Prof. Charles Baron

March 11, 2008

I would hope there is no serious question about my dedication to freedom of speech and my opposition to all efforts to enforce political correctness. Attorney General Mukasey was not invited to give the Commencement speech at the law school because he takes an interesting and controversial position on the subject of the legality of waterboarding. The Administration did not invite him in order to hear his views on that subject, and, for a variety of reasons, he is unlikely to make them the topic of his talk. The idea was that, as Attorney General, he would honor us with his presence and that, in exchange, we would honor him and what he stands for.

Ironically, it has been the voiced opposition to the choice of the Attorney General that has provided us with our free speech moment. Requests, including my own, for the calling of a faculty meeting regarding the announced decision to have General Mukasey be the Commencement speaker and be awarded the Founder’s Medal went unanswered until the Administration was informed that we had drafted our letter to the Attorney General and were circulating it among the faculty for signatures. It was only then that a faculty meeting was hurriedly called and consideration was given by the Administration to the possibility of denying General Mukasey the Founder’s Medal and withdrawing the invitation. The next day, the LSA called and chaired a Town Meeting that was a brilliant display of the BC Law School Community at its best – differing views thoughtfully, eloquently, and respectfully expressed. During the same week, the American Constitution Society laid the foundations for the program on the legality of torture that it will hold at the Law School on March 20.

I see our letter to General Mukasey as, among other things, yet another element in this continuing dialogue. It provides the Attorney General with an opportunity to reply to our letter and deal specifically with our concerns. And, if the Attorney General chooses to come despite our voiced opposition to his choice, he will, in fact, provide us with an opportunity to continue the debate. There could be a chance of his volunteering to arrive before Commencement to participate in a discussion that attempts to deal head-on with our objections. Even if not, his presence will provide us with a place and time for raising once again the issue of the legality of waterboarding and other means of torture. But, our position is that his position on waterboarding makes him an inappropriate role model for a graduating class, and we think it dishonest and improper to invite the man to come to be honored and then use him merely as a means for the promotion of free speech.