I wasn't aware of either the pro bono program or the content-based exclusion of conservative pro bono opportunities based on their content. I agree that this sounds inappropriate and, if it works as you say it does, should be fixed.
I don't have a problem with requiring students to do pro bono work. So long as a law license is required to practice law and people can be arrested for practicing law without a license, I think it is entirely appropriate for lawyers to do pro bono work, and many of the largest firms devote substantial hours to pro bono. I also see no problem with lawyers-in-training doing the same. While content-based approval may be appropriate, I don't think that a system that approves only liberal pro bono projects and disapproves conservative ones is acceptable, and I hope that this will be changed.
Still, at least while I was at the law school there was a very conservative sense that students would get their grades based upon the merit of their work and not because of their race, religion or other external factor. At that time, the Law Review offered one affirmative action position each year, and each year the Black Law Student Association rejected the offer (I do understand that the offer subsequently was accepted).
There was a black professor who held a review session for his contracts class under the aegis of the Black Law Student Association, and this review session became a minor scandal because it was exclusionary. I may be mistaken, but I remember that the meeting was opened to anyone who wanted to attend as a result of the outcry.
I also remember that the professors all seemed to make it clear that the specific answer that we gave on a law school exam was relatively unimportant, but that the process that we went through (in terms of the case law and statutes that we considered and the way that we analyzed them) was the important stuff in determining our grade.
Again, as I said, there were lots of Roosevelt Democrats on the faculty. I don't remember any professor whom I would consider a Great Society/War on Poverty Democrat, and nobody was holding up George McGovern or Jimmy Carter as an example for us. I also don't remember any comments -- positive or negative -- about Ronald Reagan, who was reelected to his second term when I got there.
You: "I don't have a problem with requiring students to do pro bono work. So long as a law license is required to practice law and people can be arrested for practicing law without a license, I think it is entirely appropriate for lawyers to do pro bono work, and many of the largest firms devote substantial hours to pro bono."
I see the opportunity for good in this sentence. Let me restate it two ways.
(1) "I don't have a problem with requiring all lawyers to do pro bono work. So long as a law license is required to practice law and people can be arrested for practicing law without a license, I think it is entirely appropriate for lawyers to be required to do pro bono work, and many of the largest firms should be required to devote substantial hours to pro bono work."
Indeed, mandatory free labor by lawyers, as a condition of practicing law, might completely eliminate the problem of the lack of legal help for the indigent.
Following the logic further,
(2) "I don't have a problem with requiring all doctors to do pro bono work. So long as a medical license is required to practice medicine and people can be arrested for practicing medicine without a license, I think it is entirely appropriate for doctors to be required to do pro bono work, and many of the largest private clinics should be required to devote substantial hours to pro bono work."
If all doctors were required by law to work one full week for free every year, we could provide more indigent care, and substantially reduce medical costs.
Come to think of it, this offers a lot of new possibilities. Every licensed profession should be compelled to work a week for free every year for the poor. Banks should be required to give away loans for a week, because they have to meet all sorts of regulatory requirements in order to be banks.
The principle that: "You have to be licensed, therefore we can command you to perform free labor for the good of society" is a good one. We can use it to cut the costs of everything by 1/52, almost 2%, if we just impose it on everyone. Garbagemen perform a vital service. They should be required, as a condition of employment, to work for free for one week a year. Same thing for teachers.
If we up that one week to two weeks, we could cut the deficit by 4%. Three weeks, 6%, but that's probably going to far.
Surely it is not too much to ask that every working person in America, and every company in America, should be required to work absolutely free for one full week every year, in order to give back to society. And ESPECIALLY anyone in public service, like teachers, garbage men, bankers, doctors and the like.
Or maybe we don't like this idea very much. Seems to me that if you can make lawyers work a week for free as a condition of being a lawyer, you can make absolutely anybody work a week for free as a condition of holding a job.