The University of Wisconsin System will have to look elsewhere for legal advice regarding UW-Eau Claire's controversial Bible-study ban.

Responding to UW System President Kevin Reilly's Nov. 14 request, the attorney general's office released a letter late Monday declining to provide its legal opinion on the policy prohibiting resident assistants from leading Bible studies in their residence halls.

"Were the Attorney General to address substantively the issue presented and conclude that the UWEC policy likely violates, and has violated the constitutional rights of those affected, in effect we would be conceding liability on behalf of the State," Deputy Attorney General Daniel Bach wrote to Reilly, on behalf of Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager.

"At the very least, this department would be unable to defend any lawsuit brought against the University and/or the State of Wisconsin, even though a viable argument in defense of the policy might exist."

Because of this predicament, Bach wrote, it would be "imprudent" for Lautenschlager to offer her legal opinion.

"Without presaging the results of any legal analysis, I think it imprudent to put this department, and the Attorney General, in the position of being unable to perform our representational functions on behalf of the State by acceding to your request for a written opinion," he said.

Due to the letter's late release, UW System officials could not be reached for comment.

"This is what you would really call a conundrum," UW System spokesperson Doug Bradley said in an interview last week. "Everybody's opinion and belief needs to be honored, so Kevin has asked the attorney general to give an opinion on this."

Although not addressed in Monday's letter, Bach's denial would seemingly also apply to a Nov. 16 letter from 25 Wisconsin legislators with a similar request.

"I can't imagine a scenario where the attorney general wouldn't agree with us," State Rep. Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford, one of the authors of the Nov. 16 letter, said in an interview last week. "We will continue to challenge this policy no matter what, but we hope the attorney general will join us."

Bach did offer 11 questions for the UW System to consider in its own evaluation of the constitutionality of the UW-Eau Claire policy, in addition to a brief history of applicable Supreme Court cases.

"As you may be aware, the United States Supreme Court has stated that a public university's regulation restricting speech must be necessary to serve a compelling state interest and narrowly tailored to achieve that purpose," Bach wrote.

"At the same time, the Supreme Court has recognized that a public university may prohibit certain activities constituting speech if those activities substantively interfere with reasonable campus rules or the opportunity of other students to obtain an education."