THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, December 8, 1994 TAG: 9412080010
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A22 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 63 lines
Attorney General James Gilmore apparently went into the Wide Awake case with his eyes open, but it places him in a most peculiar position. It's not that he's on the wrong side; his office is on both sides.
Wide Awake was a campus magazine founded by three U.Va. students in 1990. After four issues, it perishing for lack of funds. The founders were born-again Christians and the stated purpose of the magazine was ``to challenge Christians to live, in word and deed, according to the faith they proclaim and to encourage students to consider what a personal relationship with Jesus Christ means.'' That's unambiguous. It was a religious publication.
Before the magazine expired, the founders requested money from the committee that doles out activity-fee money to campus groups. Wide Awake was turned down because university guidelines forbid grants to ``religious organizations, fraternities, sororities, honor societies and political clubs.''
The publishers sued the university for violating their constitutional rights of free speech, freedom of religion and equal protection. They lost in federal court and on appeal. The case has now been accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The pragmatic issue is: Can a government body with finite resources decide who's eligible for funds and who isn't? Or does it have to give money to all comers indiscriminately or risk being sued? The policy adopted by U.Va. makes perfect sense. To avoid charges of discrimination or favoritism and to dodge any church/ state muddle, it treats all religious organizations the same. It funds none.
It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court decides that having nothing to do with any religious activity can be construed as discrimination against religion. Does a decision not to fund a publication represent a denial of free speech to its publishers? Also interesting is the case of Attorney General Gilmore himself. He's filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of the aggrieved students, reversing the position taken by his predecessor, Mary Sue Terry. He argues that the decision by the 4th Circuit fails to take into account recent Supreme Court decisions that permit the use of state resources if they benefit religion only incidently.
Meanwhile, an assistant attorney general, subordinate to Gilmore, is responsible for representing U.Va.'s side in the case. In other words, the office of the attorney general is talking out of both sides of its mouth on this one.
That would probably be construed as a legal conflict of interest in the private sector. It is permissible for the attorney general to do what he's doing, but it looks odd.
Even more troubling is the possible ethical conflict. Gilmore campaigned with the strong support of conservative Christians, including a $50,000 contribution from Pat Robertson, the largest to the Gilmore campaign. For appearance sake alone, Gilmore might have been wise to recuse himself from this case. His situation raises a question familiar from Scripture. Can a man serve two masters? by CNB