Likelihood of Success

Now here’s a weird story:

The National High School Mock Trial Championship is esteemed for bringing young people into the best traditions of the American legal system. But now the organization is being broadly criticized from the halls of Congress to state bar associations and attorneys general for clinging to one of the nation’s worst traditions: religious insensitivity.

The charge stems from the national mock trial group’s refusal to accommodate the need for an Orthodox Jewish team from Maimonides School from Brookline Massachusetts to reschedule its event from Saturday—the Jewish Sabbath—to a Thursday or Friday as has been done in the past.

Is this accomodation entirely reasonable?

Four rounds were slated for Thursday and Friday instead of Saturday. Moreover, they elected to delay commencing the final round until after sundown on Saturday—the end of the Jewish Sabbath—should the New Jersey students win finalist status. Apparently the adjustment was easy. Only two teams needed to volunteer for new schedules and more than 10 offered. The adjustment was applauded for demonstrating the value of religious tolerance in a pluralistic juridical system.

But the national body’s leadership was outraged, according to attorneys familiar with the case. It passed a resolution prohibiting any such accommodation in the future. “During the meeting of the State Mock Trial Coordinators in May 2005,” explains John Wheeler, Board Chairman of the National High School Mock Trial Championship, “the coordinators voted not to permit future modifications to the competition schedule format. It is the opinion of the State Coordinators and the Board that while the [New Jersey contestant] accommodation may have allowed full competitive participation, it unreasonably affected the conduct of the national tournament and forced unreasonable alteration to the planned schedule of events.”

Unreasonable alteration — that’s where the rubber always hits the road on these things.  More explanation, because your (Sabbath observant) blogger doesn’t suggest or believe there’s any legal right for a private group to accommodate anyone:

Wheeler’s letter to the ADL defended the organization’s policy and rejected the 2005 North Carolina-New Jersey precedent as one that “forced a departure from this system in a manner that fundamentally impacted the integrity of the prescribed power match system and was unfair to the vast majority of participants.” Specifically, claimed Wheeler, “In the second round in 2005, the New Jersey team should have faced a power-matched opponent, but this was impossible since no other teams had yet competed. This created an unfair advantage for the New Jersey team. In the fourth round for New Jersey on late Friday afternoon, its opponent was only given minutes notice that they would be competing in this round, thus affording them no preparation time; while the New Jersey team knew several weeks in advance that it would be competing at that time.”

Wheeler’s rationale were dismissed out of hand by critics and jurists alike contacted by this reporter. Steven M. Freeman, ADL Legal Affairs Department director, stated, “We recognize that the accommodation the Maimonides School is requesting may complicate the tournament scheduling for other teams, but are troubled by the apparent hostility of tournament officials and fail to understand their unwillingness even to consider alternatives which would enable the deserving Jewish students to participate.”

Wheeler did not return two deadline calls for comment.

A number of well-known legal advocates for the rights of religious Jews have now entered the fray and suggested that, while the group and the event may be private, there’s enough public involvement in the affair to make it a “rights” issue after all.

So… what’s really going on here?  (More here.)