Note: This article has been updated. Please scroll down to see all updates.

By Jesse Stellato
March 11, 2008

NEWTON, MA — Twenty-two members of the Boston College Law School faculty broke with the Dean of Boston College Law School, John Garvey, today over the recent invitation of Attorney General Michael Mukasey to speak at the school’s 2008 Commencement Ceremony.

In a letter addressed directly to the Attorney General, and cc’d both to Dean Garvey and university president William Leahy, the signatories encouraged Mukasey to reconsider his decision to deliver the 2008 commencement address.

Acknowledging that Mukasey faced “complex professional difficulties” in his position as Attorney General, the signers wrote that were “very concerned” that Mukasey’s role in the current controversy regarding the legality of waterboarding has made him “a symbol of Administration policies that conflict with basic principles of international and domestic law, the ideals of Boston College Law School, and the Jesuit principles that underlie Boston College’s educational mission.”

The entire letter, and accompanying signatures, can be viewed here.

The faculty letter comes amid some of the most impassioned debate on campus at Boston College Law School in recent years.

On January 23, the administration announced that Mukasey had been chosen to speak at commencement, to be held on May 23. “It is a singular honor for Boston College to have the Attorney General of the United States as our commencement speaker,” said BC Law Dean John Garvey. “I cannot imagine a better role model for the Class of 2008,” he continued in a written statement.

While students’ first reaction seemed to be one of general, but not wholly unqualified praise, opinions on campus soon began to change.

On January 31, one student at BC Law, writing under the pseudonym “Dmoe,” questioned whether the administration’s invitation should be withdrawn:

Boston College Law School—particularly because it is a Jesuit institution—and its students should give more thought to the ramifications of the school’s choice of commencement speaker. The administration should strongly reconsider its decision to invite Mr. Mukasey to deliver the commencement address to the Class of 2008.

The next day, Dan Roth ‘04 announced he had started a group, “Waterboarding IS torture,” on Facebook. Roth wrote that it was “beyond comprehension” that Mukasey had been invited and was slated to receive the Founder’s Medal, one of BC Law’s highest honors:

Our Mission Statement reads: ‘We encourage our students to develop their own individual commitment to others and to explore those themes which are central to the Jesuit tradition: the dignity of the human person, the advancement of the common good and compassion for the poor.” It also expresses the goal of preparing students for a “constructive, responsible, and loving use of their knowledge.” How these high principles can be reconciled with awarding Attorney General Mukasey our Founders’ Medal and calling him the ultimate role model for the Class of 2008 is beyond comprehension.

On February 1, when Eagleionline first wrote about Roth’s group, the grouph had 9 members. It now has 57.

Also on February 1, a letter from Professor of Law Zygmunt Plater appeared on Roth’s Facebook group. It later appeared on Eagleionine. Plater criticized the invitation both “on its merits and in its process” and concluded thus:

I fear that this present choice of graduation honoree, as it sinks in, could end up eroding our high aspirations to ethical leadership as well as giving us an institutional black eye.

On February 15, Professor Emeritus Arthur Berney joined the debate from his retirement in Hawaii, writing that the choice of a commencement speakers vested with the graduating class absent opposition from the Dean and the Faculty:

As far as I recall the students have the right to choose their commencement speaker, unless the dean and faculty considers the choice ill advised for some important reason involving the reputation of the law school. If the A.G. was chosen by the students, free of any pressure, then I think a rescission is wrong. If after fuller discussion the student body has changed its mind, under some form of democratic deliberation then the only course open is to request the A.G to withdraw his acceptance.

In fact, neither students nor their representatives were consulted this year. Nate Kenyon, BC Law’s Director of Marketing and Communications has stated that the opportunity to have the Attorney General of the United States speak at this year’s Commencement made such discussions a non-issue.

Then, On February 20 in an open letter to Dean Garvey, James C. Sturdevant ‘72 questioned the Mukasey invitation on substantive and procedural grounds. Sturdevant, a prominent consumer rights and class action attorney, concluded his letter thus:

I will not continue to financially support an institution whose dean would publicly recognize and associate the law school now with Michael Mukasey. Given his public record, I hope that the invitation will be rescinded by the faculty of the law school at the earliest opportunity.

In response to the growing concern over Mukasey’s invitation, the Law School in conjunction with BC Law’s American Constitution Society began planning an event focused on the substantive issues surrounding Attorney General Mukasey’s confirmation by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Also in response to the growing concern, the Law Students Association (LSA) organized an “Open Forum,” which took place on February 12.

At the February 12 forum, some students rose in support of the Mukasey’s invitation. Some argued that Attorney General Mukasey was undeserving of such harsh criticism while others said the Attorney General’s prestige and importance should outweigh any concerns. Many students highlighted the Attorney General’s long service as a federal judge as evidence that he is a fine role model for aspiring attorneys. These statements were vocally opposed by others in attendance.

The LSA shared their detailed notes of the meeting with Dean Garvey, but declined to provide Eagleionline with a transcript.

In late February and early March, supporters of the Mukasey invitation became more vocal.

On February 28, fourteen Boston College Alumni alumni penned an Op/Ed on Eagleionline which presented “Alternative Alumni Views on Mukasey.” These fourteen alumni counseled tolerance:

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.

