Why I Signed the Faculty Letter to Attorney General Mukasey

First, I would like to commend the vast majority of commentators on the Mukasey invitation who have been very respectful in their comments and have avoided ad hominem attacks. The civil manner in which this discussion has largely been conducted is a credit to our Law School.

Some have defended Attorney General Mukasey’s invitation as a valuable diversification of political views at Boston College Law School. I believe that the political views of a person are irrelevant to whether our Law School should invite that individual to speak at Commencement. Insuring diversity of views is the function of class discussion, guest lectures, and symposia. Boston College Law School already insures that such diversity exists and zealously protects free expression and open inquiry.

When Boston College Law School invites an individual to be a Commencement speaker, we honor that person. The invitation is our recognition that a person in a position important to Boston College has performed some great deed in that position. The invitation celebrates the invitee’s accomplishment in the prominent position. It asks that person to come and inspire our graduates. Political views have nothing to do with an invitee’s accomplishment or the inspiration he or she provides.

In this regard, it is helpful to recall our Mission Statement, which appears at
http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/about/history/mission.html and describes the ways in which we hope to inspire our students:

Boston College and its law school are rooted in the Jesuit tradition of service to God and others. In that tradition, we believe that the purpose of higher education is both the search for knowledge, and the preparation of women and men who are moved to a constructive, responsible, and loving use of their knowledge.  …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. We seek to train a diverse student body not merely to be good lawyers, but to be lawyers who lead good lives, and who will be prepared to seek and to find meaningful work in service to others that will enrich their communities.

Our shared mission has resulted in invitations to persons of many different political views. These persons had achieved great accomplishments in positions important to Boston College Law School that the community could celebrate. Many of us may not have liked everything that each invitee had done, but we typically could all agree that the invitees had performed at least one great deed in their prominent position that our graduating students would find inspirational and consistent with our educational mission.

Attorney General Mukasey was invited because he is Attorney General of the United States. Had he remained a federal judge in the Southern District of New York or a partner in a New York law firm, Boston College would not have asked him to speak at our Commencement in Newton.  To date, however, we cannot celebrate Mr. Mukasey’s performance as Attorney General.  He has allowed himself to become a symbol of the President’s insistence that some forms of torture be retained as a tool for gathering information. Although he could have issued a directive that waterboarding not be used in the future, he has instead invoked a balancing test in which the “heinousness” of torture should be “balanced against the value…of what information you might get. ”

Mr. Mukasey’s view on waterboarding conflicts with the Jesuit tradition of respecting the dignity of, and having compassion for, fellow humans. Indeed, it is contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, to which the Jesuit Order belongs. Gaudiem et Spes , section 27, states that torture is “infamy” that “poisons human society” and does “more harm to those who practice [it] … than those who suffer from the injury.” Similarly, John Paul II, in his encyclical, Veritatis Splendor, section 80, states that torture is “intrinsically evil” and includes it among “acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object.” Some teachings of other great religions agree. See e.g. Rabbi Aryeh Klapper, Torah Does Not Support Torture (http://www.edah.org/klapperb.cfm).

I believe that Mr. Mukasey, who is by all accounts a decent man, would not want his legacy to be torture. I signed the letter to Attorney General Mukasey because I hope that he will do the right thing and prohibit waterboarding.