Petition on Professor Hiring
(UPDATE: More on Professor Delahunty's hiring here, including links to the media commentary it's generated.)
The following was included in our weekly Law Council e-mail:
PETITION REGARDING ROBERT DELAHUNTY'S APPOINTMENT TO TEACH AT THE LAW SCHOOLI would ask anyone planning to sign this petition to please reconsider. Not as a practical matter because all of the good classes for next semester have filled up, but as an ethical matter.
Robert Delahunty has been accused of violations of professional ethics as well as War Crimes in relation to his authoring one of the controversial Torture Memos while he was an attorney at the Office of Legal Counsel.
Professor Delahunty, currently teaching at St. Thomas, has been hired to teach in our law school for Spring 2007. Many students feel that hiring such a divisive and controversial professor will reflect negatively on the school and would like to avoid the general unrest that he will bring to the building. A petition to ask Dean Morrison and Dean Charles to reconsider their decision to hire Delahunty is being circulated. A petition table will be set up in the subplaza during lunch from November 27 to December 1. For more information email taylo709@umn.edu.
If the drive were to encourage students to refuse to sign up for Professor Delahunty's class, that would be fine. It would be encouraging the "market" to show disdain for this professor and thereby demonstrate to the school that hiring him regularly would be unwise. But if a majority of students signs this petition and the school therefore rescinds its offer, we would have the majority of students denying to a minority an educational opportunity they desire. *SEE BELOW FOR WHY THIS PARAGRAPH IS WRONG.
The claim that students "want to avoid the general unrest that he will bring to the building" strikes me as particularly pernicious. It's blackmail, plain and simple. If students want to avoid unrest, then when he arrives they won't create it, but will oppose his ideas in a more acceptable manner, such as aggressive--though civil--questioning when he speaks at student events. It seems to me that controversy is a desirable thing, not something to be avoided. We won't gain anything by covering our ears and shouting "I'm not listening" every time someone we disagree with shows up. Rather, we would improve ourselves by welcoming Professor Delahunty to the school and vigorously challenging his claims.
Intellectual diversity is something we should welcome, not decry, and I'm ashamed of my fellow liberals for this attempt to stifle it. We should open our ears so we can learn, not close our minds so our cocoon remains undisturbed.
*UPDATE: A commenter says that "[h]e is being brought in to teach a mandatory 1L class." Does this change things? To some extent, sure; it vitiates my argument regarding denial of student choice (but does anyone really believe he's going to try to brainwash the ickle firsties into being torture-nauts?). So let's focus on the rest:
Another commenter (or it might be the same, they're both anonymice) asks "Should we pay attention to claims that potential hires have breached their professional ethical obligations and/or violated the law in their professional practice? [para.] These concerns do not seem to raise an issue of "intellectual diversity," although that is certainly how some students will characterize the situation." Yet another, not anonymous this time, reiterates that the 'U' "should be hesitant to offer a teaching position to someone who has been accused of having committed war crimes." But I question here is whether those concerns are really animating the opposition. If so, then it might be a legitimate question to raise in the hiring decision. But my guess is that the claim of breach of ethical obligations is a convenient foil, while the claim of violation of the law is reflective of a disagreement in position.
Delahunty's position, to my understanding, was that certain international laws don't apply in certain situations. This would obviously mean he's advocating their violation if they do so apply. He's not accused of personally violating them, but of advocating a legal position that resulted in their violation. If he should be refused a teaching position on this basis, then we should also fire, say, Professor Paulsen, or at least not allow him to teach Constitutional Law. The difference between the two was simply that Delahunty was in position to give legal advice; if Delahunty had come straight into the academy, there would seem to be no problem. Should he be denied entry here simply because he chose to engage in public service that put him in position to give advice based on that opinion? (And we're not entertaining questions of whether his actions actually served the public--I don't believe they did--but acknowledging that he took a government position rather than earn much more money in private practice or come straight to the ivory tower.)
Finally (breathe) to the point that "I don’t have a problem with a majority of students denying a minority an educational opportunity. After all, that is the essence of democracy." I'm hostile to the idea that a curriculum should be democratically determined, particularly by those who will engage in its study. Democratic ideals have their place, but not here. Here, we are better served by having a faculty that can expose students to a variety of viewpoints, rather than the ones a majority of students agree with.
