Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for April 15th, 2008

posted earlier about the Elane Photography case. The New Mexico Human Rights commission issued its opinion today, holding Elane Photography guilty of discrimination. As Eugene Volokh discusses here, the breadth of the decision is astounding and ostensibly covers other businesses of a similar nature. For instance, freelance writers — by the same logic employed by the commission — can be compelled to write things contrary to their religious beliefs.

As this case makes clear, the attack on freedom of speech from anti-discrimination laws is current and real. And it is getting worse.

(Link via The Volokh Conspiracy)

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Here’s another post by Cass Sunstein.

Also, I find one of the comments below that post worth repeating in full:

Having effectively evicted us from the label “liberal,” the Left now wants to appropriate the word “libertarian” as well.

I guess we should be flattered that our intellectual real estate is appreciating, but I am concerned that the truly freedom-minded will be priced out of the mainstream. If we don’t fight to hang on to “libertarian” we could end up with something like “minarchist” – the equivalent of sleeping under a bridge in a cardboard box on the lunatic fringe.

Hehe. I guess the commenter is being slightly tongue-in-cheek here but labels do matter and I certainly share his unhappiness at the appropriation of a beautiful word ( “liberal” ) — possibly for good — by those whose policies have nothing to do with liberty.

Read Full Post »

Dean Christopher Edley of Berkeley responds to the John Yoo controversy:

While serving in the Department of Justice, Professor John Yoo wrote memoranda that officials used as the legal basis for policies concerning detention and interrogation techniques in our efforts to combat terrorism. Both the subject and his reasoning are controversial, leading the New York Times (editorial, April 4), the National Lawyers’ Guild, and hundreds of individuals from around the world to criticize or at least question Professor Yoo’s continuing employment at UC Berkeley School of Law. As dean, but speaking only for myself, I offer the following explanation, although with no expectation that it will be completely satisfying to anyone.

Professor Yoo began teaching at Berkeley Law in 1993, received tenure in 1999, and then took a leave of absence to work in the Bush Administration. He returned in 2004, and remains a very successful teacher and prolific (though often controversial) scholar. Because this is a public university, he enjoys not only security of employment and academic freedom, but also First Amendment and Due Process rights.

It seems we do need regular reminders: These protections, while not absolute, are nearly so because they are essential to the excellence of American universities and the progress of ideas. Indeed, in Berkeley’s classrooms and courtyards our community argues about the legal and moral issues with the intensity and discipline these crucial issues deserve. Those who prefer to avoid these arguments—be they left or right or lazy—will not find Berkeley or any other truly great law school a wholly congenial place to study. For that we make no apology.

Does what Professor Yoo wrote while not at the University somehow place him beyond the pale of academic freedom today? Had this been merely some professor vigorously expounding controversial and even extreme views, we would be in a familiar drama with the usual stakes. Had that professor been on leave marching with Nazis in Skokie or advising communists during the McCarthy era, reasonable people would probably find that an easier case still. Here, additional things are obviously in play. Gravely so.

My sense is that the vast majority of legal academics with a view of the matter disagree with substantial portions of Professor Yoo’s analyses, including a great many of his colleagues at Berkeley. If, however, this strong consensus were enough to fire or sanction someone, then academic freedom would be meaningless.

Assuming one believes as I do that Professor Yoo offered bad ideas and even worse advice during his government service, that judgment alone would not warrant dismissal or even a potentially chilling inquiry. As a legal matter, the test here is the relevant excerpt from the “General University Policy Regarding Academic Appointees,” adopted for the 10-campus University of California by both the system-wide Academic Senate and the Board of Regents:

Types of unacceptable conduct: … Commission of a criminal act which has led to conviction in a court of law and which clearly demonstrates unfitness to continue as a member of the faculty. [Academic Personnel Manual sec. 015]

This very restrictive standard is binding on me as dean, but I will put aside that shield and state my independent and personal view of the matter. I believe the crucial questions in view of our university mission are these: Was there clear professional misconduct—that is, some breach of the professional ethics applicable to a government attorney—material to Professor Yoo’s academic position? Did the writing of the memoranda, and his related conduct, violate a criminal or comparable statute?

Absent very substantial evidence on these questions, no university worthy of distinction should even contemplate dismissing a faculty member. That standard has not been met.

In an ideal world, what the dean said would be no more noteworthy than a routine enunciation of the basic principles of tolerance and freedom. Unfortunately, these principles are seldom remembered when dealing with opinions that differ from ours. McCathyism is no less abhorrent when applied against the ‘other side’; and for remembering this, the dean deserves praise. Bravo!

Read Full Post »