Bias CLE 599 to 1
Friday, March 26, 2004
POINT BY POINT RESPONSE IN ROTHENBERG CASE
The Court says:
(Page3) On January 30, 1996, the Advisory Committee submitted an Interim Report, which noted concerns and recommendations from members of the bar regarding the elimination of bias requirement. Many bar members recommended that the rules should not only permit the approval of courses addressing issues identified in the Minnesota Supreme Court Task Force Report on Race Bias, but also permit courses addressing other viewpoints on the extent of bias in the legal profession. Members cautioned against drafting rules that would “require attorneys to attend courses contrary to the attorneys’ political or religious beliefs,” and recommended the court adopt a “broad definition of bias, permitting the approval of any course designed to help attorneys become aware of bias in society in general.” In its Final Report, the Advisory Committee recommended rules and definitions for the administration of the elimination of bias requirement as part of the continuing legal education program in Minnesota. We adopted rules for the elimination of bias requirement, which are now contained in the Rules of the Minnesota Board of Continuing Legal Education.
My amicus brief says:
While the MSBA petition was pending, the CLE Board considered questions about course approval standards. One topic of consideration was whether seminars that expressed positions contrary to those of the various bias task forces alleging bias would be eligible for credit. See App. at A-47. The issue of allowing alternative viewpoints was not put to rest at the April 11, 1995 CLE Board meeting and remains a current point of contention.
Indications that Bias CLE is intended to advocate a specific ideology continued after the Court appointed a Special CLE Advisory Committee to determine course approval guidelines. The coordinator of the William Mitchell diversity training program testified before the Special CLE Advisory Committee in 1995. Board Counsel Exhibit F at 5. The committee raised the specific issue of ideological conservatives attempting to undermine the proposed Elimination of Bias courses by presenting their own ideology. Id; See also App. at A-82. To deal with this concern, the Special CLE Advisory Committee determined that CLE providers would have to provide a narrative explaining how their courses met the objectives of the rule. Board Counsel Exhibit F at 5; CLE Rule 6B(2).
*******
The rule is also vague on whether courses from a religious perspective qualify for Bias CLE credit. Courses from a religious perspective would be more than just alleging that a particular religious group is the victim of religious discrimination. There are religious perspectives on the existence and extent of bias, as well as the appropriate remedies for bias. Respondent mentions that the Special CLE Advisory Committee discussed the issue, but fails to provide an answer to the question. Board Counsel Exhibit G at A2. Indeed, a member of the CLE Board has indicated that a courses taught by a “rabbi, minister or priest” would be of questionable validity for Standard CLE. App. at A-33. Because the CLE Board will not provide advisory opinions, it is impossible to tell whether religious viewpoints are given access to the forum, consistent with
constitutional law.
********
If access to the forum of Bias CLE credit is fully open to contrarian views, attorneys will flock to the seminars with which they already agree. See App. at A-24. The Special CLE Advisory Committee was most likely aware of this fact, which explains the almost defiant way the Committee failed to articulate which viewpoints are eligible for Bias CLE credit.