FURTHER UPDATE: The latest objection seems to revolve around procedural aspects--Delahunty isn't coming in through the normal hiring process. The objection is stated in the comments here and here and I respond here. My short take--if this is not normal for hiring one-semester, one-subject teachers, then there's a problem. If this is how they are normally hired (and it seems likely to me that it is), then the discussion should be focusing on whether this process is what we want, not reversing one particular decision.
30 comments:
Does your answer change if he is teaching a required class?
Should we pay attention to claims that potential hires have breached their professional ethical obligations and/or violated the law in their professional practice?
These concerns do not seem to raise an issue of "intellectual diversity," although that is certainly how some students will characterize the situation.
I am torn on this issue. On the one hand, you make a good point about intellectual diversity, which is generally a good thing. But if students sign a petition expressing their desire that Prof. Delahunty not teach at the law school, they are not stifling his ability to express his opinions. He can express them in other places, just not here. One of the reasons I decided to come here was because of the professors who teach here. I am sure I am not the only one. Hence, in a way, students do influence the selection of professors when they decide to come to school here. The University of Minnesota should be hesitant to offer a teaching position to someone who has been accused of having committed war crimes. This could hurt the University’s ability to recruit incoming students, and could possibly alienate some of the alumni donors. I wonder if you would come out the same way if this professor was a Holocaust-denier.
Further, I don’t have a problem with a majority of students denying a minority an educational opportunity. After all, that is the essence of democracy. If a majority of the students feel strongly enough about this issue, then why shouldn’t their attitude be considered by the administration in deciding whether to invite a professor to teach here?
Kendall
He is being brought in to teach a mandatory 1L class. The students have no choice in this matter despite deeply held moral and ethical convictions that make Prof. Delahunty undesiralbe. If it was a class to sign up for I'm sure there would be quite a line for an unethical St. Thomas Professors class.
I guess there is a freedom of the market. Students could just go to St. Thomas if they want his class.
There is a huge difference between advocating a position in an academic/scholarly setting (not at issue here, or we'd expect to see students pursuing these claims with respect to Professor Paulsen, as you have suggested) and advocating a position as an attorney advising a client. First, in the latter situation, professional ethics obligations attach, and there are legitimate arguments that he breached his professional obligations in providing advice to the U.S. Government. Second, in the latter situation, when that client is the U.S. Government, and that client has the power to commit war crimes, and the advice is arguably used as guidance and justification for committing war crimes, criminal liability may attach for providing that advice. There have been calls that he personally be investigated for allegedly committing war crimes (or engaging in a conspiracy to commit them) in this context. Those are the two lines to draw between Professor Paulsen and Professor Delahunty. They seem to raise legitimate concerns, rather than serving as a "convenient foil."
I know Prof. Delahunty personally. He's a good man. I think this sort of thing is absolutely despicable. You can disagree with his legal opinion, absolutely. You can perhaps even think his legal opinion set the stage for some awful things. I'm not going to delve into the deep issues, because I frankly am not all that knowledgeable. But to try to ban his viewpoint from the law school is the height of foolishness, I think. If you disagree with his opinions, show up to class and respectfully disagree with him when the subject comes up. But don't resort to anonymous name-calling, and petitions to suppress his viewpoint on campus. I believe Robert Delahunty is a good man, and deserves better. And I know the University of Minnesota Law school deserves better than this. Wasn't the John Yoo debacle enough? Or was that cool too?
La Rana is on the fence. I would never suggest that anyone be denied the right to express his or her views, no matter how perniciously naive they may be. That said, if the purpose of that freedom of expression is the ultimate victory of good/better ideas, how is this victory conveyed if not by failing to invite that party to the proverbial table? At what point must we actively support proponents of ideas we find detestable? He can yell all he wants, but i'm not inviting him to dinner. Freedom and venue cut a fine line, and I'm not sure you're giving it enough attention Ivan.
Furthermore, you provide a rejection without a substitute. You are opposed to a democratically determined curriculum. Well, what then? Fiat? By whom? Seeing as your retort is simply that we should hire Delahunty because you think its best, whatever the stance of most students, is your proposal fiat by Ivan?
I'm sure that many people have believed many the war criminal to be good people, but that doesn't necessarily mean that this law school is the right place for them. In advocating for Prof. Delahunty's freedom to express himself, aren't you arguing against the rights of the students to express themselves via a petition? Or in the case of Yoo, a protest? As I said previously, Prof. Delahunty's freedom to express himself would not be limited by his not being allowed to express himself here. He will merely have to seek a different venue to express his opinions.
