• Home
  • News
  • Mock Trial Competition Produces Real-Life Claim of Religious Bias

Legal Ethics

Mock Trial Competition Produces Real-Life Claim of Religious Bias

Posted May 6, 2009 10:24 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

The parents of high school students who won a mock trial competition in Massachusetts are claiming the organizers are discriminating against the Jewish faith by holding the national finals on a Saturday.

Lawyer Nathan Lewin has filed a discrimination claim on behalf of the parents with the U.S. Justice Department, the New York Times reports. The parents, who acted after tournament organizers refused their request to change the date, have also expressed their concerns to the State Bar of Georgia, which is hosting the competition, and the Georgia Attorney General’s office.

The student winners attend the Maimonides School, an Orthodox Jewish school in Brookline, Mass. Leah Sarna, one of the team captains, was ready for the battle. “The idea of a mock trial being in the middle of a real legal battle is pretty cool,” she told the Times.

John Wheeler, board chairman of the National High School Mock Trial Championship, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that his group would not give an early slot to the Jewish school because it would create an unfair advantage.

Comments

1.

N.B.
May 6, 2009 11:25 AM CST

Oh please.  They knew (or should have known) when they signed up that they might have to show on a Saturday.  It’s not the organizers’ fault that the school chose to compete anyway.  If the school’s right, then EVERY competitive event scheduled for a Saturday is per se discriminatory, because an Orthodox person might have otherwise been able to participate.

Flag this comment

2.

GET OVER IT
May 6, 2009 11:26 AM CST

Ok so if it’s on a Sunday we offend Christians, if it’s on a Friday we offend Muslims. so when do we do the competition…  How about Tuesday at 3:46 A.M?  Is that good for everyone?

Or maybe people ought to just shut the hell up and see the scheduling for what it is, the day of the week where MOST people would be able to attend.  Thankfully desperate impact doesn’t mean jack in discrimination claims.  So unless the president of Iran is running this competition or that 89 year old Nazi they just deported from Cleveland, good luck getting anywhere with your claim.

Flag this comment

3.

LSL
May 6, 2009 11:50 AM CST

I wouldn’t be so dismissive of this type of claim.  Take a look at some state court decision outside of Georgia on religious discrimination and high school sports, and you may think otherwise.

Flag this comment

4.

J.D.
May 6, 2009 12:00 PM CST

Now if they were jihadist muslims, then all of regulars would be writing about a need to fully accommodate. All caterpillars would have to be removed from the school grounds. And all water faucets would have to be kept above 41 degrees. Otherwise, that would be torture.

Flag this comment

5.

Fairness
May 6, 2009 12:47 PM CST

This controversy is ten years old.  By 2005, a New Jersey school had won that state’s championship and national mock trial would not grant a reasoable accommodation request to reschedule two out of the 150 trials from Saturday to Thursday night and Friday.  That year, though, North Carolina was the host state and it insisted that the accommodation occur.  Immediately, natioanl mock trial resolved never again to accommodate Saturday Sabbath observers.  It did so even though the minimal accommodation did not favor the Jewish school and had no affect on the competition.

In response, New Jersey and North Carolina withdrew from the national competition.  The United States Congress adopted a resolution on September 25, 2007 (HR 25)  asking national mock trial to reverse is insensitive policy but national mock trial has ignored that request.

This year the Massachusetts state champion (a Jewish school) asked for a similar accommodation to the one the New Jeresey school got in 2005.  Again, national mock trial has refused, citing its no accommodation policy.  The even in Georgia is run by the Georgia State bar and Georgia courtrooms and state judges are being used for the competition.  The United States Justice Deparment wrote to the Georgia Courts on May 1, 2009 alerting them to the problem of religious discrimination that may occur as a recipient of federal funds. 

The request made by the Massachusetts state champion is a minimal reasonable accommodation that is what makes this country so great.

Flag this comment

6.

Justice
May 6, 2009 8:51 PM CST

The Georgia State bar has granted permission to the Maimonides team to compete in the finals, rescheduling their trials for Thursday and Friday. Political and legal pressure goes to great lengths and for good reason. If the Anti-Defamation League agreed to send a letter of complaint to the Georgia State Bar, then evidently it is not just the Orthodox Jews who support this legitimate claim of unfairness.

Flag this comment

7.

df
May 6, 2009 10:46 PM CST

Thanks for the update, Justice. This is another one of those, it was wrong, but was it legally wrong, situations. If it was that easy to reschedule, then there was no real reason except stubbornness not to do so. That doesn’t mean that it was discriminatory, just that it was stupid for the organizers not to change.

I can think of a high-school level sporting competition held over the Easter weekend (“because that’s when everyone is free”) and I think that’s stupid and idiotic and objectionable, but again not necessarily legally so…

Flag this comment

8.

J.D.
May 7, 2009 8:37 AM CST

More evidence that Islam is more likely to be accommodated by the Left than any other religion: The libs running Hawaii just passed a bill to celebrate “Islam Day.”.... Interesting, I haven’t been able to find a Hawaiian legislature-created “Christian Day” or a “Jewish Day” or a “Catholic Day.”

