Eagleionline

Can you blame them? They should frankly be embarrassed by this ad.

I feel sorry for any potential BC Law students from Maine who might see this and think that this represents the school.

If Maine schools "teach" gay marriage to kids as well as Fitzgibbon does contracts, then there is not much to worry about frankly.

Stand for Marriage Maine's logo has a man and a woman, which is obviously symbolic, and two kids. As if third children didn't feel marginalized enough. Now we're supposed to have exactly two children? What is this, China?
Also, I've never heard Professor Fitz talk that fast.

Well I guess not many gay couples getting married in Maine will be setting up their gift registry at Beauregard's Haberdashery.

Whatever opinions you hold about Prof. Fitzgibbon or his views, note manner in which he identifies himself when making his political statement:

Professor Scott T. FitzGibbon*
*Title for identification purposes only. No university endorsement implied.

This seems like the proper way to dissociate oneself from one's university.

Now, contrast this with the manner in which another professor at Boston College Law School has identified himself:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/03/14/state_putting_church_out_of_adoption_business/

The author of the editorial is "John Garvey" and an italicized sentence appears after the body of the piece: "John Garvey is dean of Boston College Law School."

Oh well, at least one professor at BC Law knows how to make sure his personal political views are not attributed to the institution at which he works. It is too bad, though, that we apparently can't expect such high ethical standards from Dean Garvey.

The only problem with the identification Fitzgibbon uses in the advertisement is that he identifies himself by associating himself with Boston College Law School. Old gimmick from advertising: disclaim what you want people to see. Otherwise, how many people would have actually looked him up?

Further, what is the relevance of such an association if you claim to be stating an opinion based solely on your own reputation? Professor Fitzgibbon is a well-credentialed individual. He can and should rely only on his own education and external affiliations rather than attempt to ride on the coattails of a law school where a large number of the faculty, staff and students do not share such opinions. Why not just title him as "Scott Fitzgibbon, J.D., B.C.L., author of... etc.".

I'd rather not have a conservative image/black cloud of controversy settled over the institution of higher learning I'm investing over $38,000 per year to attend. While we students realize that the school (like most schools) has no official stance on gay marriage, our friends, families, strangers, the press, and potential future employers may not. Somehow, I feel that I should be entitled to my own opinion and not have Professor Fitzgibbon's opinions "assigned" as my own.

* is not sufficient.

He can try to disassociate the school from his views, but to think his views don't influence the perception of BC Law or the likelihood that it will affect the way prospective students and donors and alumni view our school. It's an embarrassment that someone teaching LGBT students at our school has made this draconian view of marriage equality his personal mission. What do the couples of Maine have to do with him? It's further embarrassing that his claims are so legally questionable.

Embarrassed_BC2L, I also feel sorry for any potential law student who sees "Professor Scott T. FitzGibbon, Boston College Law School* *Title for identification purposes only. No university endorsement implied" and thinks that it represents the school. Clearly, this hypothetical potential law student cannot read. He or she will have a very difficult time getting into BC Law.

JB, is your objection to a "conservative" cloud or politicization at the law school in general?

first patrick swayze, now this.

2L,
Your snarky comments, though amusing, are pretty laughable. Yes, you're right that there is a disclaimer for the entire world to see. However, even if people read it and consciously take note of the fact that Fitzy does not speak for the law school as a whole, it is darn near impossible for people who watch this ad without other knowledge of BC to separate him from the rest of the faculty and student body. First impressions die hard, and people who see this ad are very likely to think that BC is a school dominated by views such as those espoused in this ad.

Potential employers might know better, and a lot of potential applicants might know better as well. But if I were LGBT or LGBT-friendly and applying to law schools, and this were the first thing I saw about BC, I'd probably think twice before submitting an application, or in choosing to attend BC over similarly situated schools in the rankings. Especially if I were the type of person who did not yet understand just how Catholic of an institution BC actually is.

Granted, Fitzy is indeed a BC Law professor and I cannot think of a reason why he would or should not be entitled to rely on those credentials. He's also entitled to his opinion and can back whatever causes he chooses. But to state that his doing so won't portray BC Law in a certain light because of a reduced-font size disclaimer is pretty naive.

2L - if you were black or asian (and maybe you are) and a professor at a school to which you are applying said that blacks or asians should not be allowed to X, oh and by the way, that is just his view and not the school's....would you not be a little wary of what the atmosphere at the school is like?

As someone involved in the LGBT orgs here, I assure you we receive plenty of emails from students who are concerned that the campus is not accepting to LGBT students. That is pathetic and sad. Luckily I tell them with limited exceptions (see Scott Fitzgibbon), the faculty and students here are open minded and accepting of LGBT students.

We can all be smart enough to know this is solely Professor Fitzgibbon's personal view on an issue, but we are all also smart enough to know that he represents this school, even when he says he doesn't.

Maybe your problem 2L is that you've been a law student a little too long to realize it isn't all about the technicalities.

Don't forget that BC Law was the host of a "symposium" (if you want to call it that) coordinated by Fitzgibbon, et al. discussing the jurisprudence of marriage and the entire panel was slanted to match the very same views.

Unfortunately one of our journals here at BC Law will be publishing these articles. While I have no problem with a voice of opposition to same sex marriage being welcomed and heard in our school and in our journals, the opposing view is just as important to keep this impression BC Law is building for itself from becoming pervasive in the future.