Kendall
La Rana, I didn't decide that Delahunty should teach here, by fiat or otherwise, regardless of what you may have heard otherwise. If I was on the hiring committee, I might oppose his hiring, I can't speak to that. I'm only saying I don't think student opposition to faculty hiring on the basis of intellectual disagreement should count for anything.
Kendall, I don't support a freedom of expression that denies others their freedom to express themselves, which is why I thought the John Yoo protest was disgusting. I'm completely in favor of allowing students who disagree with Delahunty to express that disagreement, but I just don't think that's what's happening here. Debate by petition-signing or by protest rarely reaches a high level of sophistication.
Ivan, I understand your point, but aside from "I don't think they should," I fail to grasp the reasoning. People shouldn't have a say in their own study? Democracy has no place in law school hiring? Combined with your downward glance at petitions and protests, you sound downright Hamiltonian.
Sigh, I really should educate myself about the process for the tenure and hiring decisions here. I was already thinking the process might benefit from some revamping w/r/t student input after a certain hiring offer they made last year... I don't have a conclusion about whether the post-hoc petition going around is a good/appropriate thing, but it does make me want to review how these decisions are made in the first place.
You would think it would be to the institution's advantage to have a general sense of student reaction before bringing someone in, rather than waiting to be surprised by a commotion like this...
This also raises a question of expertise and review of administrative decision-making as well as expression, intellectual diversity, and administration of the system.
To what extent do we know what's good for the school, what's good for academia? While I usually fall on the other side of this discussion, feeling the need for student input in this process and angered by the times I feel my instruction suffers due to the need for publication, here we're mostly rebalancing factors that are plain to the hiring committee and the deans, and important factors that they knew and weighed.
The ability to recruit, the ability to solicit alumni funds, the "general unrest," negative results from his notoriety and controversy are the primary concern of the hiring committee and deans. This is within their expertise and primary concerns, unlike the hiring decision I believe L'el is discussing.
We're not just making a statement on intellectual diversity, nor the importance of students in making decisions, but due to the nature of the factors, the petition is an attempt to provide politically biased non-expert review of an expert decision.
And, I'm tremendously wrong.
After talking to people at the petition statement, including a student rep to the hiring committee, it seems this was without process, he was approved by the deans to replace Carpenter for a semester and my administrative concerns have little bearing on the actual issue.
Ivan -
I think the convenient foil is the cry that this is viewpoint discrimination. It is, of course, impossible to say exactly what motivates each individual's opposition to Delahunty's appointment, but here are my concerns: (1) Delahunty is ethically challenged, and while the Law School should promote a diversity of viewpoints, it need not (and should not) carry the diversity mantra into the ethical spectrum. We don't need to balance out every principled professor with a shady one. (2) Delahunty, who is coming to Minnesota to teach Constitutional Law for one semester, is underqualified. Although he is minimally qualified (as any Law School grad is to be a professor), Delahunty has only taught for two years at an unaccredited Law School. His only relevant scholarship is on Executive Power, a topic not covered during second semester ConLaw. (3) Finally, whatever procedures are normally followed in the hiring process were not followed here (perhaps because Delahunty is coming in as more or less a "sub," and not as a tenure track professor.). This guy was totally brought in under the radar. A number of professors have mentioned this last point.
When these arguments add up, I'm convinced that bringing in Delahunty under these circumstances is the wrong choice. If we are going to hire him, let's do it right: following the procedures, with input from students and professors, and with full consideration of all of the available candidates for the job.
- Adam
Adam, thanks for your comment. I have a few responses..
1) On what is your claim that Delahunty is ethically challenged based? Is it that he supports the use of torture as policy, or believes it can be justified under the law? Or is it based on some perceived violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and if so, which? If the former, that strikes me as a viewpoint-based disagreement. If the latter, then we run into problems, but I haven't seen a convincing argument that either Delahunty or Yoo violated any rules in writing the torture memos. (As a side note, I've previously argued on this blog and elsewhere that I consider torture to be morally unjustifiable. I don't know if it has anything to do with this or not, but sympathy for Delahunty's position is not in the least playing into my argument here.)
