Chicago, IL, February 4, 1999... The Anti-Defamation League today released the following statement regarding the decision of the Illinois Board of Admissions to the Bar to deny certification to avowed racist and anti-Semite Matt Hale on the basis of its character and fitness requirements. Richard S. Hirschhaut, the Director of the League's Greater Chicago/Upper Midwest Region, and Harlan A. Loeb, Midwest Counsel, commented:
Matt Hale’s abhorrent bigotry is a matter of public record, and he does not deny
it. To the contrary, he takes pride in it, and gives it voice in his leadership of a
racist and anti-Semitic organization, the World Church of the Creator.
The Anti-Defamation League believes that Matt Hale’s moral compass is seriously
defective. Exposing him and condemning his views are consistent with ADL’s mandate to
combat prejudice and discrimination.
In this regard, we believe the decision of the Inquiry Panel of the Committee on
Character and Fitness in Illinois was well-intentioned. The two judges who determined that
Hale was unfit to practice law in Illinois obviously share our view of his moral judgment.
At the same time, the decision troubles us. The test for "fitness" for
attorneys has never traditionally been a test of the applicant’s moral views. To the
contrary, it has focused on the individual’s conduct, particularly when that conduct
has raised questions about his or her ability to obey and uphold the law.
We believe that denying an individual a license to practice law because of his views
– no matter how abhorrent those views may be – sets a dangerous precedent. At
another time, in another place, we could envision a circumstance in which another
Committee on Character and Fitness could follow this lead to reject a candidate because
that candidate has expressed support for abortion, opposition to school prayer, or other
moral views contrary to the majority of his or her community. This becomes a very slippery
slope.
While we find this entire matter complex and difficult, on reflection we agree with the
dissenter on the Illinois panel who wrote that the "advocacy of beliefs, no matter
how repugnant to current law, cannot be the basis for denial of certification to an
applicant who will subscribe to [his oath as an attorney]…Time will tell if Matthew
Hale can in fact practice law in accordance with his oath while holding extremist
views."
