The American Association of Law Schools (AALS) is meeting this week at the Manchester Grand Hyatt.

The group consists of staff from most of the nation’s 200 law schools and has long been at the fore in fighting anti-gay discrimination.

In particular, the AALS opposed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). It joined with other groups in challenging the policy, and it requires member schools to take efforts to educate law students that DADT discriminates against GLBT military personnel.

Consequently, thanks to the AALS standards, most of our nation’s law schools do not engage in anti-gay bias.

But there are exception – schools such as Brigham Young University (BYU) and Pepperdine University (PU).

Historically, neither school has tolerated openly gay students, because doing so conflicted with their religious beliefs.

But, in order to placate the AALS, these schools and others like them, now admit gay students so long as the students don’t have sex with members of their own gender while enrolled.

The schools argue this is a fair policy because it also applies to straight students, who are also required by their religion to remain celibate until marriage.

(Of course, both BYU and Pepperdine played a key role in passing Proposition 8, which would have allowed gays to marry, but school officials appear to have overlooked this conundrum.)

But this policy isn’t fair; it’s disingenuous. It’s designed to discourage gay students from attending these tax-supported (via financial aid) schools. Rather than say, “No gays allowed,” the schools use a policy that turns on “marital status.” It’s akin to saying, “We don’t discriminate against women, but only humans possessing a penis may apply.” The policy is designed to have a disparate impact and effect on gay people.

The AALS should dump these schools from its voluntary membership, and it should encourage the Department of Education (DOE) to revoke their federal funding.

The DOE should follow the example of our California Supreme Court, which ruled last year that the state does not have to provide benefits to entities that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and, further, that entities that justify discrimination based upon their religious views cannot do so if they offer their services to the public.

After all, there’s nothing in the law curriculum at Pepperdine that requires discrimination based upon sexual orientation. It’s not as if it’s a seminary.

If such schools want to engage in anti-gay discrimination, that’s their choice under the Constitution. But neither federal nor state governments should support this practice. The California State Bar, for example, does not have to accredit or recognize graduates from law schools that engage in discrimination based upon race, gender, or sexual orientation.

And it is a real issue. In the Dec. 10 issue of the Deseret News, Tad Walch reports that BYU removed student Michael Wiltbank’s photo exhibit from a BYU building. The exhibit featured photos of self-identified gay BYU students, along with photos of those who supported them. The exhibit did not indicate who was gay or lesbian. Wiltbank wanted to use the exhibit to show support and tolerance for gays and lesbians.

The exhibit re-appeared four days after BYU officials removed it. The officials said there had been a “miscommunication,” and that the exhibit should not have been taken down.

Puhleeze. These schools are using religion as a pretext for discrimination. It’s apparent in their policies and in practices like this one that send a message of intolerance to gay students, whether they’re celibate or not.