2) On the qualifications point: He has degrees from Oxford, and has taught there in addition to other places. He went to Harvard Law, graduated cum laude. More importantly, he worked for the Appellate Section of the DOJ Civil Rights Division for three years and the Office of Legal Counsel (rock star section of the DoJ) for over a decade. You cannot tell me this practical experience makes him less qualified than a recent law school grad with a published Note and a year of clerking, can you? (And for what it's worth, it looks like STU Law is now accredited, and it's had at least provisional accreditation while he's been there. It's a new school, it's not as if the school lost its accreditation for shady teaching practices. Let's not be snobs, eh?)
3) The procedural point is important, though it seems context-specific. Are one-semester replacements normally hired through regular procedures, with student- and faculty-input? When I was on curriculum committee as an undergrad, adjunct appointments were left to the Dean of Faculty without other input. Why would we change the methods for this guy, unless there's suspicion he's being brought in on a permanent basis, rather than just for the one semester? And if there is such suspicion, is it justified? If the normal procedures for this kind of hiring were followed, then the agitation shouldn't be an ad-hoc change for this person with unpopular views, but rather for a change in the hiring procedures for substitute professors.
My concern with the hiring of Professor Delahunty is that he may have violated his ethical obligations while in the OLC in his Jan 9, 2002 memo coauthored by John Yoo (his job being to advise the President on what conduct is lawful, not to make an advocate's argument for what the President would like to do). The result of this ethical breach was the torture of detainees in violation of the obligations imposed both by federal law and Common Article 3. Many people consider him to be a war criminal, and the argument seems strong that he in fact is. Many faculty members here at the U are also opposed to the hiring of Prof. Delahunty. While he is undoubtedly bright and has a strong educational pedigree, is this really the type of representation we want for our school? Is this really who we want teaching our Con Law class next semester?
To accuse opponents of the Delahunty hiring of mere partisanship strikes me as disingenuous. Professor Carpenter is a member of the federalist society. I would not oppose the hiring of any faculty member merely because he or she is conservative -- that's simply not what's at issue here.
UMN 1L--My problem with the breach of ethical obligations argument is that it relies on the assumption that Delahunty does not actually believe the arguments he made in the torture memo. I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt (as I am with anyone) unless someone demonstrates to me that he thinks otherwise.
As for the result being torture in violation of federal law and Common Article 3--doesn't that beg the question? Delahunty argued that torture wouldn't violate those. If he's wrong, the torture was in violation; if he's right, it wasn't. It seems we have to determine, rather than assume, that 1) he was wrong and 2) he knew he was wrong before we can condemn him for advocating torture in violation of the law.
As for many people considering him to be a war criminal, I'm skeptical of trials conducted in the court of public opinion. What are the chances of an indictment? A conviction? What kind of legal arguments could be made? I'm not an expert in the field, as I'll acknowledge to anyone, but there seems to be considerable disagreement. What percentage of people have to think he's a war criminal before we decide he is? Why do they get to decide? How many of them are competent to? Besides, he's advocating a position that it seems to me would gain some (though likely not majority) support on the Supreme Court. I think we would want to think long and hard before we decided that such a position was so extreme as to be criminal.
Finally, I'd like to narrow down what I'm accusing hiring opponents of. I'm a liberal (without shame) and consistently vote Democrat, so accusing opponents of mere partisanship would be kind of silly. Rather, I'm accusing them of closed-mindedness, of wanting to exclude people with viewpoints different than their own. I'm also not sure what the Professor Carpenter invocation was in reference to. Is he a conservative you don't mind teaching here, or has he come out against the hiring too? If the former, I don't really see the relevance. If the latter, I'm quite curious as to his reasons. Perhaps he can convince me I'm wrong.
(Actually, there's a second finally here: You ask if Professor Delahunty is really who we want teaching Con Law. I have no idea. I've never seen him teach. I presume he doesn't wave his ideological beliefs around the classroom. If he does, then I hope he won't be asked to teach here again. Is there any reason--other than that he holds certain views--to think he wouldn't be a good Con Law teacher?)
Delahunty's position, to my understanding, was that certain international laws don't apply in certain situations. This would obviously mean he's advocating their violation if they do so apply.
The Common Article 3 obligations for the treatment of detainees (read: torture not allowed) were incorporated into federal law by the War Crimes Act. Where was the Youngstown Steel analysis in the Yoo-Delahunty memorandum? That alone might constitute malpractice and an ethical breach, considering the purpose and constitutional necessity of the OLC.
The Yoo-Delahunty memo also concluded that the President can unilaterally suspend international treaty (Geneva Conventions) obligations if he feels like it.
