Yoo're Out of Luck
If you stayed on campus this afternoon to hear Prof. John Yoo debate James Brosnahan (attorney) regarding the War on Terrorism. As Dean Ortiz's e-mail reflects, John Yoo cancelled his appearance. Now it turns out this is because of security concerns. Well the rumor mill has refined that to something along the lines that because of death threats the UCPD has advised Yoo not to appear.
If this is indeed the case, it is probably one of the saddest chapters in this school's history. I probably disagree with Yoo's views more than anyone (see here, here, and search lexis for my letter responding to Yoo's Op/Ed). To rip off Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Of course Voltaire was an optimist. I hate it. I hate shouting down opposition. I hate threatening those you disagree with. I hate mischaracterizations of the opposition. Left or right, (to rip of Rodney King) can we at least agree that intolerance of opposing views hurts everyone?
UPDATE: Some of the more interesting ideas presented by Brosnahan.
Jesus was a prisoner and tortured.
***
Polls show Irish hate Americans more than British. Whoa!!!!
***
"Law students do you hear me out there, you go out there and you bang on those doors." (referring to Hamdi's lawyer who continued to pursue the habeas petition).
***
If the Taliban fighters did not have uniforms, how did the N. Alliance know who to shoot? (My guess, the guy on the opposite side).
***
In Hamdi they argued before the US Supreme Court that he was important to the national security. They lost so now they let him go.
UPDATE II: Adding fuel to the madness, apparently Borsnahan just said that UCPD contacted him worried about "chatter on the web" (huh!!!) about possible protests of the event. Brosnahan, "Then I said, 'Well that won't be anything new over at the University of California.'" I think my classmate was right in predicting that this was nothing more than a campus police overreacting to a few hot-heads...and a few hot-heads being complete idiots.
If this is indeed the case, it is probably one of the saddest chapters in this school's history. I probably disagree with Yoo's views more than anyone (see here, here, and search lexis for my letter responding to Yoo's Op/Ed). To rip off Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Of course Voltaire was an optimist. I hate it. I hate shouting down opposition. I hate threatening those you disagree with. I hate mischaracterizations of the opposition. Left or right, (to rip of Rodney King) can we at least agree that intolerance of opposing views hurts everyone?
UPDATE: Some of the more interesting ideas presented by Brosnahan.
Jesus was a prisoner and tortured.
***
Polls show Irish hate Americans more than British. Whoa!!!!
***
"Law students do you hear me out there, you go out there and you bang on those doors." (referring to Hamdi's lawyer who continued to pursue the habeas petition).
***
If the Taliban fighters did not have uniforms, how did the N. Alliance know who to shoot? (My guess, the guy on the opposite side).
***
In Hamdi they argued before the US Supreme Court that he was important to the national security. They lost so now they let him go.
UPDATE II: Adding fuel to the madness, apparently Borsnahan just said that UCPD contacted him worried about "chatter on the web" (huh!!!) about possible protests of the event. Brosnahan, "Then I said, 'Well that won't be anything new over at the University of California.'" I think my classmate was right in predicting that this was nothing more than a campus police overreacting to a few hot-heads...and a few hot-heads being complete idiots.
Labels: Rabid Conservatives
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 4:18 PM
13 Comments:
Not much to add except a ditto. I'm pretty much in opposition of Yoo's views as well, but I'm an ACLU liberal in that there are few things that I will defend more strongly than free speech.
Protests and demonstrations are fine (and I know there was talk of some of that activity for today) but violence and the threat of it, if that was the case, has no place here. Fight voices with voices I say.
The U.C. Police originally just wanted to search everyone's bags before they entered Booth. But then they got to freaking out more and told Yoo he better not show up.
As a Cal undegrad and Boaltie, I've often said that Berkeley would not have the national reputation it has if it weren't for the consistent overreaction of UCPD. To spread a rumor I can't substantiate, I've heard that UCPD has more Cal alumni on "the force" than any other college or university's grads. Not sure what that says about Cal exactly, but it can't be good.
I also wanted to note that while I agree that the "security issues" surrounding the Yoo/Bros debate are disappointing, to say the least, and while I whole-heartedly agree that public discourse, particularly on issues of political and public concern, should be open and vigorous, I don't agree that all views need to be aired or tolerated on a public university campus.
For better treatment than I can give see:
Robert C. Post, "Racist Speech, Democracy, and the First Amendment" 32 Wm.& Mary L. Rev. 267, 318 (1990) (analyzing instrumental regulation of speech within universities)
See also:
Robert C. Post, "Subsidized Speech" 106 Yale L. Journal 151-195, (Oct. 1996)
(sorry about the mixed citation forms)
I think I speak for everyone when I say that we forgive your use of inconsistent citation forms in a blog comment.
But, as for that last comment, were you hinting that either Yoo's or Brosnahan's comments would fall outside of acceptable discourse? Or were you just saying that there is some limit?
Simple point of clarification: just saying there are limits.
Not so simple point of clarification: the limits are necessarily context-specific and need to be evaluated thoughtfully. The limits could apply to either Yoo's speech or Bros' speech or both. Again, please see cited works for legal analysis and suggested rubric.
Thanks for the "pass" on blog-form citation.
I welcome Yoo's public speaking on this topic.
After all, every time he opens his mouth, he makes it bloody clear what an utter fascist he is. He's totally discredited himself now, and even the Bush admin isn't going to tap him.
The people I worry about are the fascists-in-secret who presently populate many of the positions in power.
