Praise, and 2 minor caveats, on the March 20 Mukasey Forum
zygmunt plater Friday, March 28, 2008 at 12:15PM There were many moments to appreciate at the ACS/BCLS afternoon session last Thursday on our current waterboarding controversy. Speakers on both sides of the issue spoke thoughtfully and well.
We just wanted to note two small discordant notes.
The two lines that were distressing were (1) the statement that faculty members and students who criticize the Mukasey invitation are somehow expressing “hate” for the Attorney General, and (2) the statement that first-year students should fear retaliation from their teachers if they express support for the invitation.
We cannot allow these statements to stand uncontested.
1. The objections to the graduation invitation — most prominently including the faculty and student letters intended to urge the Attorney General to come to discuss the issue at a more appropriate time and place — are based on serious matters of principle. We have not heard faculty or students expressing a hatred of the man himself, and hope never to.
2. And it is as destructive as it is simply wrong to raise the specter of BCLS teachers retaliating against students for holding differing opinions. That simply is not the way this community operates.
Profs. Zygmunt Plater, Mark Brodin, Buzzy Baron, Bob Bloom
Reader Comments (3)
“When faculty members sign a letter and express their viewpoints as those of the university and openly denounce opposing viewpoints as being inconsistent with the universities’ ideals, it stifles free speech. And as a 1L I would be concerned about speaking up against the professors when they are so vocal that their opinion is the only correct opinion.”
I never used the word “retaliation.” There are any number of reasons that a 1L or any law student would be intimidated by this behavior. Being in a new environment and not wanting to “rock the boat”, being scared of looking foolish because your professor will challenge your viewpoint in class, in front of your classmates, asking for a recommendation, applying for a clinical program, or choosing a paper topic.
It is a shame that when I raised a legitimate concern as a law student—I was attacked as being destructive by four professors. What sort of example does this set for future students who want to voice their concerns—I believe it only heightens those concerns. It would have been more appropriate for the professors to address these legitimate concerns by stating that they personally would never stifle the freedom of speech in their classrooms nor on campus, but rather they encourage opposing viewpoints. Unfortunately, these four professors decided to do the exact opposite and take an action which could further intimidate students and stifle free speech.
Andrew Carmichael, BCLS 2008