I am willing to take this as far as necessary to defend free expression. If Regent decides to expel me, they will send a resoundingly clear message that they are not a legitimate academic institution and never will be. In The Culture of Conservative Christian Litigation, Dr. Hans Hacker mentions an interview with Jay Sekulow about Regent, in which Sekulow says that he worries about Regent students' future as attorneys because they are incapable of thinking like the opposing side. If Regent expels me, this fear will be realized.
http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/10/regentgate_atls_exclusive_inte.php#moreHow can you outargue the other side if you can't figure out what they are likely to argue? How can you outstrategize the other side if you can't figure out what strategy they are likely to use and to respond with?
Law school is extremely, extremely competitive in my experience. Students are graded on a strict curve. And job interviews are granted based to a great extent on your class rank and grades. Law professors use what is called the Socratic method in which the professor poses hypotheticals and asks the student to discuss the law or some aspect of the law applicable to the hypothetical. Woe to the student who is unprepared or who lacks the intellectual agility to come up with quick, intelligent response. I wonder whether that method is used at Regents University. I would love to see some of the conservative dullards I have met try to compete in some of the law classes I have taken. A lawyer must be able to think creatively and flexibly. I can't picture these home-schooled, Bible-thumping types succeeding as lawyers.