So we've got: In the conflict with Afghanistan, the Taliban, and/or al Qaeda, the President is not bound by any treatment standards for detainees, for a number of reasons and reasons in the alternative, including: it's a failed state so the Geneva Conventions do not apply; they're not regular military groups, so the Geneva Conventions don't apply; the President can suspend treaty obligations if he feels like it; the War Crimes Act of 1996 (incorporating Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions) is unconstitutional to the extent it limits the President's power as Commander-in-Chief to do whatever the hell he wants; the Uniform Code of Military Justice is unconstitutional to the same extent; and so on.
See, United States v. Alststoetter, a Nuremberg case which holds that lawyers that dispense bad advice about armed conflict which predictably leads to the death or mistreatment of war prisoners are war criminals, and that lawyerly evasions and gimmicks will not be tolerated. International law based on the Nuremberg Tribunals stands for the principle that clear and obvious violations of natural law and customary international law will not be tolerated.
--
In response to your comment:
Sorry, the Prof. Carpenter reference was to the fact that he is a conservative currently teaching that Con Law section, and the students all love him. This seems to undermine the argument that the concern with his replacement, Delahunty, is that he is conservative. (It is indeed that section that began articulating the concern with the hiring of Delahunty.)
As for war crimes convictions, and indictment against Yoo, Rumsfeld, and others was sought in Germany a couple of years ago. The complaint was dismissed for the stated reason that the United States would deal with it, that there would or might be a forthcoming remedy. There hasn't been, and an indictment is being sought. Will it succeed? I don't know.
As for the ethical violation, even if Delahunty "believes the arguments he made in the torture memo," that may not be enough. I.e., he's bound by much more than a FRCP Rule 11 standard, due to the peculiar nature of the Office of Legal Counsel.
And I don't believe that Delahunty did argue that torture would not violate Common Article 3 and federal law, exactly, but rather that the Executive and the military were not bound by these laws. The Court's emphatic repudiation of the arguments of this and other similar memoranda in Hamdan is also striking. (The Court in Hamdan held that Common Article 3 was applicable to detainees in the "war on terror" who did not qualify for prisoner of war protections.)
Ivan -
Great points, for sure. I think your first argument is a little semantic. Technically, of course, you need to express a viewpoint in order to reach an unethical conclusion. I think of it this way: there are a few people who agree with Delahunty's torture-related legal conclusions. Fine. Then there is a sizeable group of people (and it sounds like you're among them) who would conclude that Delahunty and Yoo's memo was wrong, but not necessarily indefensibly so (it passes the laugh test). And finally, there are some who think he crossed the ethical line, both as a matter of legal interpretation and morally. I understand that there is considerable debate here. For me, the fact that a sizable number of people, both ordinary folks and legal scholars, consider Delahunty ethically challenged troubles me. Public and professional opinions of Delahunty's ethical standing don't need to be unanimous to be relevant.
On qualifications, you are right across the board. Like I said, Delahunty is not outright unqualified. But it still seems odd to me that someone brought in for one semester to teach one class doesn't have much on his resume relating to the subject matter of that class. Call me old fashioned, but I'd rather have a good cook teaching my little sister Home Ec. in junior high than a rocket scientist who happened to be a Rhodes Scholar and holds degrees from MIT, Harvard and Yale. My position here is simply this: we could do better.
Finally, on the procedural concerns (and this is a little silly, since it's pretty obvious that neither of us actually knows what the procedures are...), a few things seem clear. First, whatever procedures there are for hiring subs, they are far more lax than those for making full time hires. In fact, there may not really be any set "procedure" at all. So there are really only two possibilities: the first is that the procedures weren't followed in this case. As you concede, this poses a problem. But even if subs are "normally" appointed on an ad hoc basis, I see no reason why this controversy shouldn't be the impetus for a permanent change in the policy. If anything, Delahunty's appointment, which has definitely been perceived as an "under the radar" maneuver, demonstrates the need for a more meaningful process of consultation and vetting for hiring subs. Of course, assuming the policy is changed, most subs, even under heightened scrutiny, would probably be approved without much fanfare. But this discrepancy wouldn't make Delahunty's process "ad hoc." Controversial people get lots of attention. We can't control that. Ideally, students and staff would receive a meaningful opportunity for input in the future, whether the candidate is Robert Delahunty or John Doe.