On March 3, Guillaume Buell ‘09, who also serves as President of the Boston College Law School chapter of the Federalist Society, wrote an Op/Ed entitled “Why I Support Attorney General Mukasey.” Buell concluded:

I am proud that Mr. Mukasey is coming to Boston College Law School. He has led a distinguished career and the Class of 2008 could not ask for a better speaker. But I am ashamed that some students and faculty are actively organizing against his appearance. I have no problem with, and in fact applaud, efforts to generate discourse on waterboarding. But for students and faculty to turn their backs on Mr. Mukasey at Commencement, skip Commencement, or otherwise disrupt the ceremonies, is a black mark on them and reflects poorly on Boston College Law School. One wonders whether Mr. Mukasey is being opposed not because of his Senate testimony, but like Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on main campus in 2006, and unlike Congressman Markey here in 2007, simply because Mr. Mukasey works for President Bush.

On March 3, Dean Garvey announced that he would be hold a private meeting with members of the Class of 2008 the next day to discuss “the process used to select the commencement speaker.”

Eagleionline reported late on March 3 that members of the administration had decided not to present Mukasey with Founder’s Medal.

The Founder’s Medal is the highest honor bestowed by the Law School, and has been given to every commencement speaker since the medal was first bestowed in 1986.

According to Boston College Law School’s website, recipients of the Founder’s Medal embody the traditions of professionalism, scholarship and service which the Law School seeks to instill in its students.

Past honorees of the Founder’s Medal have included U.S. Congressman Edward Markey ‘72 (2007), President of the American Bar Association Michael S. Greco ‘72 (2006), and U.S. Senator Judd Gregg (2005).

On March 5, Dean Garvey addressed the Mukasey situation in a pubic memorandum. In the memo, Garvey stated that Mukasey would not receive a Founder’s Medal this year and in future years commencement speakers would no longer receive Founder’s Medals “routinely.” 

The change in policy, Garvey said, would make it less difficult for the the school to invite prominent public figures who have taken sides on issues of public concern:

Here at the Law School it has been a common, though not invariable, practice to give Founder’s Medals (named for Robert Creedon, S.J.) at graduation ceremonies. The Provost and I have been talking about this issue for some time. One difficulty with these practices is that they make it harder to invite prominent public figures (except perhaps judges) who have taken sides on issues of public concern. Someone in the community is bound to feel that the speaker’s position unsuits him or her for our praise. With this thought in mind we have decided that in the future we will not routinely confer Founder’s medals at graduation – a rule that will apply to this and future years.

Garvey also described the steps he had taken to “give the community a chance to express views on all of this.”

In addition to past events, such as the LSA’s Open Forum and the Dean’s private conversation with the class of 2008, Garvey stated that a panel discussion on March 20 was forthcoming, as was the law school’s sponsorship of an event with Jack Goldsmith on the main campus on March 25.

Garvey also outlined his plans for future procedures whereby a commencement speaker would be selected:

We can do a better job of inviting suggestions from the graduating class.Given the lead time necessary to invite people prominent in public life, we should probably consult with 2Ls in April of their second year. We might also benefit from consultation with a small group of senior faculty – assuming always that they are willing to respect the confidentiality of our decisions (even if they disagree).

Finally, Garvey encouraged the school to “your voices heard on this and other matters of importance to the School.” The Dean continued: “One of our greatest assets is our community. We can preserve it best by engaging in healthy debate and treating each other with civility when we disagree.”

Click to enlargeMeanwhile, on or before the day Garvey wrote to the school, the Dean’s earlier comment — “I cannot imagine a better role model for the Class of 2008” — was quietly removed from the Dean’s press release, and all references to the original version on the law school’s website were deleted as well.

Asked later to comment on the removal of the praise, law school spokesman Nate Kenyon stated that he “was trying to be sensitive to those members of the community who were upset by the idea of the Attorney General as a role model.”

(On March 11, after Eagleionline inquired about the change, the original version of the press release was restored.)

On March 7 and 8, as news of Garvey’s Founder’s Medal decision began to ricochet across the country, two more alumni entered the debate. Both are prominent alumni on the Law School’s Board of Overseers.

In the first, John D. Hanify ‘74 argued that “Not All Criticism is Constructive.” In Hanify’s own words:

Attempting to use academic institutions as ramrods for political or cultural change is misplaced. They were never intended to be battlegrounds. Expecting the Jesuits not be Catholic is foolishness. Wishing for the return of the dean who is dead, has departed or retired is futile. Taking on the Dean or faculty members because you believe them to be the personification of evil in the world may warrant medical attention. B.C. Law now has a wealth of very gifted people in its administration and faculty. There is no case to be made that they do not daily labor in good faith to advance the interests of the Law School and its students. The Law School’s national reputation has grown and been significantly enhanced during the last decade. It hurts to read in these spaces needlessly disrespectful, ad hominem comments of some cultural warriors who have regrettably strayed from their battlegrounds.

The next day, Eagleionline published a March 3 letter from David Weinstein ‘75 that was written to the members of the Boston College Law School’s Board of Overseers. Weinstein currently chairs that body.

In his letter, Weinstein wrote that the Mukasy invitation benefited the school: “The acceptance by U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey of our invitation to serve as our 2008 commencement speaker advances BC’s diversity and strengthens our school.”

Yesterday, the student writing under the pseudonym “Dmoe” posted a letter on Eagleionline asking him “to reconsider his decision to be our commencement speaker for this year.” The letter continued:

While we appreciate the difficulties inherent in the position of Attorney General, we are disturbed by the statements you have made in support of the Administration’s position regarding the legality of waterboarding. As students of a law school that has a long-standing reputation for high ethical standards and a historic commitment to social justice under national and international law, we feel that your comments regarding waterboarding do not comport with the ideals we strive towards. Your widely recognized position in the Senate hearings on waterboarding would significantly detract from our commencement celebration and the values represented by our school. In addition, this would bring unwanted media attention to the event.