Not All Criticism is Constructive
I came upon eagleionline a month or so ago at the suggestion of a younger alum. I have enjoyed reading most of the exchanges, but not all. This vehicle is obviously a wonderfully convenient way for the law school community to exchange views. Like many blogs, some of the content can get needlessly personal. Some of the controversies I read about are the obvious signs of the culture wars that have raged in the country for at least a decade. Can the lawyer for the United States offer his personal opinion on a war or prisoner policy that he may have to defend? If he chooses not to, shall we use our institutions to reflect approbation? What about those among us who think he is actually doing the right thing? Should we attack our law school because even conservatives are invited to speak? Shall we challenge alumni reforms at the Law School on the grounds that they evidence a subtle and sinister conspiracy to…what…eradicate alumni civil liberties? Does anybody really believe that? 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. As Augustine wrote: “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.” Hopefully, we can elevate the quality and tone of discourse in the Law School community, if not outside it, and remember that the attack mode is neither unifying, nor charitable and hardly a constructive exercise in liberty.
John D. Hanify ‘74
John D. Hanify '74
6 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (6)
I fear that this post may advocate an untenable position in a free society that has operated under the current written Constitution since 1787. This country from its inception has understood the need for intellectual debate and its relationship to proper Republican government.
One must remember the proper role of an Attorney General is not to zealously advocate for the government, but rather to do what is just. A debate over how to define justice in the modern world is useful and very much in line with St. Augustine's teachings, so long as it be civil. He is also subject to the external limits defined in the Constitution. How one reads such limits is an appropriate debate.
Unwarranted personal attacks on Attorney General Mukasey who overall has had a very honest and successful judge in NY are inappropriate. To the extent that Mr. Hanify is referring to this conduct, I agree with him.
However, there is a real debate as to whether certain Constitutional rights are absolute and not prone to judicial balancing tests, and with respect to said rights, how far do our international obligations compel us to extend them? This debate must occur or the Bill of Rights and our obligations under International Law are worthless not only to enemy combatants, but to our citizens.
Debate certainly should exist at a law school... an institutional system critical to our form of government, and a system which is so closely tied to the future of politics and our brilliant Constitution.
Finally, while I may depart somewhat from Mr. Hanify's assessment of the role of colleges and universities as agents of change, I do believe that capacity has been overdone and taken to an extreme. Whether the Kent State riot or other demonstrations significantly impacted the pullout in Vietnam or merely happened in the same era, for example, is anything but certain.
I do, however, find it intriguing that, in my experience, those talking about freedom and liberty are often overzealous to the point of disrespect, intolerance, and irrantionality, which runs contrary to their espoused purpose.
If the above post was targeted to me, I take personal offense to it.
I second Publius' comments and would also like to note for the record that none of my comments have been extremist, overzealous, or disrespectful. We should encourage an environment where intellectual differences are debated with respect, not with emotive writing.