Put these three concerns together, stir the soup, and you get a person of questionable ethical integrity, with questionable qualifications, brought in under questionable circumstances. To me this is three strikes.
- Adam
Just a quick note to the anonymous UMn 1L, saying that you support Prof. Carpenter by no means proves your point that you're not opposing Prof. Delahunty because of his ideology. There are certain tenets of conservatism that are far more likely to be "acceptable" than others. Many token conservatives hold some conservative views (especially fiscal), but not the hot-button social or international views. I think most of your points show that in fact, you DO want to stop the Prof., because he's a "conservative". He doesn't think the Geneva convention applies to unarmed combatants. And you don't like that, so much so, that you're willing to call him an unethical war criminal. That's fine. But as Ivan has pointed out, the man is qualified. He teaches conlaw at St. Thomas, which is certainly not Harvard, but should safely take this out of the "Rocket Scientist teaching home ec" category. Nothing here seems to indicate that normal procedures weren't followed. I don't see any reason for Dean Charles and Dean Morrison (neither of which seem to be raving conservatives), to try to "sneak" a "war criminal". This just smacks of a slightly more polite version of the John Yoo situation we had last year (and for the 1L's, ask around if you haven't heard about it). Delahunty is a good man, and deserves this chance.
I'm just curious, but was there a petition against the Law School opening a campus in China, which is well-known for its numerous, well-documented "crimes against humanity?"
Regarding the process by which Prof. Delahunty was hired, the letter by the faculty members opposing the hire states, "It is standard practice at the Law School for the Dean(s) to hire such temporary replacements [sic] teacher without seeking the approval of the remainder of the faculty. We do not wish to challenge this authority."
It appears, then, that there was nothing "under the table" about this. Yes, it's possible that there is an informal process of notifying permanent faculty of such hires before they are made, but there is no evidence to support this. When you consider that these faculty members were willing to rip a colleague (Prof. Paulsen) in the same letter, it seems that if there were issues with the process of Prof. Delahunty's hiring, these faculty members would not have hesitated to raise the issue.
The letter can be found at http://insidehighered.com/index.php/content/download/104089/1389631/file/DelahuntyLTRNov28,2006.pdf.
I'm amused at how the argument has shifted from "he's unethical" to "our deans are unethical." If this is a look-see visit, then I understand the ruffled feathers over whether Fred and Guy followed proper hiring protocol. If this is, as speculated, just a gap-filling visit (and it would appear to be, since he's also still teaching at UST), then I don't understand all of the hullaballo.
The man is going to teach a required first-year course. There's a pretty set cirriculum in that he has to cover the basic tenents of the Constitution. He'll also likely consult with the professor he's replacing to make sure he doesn't give any overlapping material. He's basically doing us a favor by filling a last-minute vaccancy. I fail to see how student input -- particularly upper-level student input -- is necessary for his temporary appointment. Upper-level students won't be subjected to his classroom musings, and as such their opinions aren't really necessary.
Neither should the input of first-year students be necessary. When it comes to the law, you don't really know what you want or how you want it. Acting like spoiled teenagers and getting your ethical panties in a bunch may make you feel "good" about yourselves, but it isn't going to expose you to diverse viewpoints or help you better understand the law. That's why we come to school, to learn new things. Fred has more years of teaching and lawyering experience than you've had birthdays. The man's helped create national governments for pete's sake! You should listen to those with experience (in this case, your Deans). If Fred says eat your Con Law, eat your Con Law.
I'd also like to pause on Adam's comment that the Delahunty has little experience when it comes to Con Law. Do you have any idea what justice department lawyers do? The man even started in the Civil Rights division. Short of pulling a justice off the Supreme Court, I don't think you can really get someone with more practical Constituional Law experience.
(Deleted Harriet Miers Joke)
Finally, I'm going to chip in my two cents on the whole character and "who do we want teaching at our school" issue. I'm a latte-drinking, Ivy League educated*, snotty East-Coast liberal. I interned for one of the most hated liberal senators in America . . . twice, and I have no problem with Robert Delahunty's appointment. I came to Minnesota because it offered the best educational and professional opportunties. I want the best professors and legal experts in this building. Regardles of whether I agree with his legal analysis, politics, or religious affiliations, Professor Delahunty is one of the top legal scholars in the country. In my mind, it's as simple as that.
