bludgeoned with the ACLU's sparkling campus battle resume, right? To borrow our favorite former stand-up comic's visual Batmanish noise effect: Bzzzt.
Heeeeeeeeeeere's Eddie: Kaminer on the ACLU
I agree with this completely. Yes, the ACLU takes an official position against hate speech codes on campus; and yes, they have filed suits in the past against such cases and they still do intervene once in a while in such cases. But this is a serious issue that has not gotten near the attention from the ACLU that it deserves. Public university campuses are the only place in this country where government agencies can punish speech that is clearly protected by the first amendment. It is time for an all-out assault on such speech codes, as I called for months ago. And the ACLU should be leading the way; sadly, they are not.
Not only does Ed flip-flop his position, he nearly plagiarizes what I had written in expressing his newfound concern for the ACLU's virtual silence on campus freedom issues!
Not literal plagiarism Ed, don't freak out...let's just drink in the similarities in these statements (admittedly, Ed is more succinct, but concentrate on the arguments):
Ed: Now, it's certainly true that the ACLU's non-involvement in any particular case does not necessarily indicate their position in that case. I've made that point myself in arguing with the STACLU crowd (Glib Note: I'm not sure if I've ever criticized the ACLU for not being involved in a particular case except in the comments section of a post some weeks ago, I did, prior to Kaminer's piece, thrash its non-involvment in Harper and I did relate the details of a conversation I overheard between Mary Beth Tinker -- she herself was baffled about the ACLU's no-show -- and ACLU staffers -- who had NO good answers -- after the Fredricks hearing at the SCOTUS in March)...Yes, the ACLU takes an official position against hate speech codes on campus; and yes, they have filed suits in the past against such cases and they still do intervene once in a while in such cases. But this is a serious issue that has not gotten near the attention from the ACLU that it deserves. Public university campuses are the only place in this country where government agencies can punish speech that is clearly protected by the first amendment.
Glib: It was pointed out when I previously posted the ACLU's relative silence on campus speech suppression that the ACLU itself has a "policy" on campus speech codes and that ACLUers are on the board of FIRE. My answer: so what? A single 13 year-old statement and few letters here and there to universities over the years hardly excuses the ACLU from its conspicuous non-involvement in fighting the most tyrannical institutions in America. It has representation on FIRE's board? Again: so what?
AND
...you'd think that the ACLU would be laying waste to the fascistic regimes that have implemented and enforced the constitutional abominations known as speech codes and "non-discrimination policies" on university campuses all across the country. I don't believe in criticizing a group when an individual case arises and that group happens to not have been involved in that singular incident. However, the university campus as whole feels it...is exempt from the First Amendment...supposedly the ACLU's bread and butter.
Ed, nearly identical statements aren't true or false depending on the purveyor of the information.
So Ed, I'm wondering...was it shortly after you produced your post attacking me for saying exactly what Wendy Kaminer said last week that you reconsidered and decided to agree with me...or was it only acceptable to agree with an identical argument because Wendy Kaminer made it and you depend on your readers to just not notice the inconsistency?
OK, while we're at it and having fun, we'll hit Edpinata once more. Remember he used the Muhammed cartoon controversy and the ACLU's vigorous defense of those wishing to print the cartoons?
Again, I agree completely. The ACLU should have been out front denouncing any and all attempts to censor or intimidate the publishing of those cartoons, whether on college campuses in the US or in our allies abroad.
But Ed...I thought the ACLU was leading the charge. It was one of your shining examples of ACLU campus leadership. So, the ACLU wasn't "out front denouncing?" Hmm.
For someone who prides himself on consistency, Ed Brayton sure has shown his rear on this one. I don't really even want to imagine a no-clothes, drawers-down Emperor Ed...so I'll just go with Yertle the Turtle.
Posted by: Tom Redneck | June 1, 2007 11:06 PM
While we're on the topic of Ed Brayton...
by Glib Fortuna @ 5:54 pm. Filed under News, Humor
Ed has this post today regarding the Wren Chapel cross: Wm. and Mary Cross Case Dismissed
It reads in part:
...howls of outrage from the religious right. One aggrieved alumni withdrew a $10 million donation to the college, groups like the ADF put out breathless and hysterical press releases condemning the decision as a PC attempt to destroy Christianity, the usual blather
1) I didn't think ADF had any involvement in that controversy, much less issuing "breathless and hysterical press releases." I wonder if Ed can turn up any evidence of his "blather." There are no press releases on the ADF website regarding the Wren cross. In fact, the ONLY comment I can locate from anyone at ADF is a single, decidedly non-hysterical post from David French on Phi Beta Cons. Ed, are we making anything up here?
2) The withheld gift to W&M was $12 million, not $10 million. (As if this guy has no right to give or not give to whom he wants).
Two errors, one big one small, in one sentence. How many more errors and inconsistencies would we find on "Dispatches" if all of us had as much time on our hands as "businessman" Ed does?
Posted by: Tom Redneck | June 1, 2007 11:10 PM
Good ol' Glib. That bit of stupidity will be fun to fisk this weekend. As usual for the STACLUless, he makes the mistake of painting everything in absolute black and white - the ACLU is either absolutely evil or absolutely good and there's no possibility of saying "yes they do some good work in this area, but I think they should make it more of a priority." Typically overly simplistic thinking by those who simply aren't capable of any other kind of thinking.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 1, 2007 11:40 PM
Dear Mr. Redneck,
Instead of copy/pasting entire pages from another blog, we suggest merely posting the webpage links from stoptheaclu as a more appropriate method of easily pointing out another person's blog entry.
