First off, apologies for this being a rather ‘old’ news story. Further, while a search didn’t pull up anything on this topic, it very well may have been discussed here and I’ve missed using the right key words.
BACKGROUND
Matt Hale is the leader of the World Church of The Creator (WCOTC). He is a caucasian, open racist. He refers to African Americans and Asian people as “mud-races” and believes that white people should keep their race ‘pure’.
In 1999 Benjamin Smith, a member of the WCOTC, went on a shooting spree in two different states. Before killing himself, he had killed two people (one African American - Ricky Byrdsong, former Northwestern University basketball coach, and a Korean student, Joon Yoon).
Matt Hale graduated from law school in 1998. He passed the bar exam. However, he did not pass the character and fitness portion and was, therefore, denied his law license.
See: HERE
As you can see from the article, the committee did not believe that he possessed the requisite moral character to practice law. (Please refrain from the obvious lawyer jokes you could make here.) He appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which declined to hear the case.
**QUESTION
Did the committee do the right and/or legal thing by denying an openly racist individual his law license?**
Some personal opinion
I don’t know. I suppose I’m rather vague about it because my gut doesn’t want him to represent attorneys (or really any human) but at the same time, it sure looks like denying him a license based upon his (political?) views.
I graduated from the same law school as Matt Hale. He was in his third year when I was in my first year. I had no idea then who he was. He certainly didn’t scream about killing mud-races while walking down the halls and when I finally did figure out who he was, most people I spoke with had to grit their teeth and say that he was frustratingly polite. That didn’t mean I wasn’t a bit scared to pass him in the hall (I’m 1/2 Korean) or that I wanted to be his moot court partner.
I suppose I could think he was mentally ill - because who in their right mind still believes in this crap? Surely we’re all a bit more…sane than that, right? But hell, I have an aunt who doesn’t think we’ve landed on the moon and while I think that’s nuts, it sure has followers - so who am I to say? So I am going to toss out the insane option I tossed around.
On one hand, he hasn’t done anything legally wrong, per se. He has some very warped ideas about the world but so do many people and we don’t deny them a law license. So how is this not a clear cut case of infringing upon his Constitutional rights? Why shouldn’t he be allowed to say that non-whites are inferior and still be able to practice law?
On the other hand, I could argue that this is a character review. Is not whether or not someone is racist an indication of their character? If my sister introduced me to her boyfriend and he was a racist leader, I’d cringe and not want a thing to do with him. I’d consider him lacking reliable judgment and would question his idea of right and wrong - and therefore, his character. So what should the committee do if they conclude that they believe an applicant can not tell the difference between right and wrong? That person doesn’t sound fit to practice law. And our laws support equality - how do we know he wouldn’t thwart them?
What do you think?
Tibs.
p.s. When I was typing up this post, I wrote “mud-bloods” instead of mud races and couldn’t figure out why that sounded funny. I’ve been reading too much Harry Potter.