-Matt Janiga
*This post's author concedes he attended the "public" Ivy, so you'll have to forgive the mispellings and punctuation errors. He does, however, drink real lattes
The professors who signed the letter you are intent upon assaulting are not afraid of intellectual diversity. They are not discriminating agains someone based on their political views. They are objecting against the inclusion of someone on the faculty, to teach a mandatory class, that quite a few individuals,including myself-- would refuse to take. This man is facing an INDICTMENT for his "intellectually diverse" views. Do you have someone from Enron come teach us ethical business accounting? Do you have Melosovitch come teach us about human rights? Or worse, force incoming students to take such a class from him? Of course not. It would be ludicrous. What's more, you purport to support his appointment on the basis that it would expose students to a diversity of legal opinions, which unfortunately awards more credit to Mr. Delahunty himself than he seems to deserve. St. Thomas students in his class have reported that when discussing topics such as abortion and the Roe and Casey decisions, the class was not about law, it was about pro-life rhetoric. He taught the entire section on philosophy and justification for his views, with little if any time devoted to understanding the law. He won't discuss torture memos, and has said that he wants his lectures to reflect his religiously grounded teachings. He is quoted as saying "I'm a Christian believer and i do think that Christian life should be integrated with the law for those of us who are lawyers." i go to a public school, and don't consider myself to be a Christian. I'm not interested in having these opinions pushed on me in any mandatory classes.
Besides which, you ignore the potential damage to the school's reputation. We are known for our strong human rights emphasis at this school, and even when St. Thomas appointed him the legal community was shocked. The reputation of the school is directly tied to the welfare of not only the institutuion, but of its students and alumni.
In concluding, I would only note that far from representing the academic diversity that you are interested in cultivating, this man's discouragement of dissent and discussion from people who disagree with him does quite the opposite. Both his support of "religiously grounded" lectures and his proclamation that the Geneva Convention only applies to people we like are not academic or legal opinions, but bespeak political cronyism. Fine, give him a seminar on "christianity on the law," and you and all your friends are welcome to take it. Don't put him in charge of introducing the Constitution to people, ESPECIALLY NOT WHEN HE MAY BE FACING AN INDICTMENT FOR VIOLATING IT.
Latest Nonny Mouse (with apologies to Professor Chen),
If Delahunty a) pushes pro-life views on class without exposing them to the law and b) attempts to ground his Con Law teaching in religion, then he shouldn't teach at this school. This wouldn't have anything to do with his torture memos, but rather reflect incompetence and unfitness. If that's the case, then that's what we should be talking about. If the petition made those allegations and I trusted the people behind them to have evidence to back it up (I have no such issues with the people running the current petition, incidentally), then I wouldn't have any objections and might even sign, depending on how Hamiltonian (thanks, La Rana) I'm feeling. So let's talk about that, if that's the real problem, and lose the red herring.
By the way, the rhetoric of your last sentence is rather overblown. The allegation is that he argued the Constitution allowed the executive to ignore international law and US federal law. Unless, of course, you're making an Eighth Amendment argument, but that should be spelled out, not treated as obvious, since I haven't heard it previously.
As for the strong human rights emphasis, unless Delahunty tries to Nancy-Kerrigan Professor Weissbrodt, Professor Gross, or the other great faculty we have, I don't see how hiring him would undercut it. And if the reputation is based on avoiding controversial hires and representing only one viewpoint, I'm not sure it's a reputation I want.
It's still not really a problem unless the students envision themselves as empty vessels to be filled with whatever the professor dumps in.
I had a crazy fucking old hippy for my con law professor. It wasn't a problem at all.
If your con law professor happens to have a view about torture, so what? Is the Commerce Clause going to be taught all wrong?
This is really just a political expression. We get it. The students don't like torture, and they don't like people who might -- however tangentially -- support or in some way facilitate it.
That's nice. Now everyone can get back to work.
http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=535783&forum_id=2#7094657
OMG, OMG! A law professor wrote a legal opinion! OMG!
WGWAG
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=535783&forum_id=2#7095836
Delahunty counter-petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/umnlaw/petition.html
The sleaziest client possible is probably the US Federal Government as it now stands, but that lawyer might actually defend his, or her client, unlike most "No Spine" lawyers of today.
As long as lawyers act within the US Constitution, the power to them, good!
Notice, I did not say, "law", as that too often is about corruption and obscene politics.
-Steven G. Erickson a.k.a, blogger Vikingas
P.S. try doing a word seach on my entire blog for pics and story.
Post a Comment