Sincerely and forever yours,
The Family Goo
Posted by: doctorgoo | June 1, 2007 11:47 PM
Ed, this is about your blatant, open-air inconsistency. This isn't the ACLU being good or evil (actually, I have a track record on STACLU of lauding the ACLU from time to time when it takes a position with which I agree...there goes another unsupported Brayton claim...pfft!...maybe you want to accuse me now of issuing a "breathless press release."), it is about YOU taking two completely opposing positions. Actually, it's not about the ACLU AT ALL...but I admire your pre-emptive attempt at changing the subject.
YOU sir, have been "fisked," and you should be man enough, just once, to admit you've been caught. Your own words are your noose, so you might want to avoid the additional humiliation of kicking the chair out and messing yourself in front of all your loyal fans, Zoltan. OTOH, I kind of look forward to a little stage-shaking tap-dancing from you on this one. You'd better grease yourself up reeeeeeeeeeal good to slither out of this one because you've been snagged. Bad.
Here are the links for your many trillions of readers Ed (both have slight grammar edits from the versions posted above):
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/06/01/ed-braytons-doublespeak-when-glib-writes-it-hes-ignorant-when-wendy-does-shes-right/
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/06/01/while-were-on-the-topic-of-ed-brayton/
Posted by: Glib Fortuna | June 2, 2007 1:14 AM
Glib-
LOL. Oh my god, I've been fisked. And as usual, you've vastly oversimplified the claims. Don't worry, I'll shred your nonsense over the weekend.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 2, 2007 1:20 AM
"vastly oversimplified the claims"
This is Ed's way of saying that he's preparing to obfuscatorily argue everything but the simple fact that he's been cold busted and will do what he can to cloud very easy to understand ideas. The fact is Ed, you said one thing in December and cut a sweet 180 in May. Either you forgot your old tripe or you hoped no one would notice...or you just like to wear flip-flops in the late Spring. This case is shut tight Ed. You had one opinion when I wrote something and different opinion when some else made a nearly identical argument. Anyone who isn't as emotionally invested in this as you are and reads my post objectively cannot come to any other conclusion. All squirmy attempts to explain away your inconsistencies will look like tortured flailings of an outsized ego. I think your readers will respect you more if you you just fess up, buddy.
What now about ADF's breathless and hysterical PRs? I'd describe those dozens and dozens of ADF PRs, not as breathless, but more as "existenceless." What do you think? Don't want to "oversimplify" anything, so why don't we try to find a nuanced way of saying that, being such a gray area and all, if ADF would have put out all these releases, you know the hysterical ones, they would have been really, really worthy of ridicule, so your ridicule of said "existenceless" releases is completely justified because we shouldn't oversimplify by pointing out the really simplistic idea that ADF didn't put out a press release on the Wren Chapel Cross.
Oh, I get it -- when you said "groups like ADF," you meant the same thing as in that episode of "That 70's Show" when Jackie and Donna go to the modeling agency that claimed to represent "models like Cheryl Tiegs" and Jackie said "ummagawd you represent Cheryl Tiegs?!?!" to which the agent answers, "no, we represent models LIKE Cheryl Tiegs."
Ed, strategically cut and paste at will (mad props Biggie, you are the master at arguing half-points and slicing a paragraph in juuuuuust the right spot in order to do your karaoke version of the Mark Gastineau Sack Dance in fake victory) when you decide to respond. I have faith though man, I have faith! I trust your readers will actually go back to the original smackdown and cut through the smoothie-thick methane cloud with which you'll try to shroud in complexity things that are just really that easy to understand.
Ni-nighty buddy, don't let me keep you up.
Posted by: Glib Fortuna | June 2, 2007 2:03 AM
I'd take Mr. Fortuna more seriously if he showed more than a first grader's grasp of constitutional principles. Spending six paragraphs on contentless puffery, with no solid reasoning or arguments? Think he's dozing off when he should be studying.
Posted by: gwangung | June 2, 2007 2:25 AM
Mr. gwandung--
Hmmmmmm. If we were engaged in a discussion about "constitutional principles," you may have a point about my "reasoning." Problem is, that's not the discussion. You must be in the kindergarten class down the hall from my first grade ConLaw class studying the Letter People in hopes of one day grasping that elusive thing called reading comprehension (you know, that whole multiple choice section where you're asked to read a passage and then pick A,B,C, or D when asked "What is the main point of the passage?").
To give away the answer (don't tell anyone I let you cheat): it's A) Ed Brayton has displayed comical inconsistencies regarding the ACLU's virtual silence on near-universal campus suppression of free speech (in December, Ed said I was "ignorant" for making such a claim, in May, Ed says "I agree with this completely," after Wendy Kaminer makes an argument indistinguishable from the one I did back in December).
Oh, and then Ed makes something up about a group issuing press releases it never issued.
No need to ace Erwin Chemerinsky's class to master that analysis.
Posted by: Glib Fortuna | June 2, 2007 2:56 AM
ACLU's virtual silence on near-universal campus suppression of free speech
As a conservative college professor, I've been observing this issue for 20 years. First amendment violations on campus are the exception, not the rule. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be fought, hard, wherever they appear; but to claim they're 'near-universal' indictates pretty comprehensive unfamiliarity with the state of contemporary American higher education.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | June 2, 2007 12:30 PM
To give away the answer (don't tell anyone I let you cheat)
It appears, if you don't cheat, you prevaricate or exaggerate. Given Mr. Harbison's comment, you do seem ignorant. Given my own observations, you're not very bright.
Less sleeping, more studying.
Posted by: gwangung | June 2, 2007 3:39 PM