Then again, I have my doubts the administration at BC Law really cares if it gets that reputation.

Embarrassed BC2L FTW!

This is ridiculous. If you agreed with the man you would never criticize him for putting BC law on the ad. What is he supposed to write? "Distinguished law professor"? Or just law professor?

Next time a professor partakes in an ad that you agree with and puts his school affiliation on it you better criticize him also.

At some point it isn't about political views, it's about human beings. BC Law has gay faculty and students and as students, we PAY to be here. A law school is as much a business as any other corporation. BC Law should start thinking long and hard about how it allows affiliations to it to be used and the reputation it is building. I will gladly criticize a professor who uses his or her affiliation to espouse a view that I may agree with if it is one that is bigoted and harmful to the university in the long run (and frankly a really shitty thing to do to a group of students and faculty the position demonizes). Oh wait, I'm sorry, I wouldn't support ANY such position from ANY faculty member. This isn't just an "issue" that he's taken a side on. He's making a very clear statement that I, as an LGBT student, am less than you as a heterosexual one. It offends students and professors.

I'm not hung up on the fact he affiliated himself with BC Law...I'm more embarrassed than anything. And as a "customer" of this fine institution, I think I have every right to be upset about it and voice my opinion about it. I paid part of his salary and frankly I don't want him speaking for BC Law in a political campaign commercial. If BC Law is okay with that, well they should think long and hard about that decision when they send me a letter years from now asking for the annual alumni donation. Like I said, it's a business.

To put it another way, let's say that I worked for a corporation who does business with Exxon Mobil and, on my own initiative, chose to be in a campaign ad for some environmental group who thought Exxon Mobil polluted our environment and should be brought down by our government and I chose to have my employer mentioned in the advertisement (even with some silly clause stating the views were solely mine) - do you think I'd have my job for long? Do you think Exxon Mobil would be very happy about it?

Maybe that is a bad example - but you don't have a right to use your employer to make any statement you want and expect that you are protected from criticism and reprimand for it. I have my doubts the school cares, but I do. And I pay to be here. And BC Law will know how I feel about it.

Isn't a bigger issue here that his "legal" arguments are ridiculous and that we shouldn't want prospective employers to think this is the type of legal education students are getting at BC Law?

I think what is offensive is that someone who is a professor of the law so deceptively mutilates the law to make outlandish claims. It is an embarrassment to not only BC students but to his fellow faculty members. We are supposed to be going to a tier 1 law school... and this is how the law is interpreted by one of its professors...

"iihavetositinhisclass" - try to make an argument. remember, you are practicing to be a lawyer.

How does one make an argument against "Homosexual marriage taught in public schools...whether parents like it or not?" I mean that is not a legal argument...in fact, I'm not even sure I understand what is intended by that statement. What is there to teach? That it exists? How to get one? I mean if it is legal for gays to marry in Maine, then what issue is there for public school students to have knowledge of that reality. Does Professor Fitzgibbon think that they still teach home economics in schools and for whatever reason gay marriage will confuse home ec students/teachers?

Let's call a spade a spade. None of you is upset because of the lack of "legal argument" (whatever that means in the context of a political ad) or the implied association of the law school with a political cause. If the latter were the case, why are none of you on Kent Greenfield for his political rants (many conspicuously bereft of legal argument or even a well-reasoned thought) over at Huffington Post or with his involvement in FAIR?

This has nothing to do with the idea of politics in se, and everything to do with the message espoused. If Fitzgibbon publicly supported your cause célèbre, you would have no issue. You only care because Fitzgibbon has taken a position opposed to the knee-jerk, naive views of an overwhelmingly liberal student body. And as to that, why are you shouting him down on a blog or feigning reactionism with your tuition dollars? You signed up to go to a Catholic law school. Does it now come as a surprise that there are professors at one of the nation's preeminent Catholic institutions that oppose gay marriage? Next thing you'll be upset about is the cathedral on campus.

Give me a break. If you want to beat Fitzgibbon and his ilk, don't go to a blog or the administration of your Catholic law school. Go to the front lines. Get in touch with the appropriate people in Maine. Produce a competing ad. Appear in it -- I'm sure you can even put a title under your name that mentions Boston College Law School. Get involved, or go home. Anything else is just masturbation.

(And for the record, because I know one of you fluff heads will foam at the mouth if I don't mention it: I do not agree with Fitzgibbon. I think gay marriage should be legal.).

Personally I could care less what FitzGibbon's views are. This commercial preaches to the choir and is not going to convince anyone who was either on the fence or inclined to support gay marriage. Agree or disagree, he does have the right to voice his opinion...as does everyone who has commented above.

What I do object to, as stated above, is the use of Boston College Law's name in the commercial. It seems counterintuitive that the school would want faculty to take a stance on a decisive issue in such a public way given their policy of inclusivity. To the extent that they can regulate this activity, I do not know. If this happens again we'll know the answer.

Rotterdam - some of us are doing all of the things you suggested. Do not assume that people who comment on here are simply doing that alone. Like you said, people are using all avenues to express their distaste.

Certainly what is bothersome here is what he is advocating. Characterizing homosexuality as something disgusting that will pervert our children? You're damned right we are mad about that. It's embarrassing and pathetic to have a professor at this institution spout that filth. Especially when he has students who are gay.

It's bad business and he should be fired for it.

Agree w/ Ryan that it never came up in contracts class. Granted, nothing worthwhile did either - worst class at BC Law that I've taken to date.