And where are all the apoplectic libs to scream about the separation of church and state? I guess “mosque and state” is cool. Anything that is aimed at the destruction of American culture is fine with the libs.

Flag this comment

9.

T.R.
May 7, 2009 11:05 AM CST

Just wanted to be the first one on the board to invoke American Holocaust-guilt.  “God’s will” should never qualify as “reasonable” for the purposes of a “reasonable accommodation.”  If young, would-be attorneys cannot swallow the prospect of having to protect and defend their clients’ interests seven days per week, then they should learn that lesson now before they pick a career path and head off to college.

Flag this comment

10.

jbo
May 7, 2009 11:05 AM CST

Sheesh…....give it a rest..  I teach in a public university and was required by some obscure state law to inform 28 other students in the class that our online mock court exercise on Friday night (the popular choce) would have to be changed because one student was a 7th day adventist and needed to be at home after 6 pm on Fridays and all day Saturday.  When I sugggested since it was online she could do it without going outside,  she said that made no difference.  It was her personal choice to follow the rules of her faith.

She wasn’t willing to be flexible for 28 other other classmates, at least 3 of whom were on the other side of the planet and had to get up in the middle of the night to particpate.  It was all about her and she was willing to play the religion card for her exclusive, personal benefit.

I finally told her she could skip the class and I would give her credit anyway.  She was happy to accept that accommodation.  A pox on all their inflexible, me, me, me religions.

I’m in favor of accommodating everyone, so long as its reasonable and doesn’t disaccommodate many others.

I’ll probably be the recipient of a deluge of invective, chastising me for my insensitivity to and bias against religion.  I accept my fate…....sigh.  We non christians are accustomed to being persecuted by the forces of God.

Flag this comment

11.

Joe
May 7, 2009 12:49 PM CST

T.R., I am an Orthodox, Sabath observing Jew, and I don’t beleive my clients have any problem with that whatsoever.  Moreover, I have never had a problem with a judge or opposing counsel in the event that a trial runs late on a Friday afternoon, or re-scheduling due to Jewish holidays. Your bigotry, on the other hand, is transparent, uncalled for and unprofessional.

Flag this comment

12.

T.R.
May 7, 2009 3:04 PM CST

Joe, that hurts my feelings.  However, as your ad hominem attack also carries a dash of hyperbole, I will do my utmost to take it in stride :)

If I may look to your comment to scratch the sentiment of the both the article and some of the subsequent posts:  The groups you mention—your clients, judges, and opposing counsel—accommodate your schedule not as a result of your facing a conflicting court appearace, client matter, personal obligation (emergency, illness, injury, etc.), and so forth.  Rather, they are all accommodating your schedule because you believe an invisible man in the sky wants it that way.  As a result, a religious belief that you retain is necesarily rippling into the affairs of many others.  That is the reality.

The question is then, do the groups you mention truly ‘have no problem’ making the accommodation?  If the answer is affirmative, then great—everyone wins.  However, given your response, I cannot help but wonder:  Do they truly ‘have no problem’ accommodating your Sabbath/holiday schedule?  Or, are they more fearful of your quick-draw skills as a ‘bigotry’ label-gunslinger that they would rather just give you your time so as to avoid looking down that barrel altogether?  Could a judge who was maybe less willing to work his/her docket around your Sabbath/holiday schedule expect to hear from the Anti-Defamation League—just as this Mock Trial Tournament has?

I will suspend the ridiculous hypos while I am behind, but I do wonder to what extent we enjoy freedom of religion when one religion’s holy days must be observed by all.

Flag this comment

13.

Peter Strand
May 8, 2009 8:40 AM CST

To all but especially to TR and Joe.  I am a 2L at a Tier 1 law school and very excited to be entering into this cadre of professionals.  As such I recognize that we are bretheren regardless of what side of the courtroom we may be on.  While I share TR’s academic curiosity as to what extent our Political Correctness requires everyone to observe the holy days of a few, I cannot help but hope that the truth is the same as my personal opinion.  I would be happy to extend any accomadation, so long as that accomadation does not disadvantage my client, for a holy day as a colleague and fellow officer of the court.

Flag this comment

14.

Aaron
May 12, 2009 1:56 PM CST

@ T.R.:

The act of observing the Sabbath actually *protects* the clients’ interests seven days per week by reinvigorating the attorney’s total committment to the clients during the other 6 days.  You have mistakenly created a false dichotomy.

Flag this comment

15.

T.R.
May 13, 2009 11:16 AM CST

@Peter Strand:
I like your outlook :)

@Aaron:
Respectfully, I think your citing a potential, yet ancillary, effect of observing a particular ‘holy’ day rather misses the point here.  I do not think anyone would argue that an attorney (or any professional for that matter) ought not take time off to recouperate.  The question posed in this space concerns the degree to which modern political correctness (to cop a phrase) allows the whole to be hamstrung by the sanctities of the few.  Particularly, as in the case of the article, the many are threatened with litigation and maybe even accusations of bigotry lest they succomb to the few’s mandate.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.