BBNG: I wanted to respond but can't tell from your post precisely what your point is. Could you elaborate a little?
Clarification on my earlier "not so simple point of clarification":
I left out one potential option... I said the speech of Yoo, or Bros or both might be legitimately limited. Of course, NEITHER is still an option.
Just reread my comment and realized I appeared to be endorsing limits in this particular case. I'm not. But I think the analysis is important.
They both have said things as an academic, speaking on a controversial topic, taking strong stands and not backing down, and both have suffered public calls for loss of tenure.
First big difference: Churchill is about to lose his tenure (my prediction) for identity fraud, resume fraud, and fabrication of bio-warfare genocide stories in his writings (as all three have recently been alleged, with substantial documentation to support the allegations). Yoo won't lose his tenure for any of those reasons. This is a difference that matters, because those would be valid grounds to revoke tenure for Churchill.
Second big difference: Churchill's comments appear to celebrate the deaths of people that nearly everyone would consider non-combatants and complete innocents. In theory, that should be protected by academic freedom, and a number of academics have stepped forward to defend WC on that ground. (Congrats to those academics for standing on principle.) Of course, Yoo's comments are distinguishable.
Third, Yoo formally supports the rule of law, whereas WC doesn't appear to. Again, not grounds for revoking tenure, but certainly valid grounds for critcism.
Joe Schmo:
About 25% of Boalt graduates last year called for his loss of tenure and created an e-petition calling for same. I don't know if the e-petition is still online but you can find lots of commentary about it if you google it.
When Yoo says that, under the text of the Constitution, the Commander in Chief's power is this or that, Yoo was showing that he formally acknowledges the rule of law.
But, hey, thanks for trying and better luck next time.
Given the back and forth comments, I feel almost obligated to say a few things.
1. It's umm retarded (to put it mildly) to say that someone is respecting the rule of law because they consult the law (Nixon comes to mind as a prime example, followed in close second by FDR and Japanese relocation...hell that was even upheld by the SCOTUS. Respecting the rule of law? Nah, not quite).
2. There's something wrong with claiming that there are acceptable limits BECAUSE UC is a public university. I'm thinking the exact opposite. There are very VERY FEW limits because we are a public university. Harvard can restrict all the speech that they want (to a particular gender even) or they can not allow any lay person to enter their library...I won't lose any sleep over that. But I'm troubled that at Cal members of the public actually have to have a pass to go the library (the bums in Berkeley might be one reason for this, but I must say I admire UCLA's wide open libraries). I'm going off on this tangent to point out that public university's really do belong to the public and there must be close to absolute tolerance of all speech.
3. Yoo's a fucking psycho. (a) He laid the groundwork for the legal justification of the currennt war in Iraq and (b) he started the enemy combatant/prisoner of war status mess. But I'm more troubled by an attempt to quash such views than by someone articulating them. Much like NRA members fighting tooth and nail against any gun regulation, there's no guarantee that tomorrow my views won't be the ones under attack (how's that for a comparision to Ward Churchill, sans the Republican media build of a non-story?)
Hey Joe - chill. The anonymous recipient of your little outburst only said Yoo *formally* supports the rule of law, which he does - he argued that W acted within his legal authority under the Constitution. But don't worry, there's still plenty of room for debate about the details of Yoo's position. Go ahead - make the case that Yoo misinterprets the Constitution, or that the implications of that interpretation are absurd, or that all hell would break loose if he got his way. Whatever. Maybe so. There's no need to get shrill.
Joe Shmo:
If you want to argue with the poster who said "thanks for trying ..." then please argue with that poster.
In reponse to the invitation of BBNG to list similarities, I did say that "both have suffered public calls for loss of tenure." That is simply correct.
Joe Shmo later faulted me because my prior post hadn't used his subsequent term "fired." He insinuated that I had used weasel words to evade a point that Shmo hadn't even posted yet. To state the obvious, I was not evading a post that hadn't even been written yet.
I was writing first, and BBNG had asked for similarities, and one of those similarities is that both had suffered public calls for loss of tenure. It's true. (Look it up on google if you need to.) End of story.
Second, as the other poster noted, I did choose my words very carefully when I said that that Yoo "formally" supports the rule of law, while WC doesn't appear to. The word "formally" was designed to acknowledge that Yoo's critics think (1) that Yoo got the law horribly wrong, or (2) that he pays phony lip service to the rule of law while secretly working to subvert the rule of law. So that word "formally" was a nod toward his critics so that I could posit a difference that even his critics could concede. If I said "Yoo's stance embraces the rule of law," his critics would disagree. If I said that "Yoo formally renounces the rule of law," I would be wrong. By say that Yoo "formally" acknowledges the rule of law, I made a statement that, imho, 98% of observers would have to agree with.
But the context of the remark was in response to the question of BBNG asking for differences and similarities between WC and Yoo. The formal adherence to the rule of law is an important difference because we cannot expect that WC will acknowledge the binding force of law. We can as to Yoo. So, his formal adherence to the rule of law is rather important in how we debate this issue with him.
Finally, as for the later claim that Yoo is a "fucking psycho," I call upon that poster to re-think that rhetorical tactic. Let me gently suggest that dehmanizing the opponent is an ethical lapse when right-wingers do it, when left-wingers do it, when anti-semites do it, when anti-Christians do it, when anti-Muslims do it, when anti-Darwinists do it, when anti-Creationists do it, ....... when human beings do it.
Post a Comment
<< Home