Although much has already been written here about Attorney General Mukasey’s upcoming commencement address, we wish to add our voices and viewpoints to the discourse.

One of the predictable aspects of academic life is the recurring debate about who should be entitled to speak in the university marketplace. That marketplace is correctly perceived by students, faculty and alumni to be a place where ideas can be freely exchanged and values of intellectual honesty and freedom cherished. Because the university is such a unique marketplace, its constituencies may from time to time jealously guard entry.

The undersigned come from different backgrounds and persuasions. We acknowledge that certain practices are, by definition, torture, but our concerns about torture in the war on terrorism range from the practical to the principled. Some of us would not want forms of torture practiced by the United States simply because they would be practiced on our own troops. Some of us believe that in an enlightened world, principles of justice and the rule of law make recourse to such practices barbaric and inhuman in all circumstances. We do share in common a devotion to the practice of law and to an adversarial system that, like a university campus, ideally should filter and sift the facts and apply the facts analytically to legal principles which regulate our behavior. We would be concerned if admission to the university’s marketplace of ideas were restricted to only those with whom we agreed.

Controversy over commencement speakers at Boston College Law School or other academic institutions is nothing new. In past years, there have been student and faculty objections to the appearance of Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, Ambassador Paul Cellucci, and United States Representative Edward Markey. Many objections have been based on personal moral grounds, as they usually are. Some of us are disappointed that someone who holds views antithetical to our own, especially in their moral consequences, should be afforded a platform within the university. But tolerance is the best antidote for such disappointment. Closing the university’s doors defies its purpose. The reality is that we live in a broader world which has too lately been burdened with intolerance from both ends of the political and moral spectrum.

Attorney General Mukasey’s invitation to speak at the Law School’s commencement, while it may be unpopular, is entirely compatible with a great university’s search for truth and expression of tolerance. Certainly, for those of us who disagree with him or challenge his good faith, this also becomes a teachable moment, an opportunity for reasoned discourse, thoughtful listening and analysis, and possibly attention to disagreeable words- such an exercise in tolerance represents an important skill for lawyers, students, faculty, deans, and alumni as we search collectively during this election year to find an elusive common vision for our country.

Christopher M. Morrison, ‘01
Michael T. Marcucci, ‘01
Amy Auth, ‘02
Brandon Bigelow, ‘01
Stephen F. Greene, ‘07
Raymond Martin, ‘01
Michael Joyce, ‘02
Philip Catanzano, ‘02
Trevor Keenan, ‘01
Philip Graeter, ‘99
Mark J. Hoover, ‘93
Karen A. Whitley, ‘93
James J. Marcellino, ‘68, Adjunct Faculty
Jonathan D.H. Lamb, ‘06

Kristin D. Casavant, ‘06