Does the student handbook of InfiLaw's Arizona Summit Law School require students to "actively support" the brand, image, and business interests of InfiLaw?

I do not want to shock you, but sometimes a consumer buys a product or service, does not like it, and flat out says so. Or the consumer may actually like the product or service, but publicly disapprove of some aspect of its brand or image. Or the consumer may be happy with the product or service and the way it is marketed, but nonetheless express an opinion that the product’s manufacturer, merchant, or investors regard as detrimental to their business interests. And, or course, because word of mouth is such a powerful influencer, these business interests would be happier if satisfied customers were active, rather than passive, in their approval.

Fortunately, for-profit Arizona Summit Law School [ASLS], one of InfiLaw Consortium's three bottom-of-the-barrel law schools, is able to ensure an impressive 100% rate of active student support for its mission, culture, brand, image, values, educational processes, and business interests and practices, through the effective persuasive technique of compulsion. 

From Arizona Summit's student handbook (p. 24):

"Right of Dissent. ASLS supports the academic freedom of all members of its community and does not seek conformity, but insists that persons who choose to associate with ASLS actively support its mission, culture, and business purposes and not engage in activities or conduct that are detrimental to the brand, image, or values of InfiLaw or ASLS or the investment that students have made in obtaining their legal education from ASLS. Any expression of dissent must be made by legitimate means in accord with established governance processes. The exercise of the freedom to dissent does not include the right to interfere with the rights of others or the business interests and educational processes of either InfiLaw or ASLS." 

Arizona Summit's most recent 10-month-out bar-required full-time job placement rate was 35.4%, placing among the bottom 20 of the 200 or so ABA-approved law schools. Moreover, its most recent bar passage rates were 26.4% (July 2015 exam) and 28.4% (February 2016 exam), surely among the lowest in the country, and well under half of the pass rate achieved by the two other law schools in Arizona, the ones that have not tried to elevate their brand image by changing their names to a synonym of "mountain peak." (Incidentally, Arizona Summit is located in Phoenix, and thus lower even in actual physical elevation than the other two Arizona law schools, located respectively in Tempe and Tuscon). 

And yet under the strict limitations set forth in the school's "right to dissent" policy, Arizona Summit students are arguably prohibited from publicizing these bare facts, even without overtly negative commentary or opinion.  Aren't these facts detrimental to the law school's image?  Don't they call into doubt its declared mission of establishing a "benchmark of inclusive excellence in professional education"? 

What is more, the act of publicizing these facts is almost certainly detrimental to InfiLaw’s business interests in encouraging enrollment, i.e. corralling ambulatory bags of money called "students" in sufficient quantities to facilitate the overarching mission and values of Sterling Partners, the private equity firm that owns InfiLaw. Which, according to the firm's profile, includes "generating extraordinary returns for our investors" and "driving value to our portfolios companies." (See Sterling Partners' firm profile at p. 5 of this link). 

As well, I note that students are not permitted to engage in activities detrimental to the school's "brand." This rule can be reasonably interpreted to prohibit snickering at the name "Summit." 

Interestingly, Arizona Summit students are expressly forbidden from engaging in conduct detrimental to the image and business interests of InfiLaw, not just Arizona Summit Law School. So Summit students are arguably subject to discipline, even if they provide groupie-level enthusiastic approval of their own school, if they undermine the "image" of either of the other two InfiLaw schools, Charlotte and Florida Coastal, or either of InfiLaw's two portfolio companies.

Notably, the Arizona Summit policy states, indeed "insist[s]," that students must provide active support for InfiLaw's "mission, culture, and business purposes." You know, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un won 100% of the votes in his recent victorious election campaign, but the reported voter turnout rate was only 99.97%. This indicates a troublingly non-unanimous level of active support among the North Korean electorate. By contrast, each and every Arizona Summit student is required to provide active support for their Dear Leader, I mean for their Dear Consortium of Law Schools and Portfolio Companies. Perhaps the North Korean government should commission some InfiLaw consultants to help it fine tune its policies on dissent so as to eliminate its pesky 0.03% margin of mere passive supporters.

Of course, persons who are not Arizona Summit students, such as documentary filmmakers, are regrettably unbound by a code of conduct requiring them to support Infilaw's brand, image, and business interests, either actively or passively. These persons, in reliance on "distorted facts and data" such as the placement and bar passage rates noted, may be tempted to pursue a "false agenda" of "attacking law school admissions and career advancement policies." Fortunately, InfiLaw has retained zealous legal counsel to warn such potential subversives that [rest of sentence deleted out fear].  Certainly, InfiLaw is entirely reasonable in requesting the opportunity to review any references to it or its affiliate schools prior to public dissemination. 

With the appropriate mix of student discipline and proactive threats of expensive speech-chilling litigation, perhaps we will witness that joyous day when private equity investors need not fear hurtful criticism as they actualize their idealistic and enriching vision of legal education by extracting the maximum amount of borrowed tuition dollars from the maximum number of student debt slaves. Ave, InfiLaw, morituri te salutant.