You've Lost All Your Boalt Privileges
Well, you guys saw DE's letter. First, I really want to stress that this thread doesn't mean you are now free to speculate as to the identity. I really mean it. Second, feel free to comment on the punishment and/or procedures. I will say that when I visited Wash U. this past summer, I was shocked to see written opinions regarding allegations of honor code violations pinned up on bulletin board. It was as if instead of Boalt Briefs they had accusations of looking at a commercial outline.
Unrelated to all this, I'm about to run over to the City for an interview with California lawyer magazine on how Boalt students feel about John Yoo. My own thoughts are fairly simple: I couldn't disagree more with his personal views of the Constitution, but I think he's a good teacher and scholar. Reasons for this are straight forward: (a) he's great in the classroom. I love sarcasm, what can I say; (b) I've only heard his personal views once or twice, and it was in the Con in Early Republic class, never in the Con Law Structural; (c) I don't have any firs-hand accounts of this, but I do know he's very helpful if you are doing a writing assignment and/or researching for him; (d) publishes. I'm sure the "war criminal" crowd will make its presence known. The reason I mention this is to allow everyone to express how they feel. The reason I'm meeting with the reporter is to express how Boalties feel about him. If you have thoughts, offer it up here, and I'll refer the thread over to the reporter.
But in both cases, NO WITCH HUNTS. I mean it kiddies.
Unrelated to all this, I'm about to run over to the City for an interview with California lawyer magazine on how Boalt students feel about John Yoo. My own thoughts are fairly simple: I couldn't disagree more with his personal views of the Constitution, but I think he's a good teacher and scholar. Reasons for this are straight forward: (a) he's great in the classroom. I love sarcasm, what can I say; (b) I've only heard his personal views once or twice, and it was in the Con in Early Republic class, never in the Con Law Structural; (c) I don't have any firs-hand accounts of this, but I do know he's very helpful if you are doing a writing assignment and/or researching for him; (d) publishes. I'm sure the "war criminal" crowd will make its presence known. The reason I mention this is to allow everyone to express how they feel. The reason I'm meeting with the reporter is to express how Boalties feel about him. If you have thoughts, offer it up here, and I'll refer the thread over to the reporter.
But in both cases, NO WITCH HUNTS. I mean it kiddies.
Labels: Boalt Briefs, Classes/Professors, DE, Rabid Conservatives, Yoo-Hoo
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 9:47 AM
96 Comments:
Although I think trustafarian made a mistake by making that stupid post, I feel bad for the guy. Expulsion is a really severe punishment for a temporary, albeit terrible lapse of judgment.
Why does Armen get to speak for all Boalties? Is the new rule of sloopy journalism that whoever has a blog at an institution gets to speak for that institution? Perhaps they should interview some of the students who were piling up tons of signatures at the "Restore Habeas" thing yesterday. Oh yeah, that would require actual investigation (like maybe even coming to Boalt). It is much easier simply to do your investigation on the internet.
"Even in this challenging circumstance, you have
engaged in thoughtful and productive discussions."
--Proof Dean Edley does not read this blog.
How is that a new rule of journalism?
So the guy is going to Judicial Affairs? No way he gets expelled; they don't even suspend undergrad plagarists caught red-handed. My prediction is 45 hours of community service.
I agree with la mitotera - expulsion seems like an extreme sanction for this guy. Not excusing what he did - but I can't help but think about times at work or with personal stuff that I've written an email I shouldn't be sending and hit the send button just as I started to rethink it. Embarrassment is one thing - but ruining your career . . .
And as for 10:09, geez.
Is there a difference between mailing a bomb threat to San Francisco airport, and telling a hijacking joke while standing in the terminal?
I think that there is, and that both context and intent matters. Dean Edley seems to disagrees with me, because his email talks about a threat and a hoax--as if Trustafarian had sent the school a box with fake TNT in it.
The "humor" that Trustafarian was aiming for was based on politically incorrect--and tasteless etc. etc.--comment on current events and law school rivalries. It seems obvious to me that it wasn't intended to be perceived as either a hoax or threat. In other words, this is not a "'fire!'-in-a-theater" situation.
"I'm sure the 'war criminal' crowd will make its presence known."
I'm not sure if it is fair to refer to John Yoo as a "crowd."
McWho, *clearly* you aren't doing a joint degree with the J School. Otherwise, you would have learned this new rule in Journalism 201: Sloopy Journalism.
By the way, I really hope Armen drops a few db-bombs at the interview just so the reporter gets a sense of the usual tone of his blog.
Armen,
Please tell the magazine that while almost no students agree with his views, I have never heard a student who actually took his class say they don't believe he should be here. Professor Yoo is a great professor - clear, concise, interesting, etc. It would be a shame to lose him because his views differ from most of ours.
I'm also a little concerned about Dean Edley's mention of the emails he has received. People that rush off a letter to the administration on issues touching and concerning Boalt are not necessarily representative of Boalt students.
(Neither--by the way--are the "Restore Habeas" people yesterday, whose actions I found counterproductive and mildly offensive. I completely agree with them on the issue; I completely disagree with them on their tactics. I didn't sign their petition.)
As for thoughtful and productive discussions--well, I haven't seen much of that. (I don't mean this as a swing at Nuts and Boalts.) And DE's proposed solution doesn't seem to foster discussion, either.
Actually, in my experience on a judicial council in undergrad (different school), expulsion is incredibly rare -- but the council takes it very, very seriously when the administration recommends it.
The one case I participated in was about a magnitude more egregious: a science department had provided a graduate student with a full, all-expenses-paid fellowship, with the obvious and well-highlighted caveat that any outside money he secured had to go to the University. Well, he found some private, quasi-foreign fellowship that, for two years, wrote major five-figure checks to him that he *forgot* to tell the school about. Basically, he was ripping off the University, and living like a King. He got axed.
There's one other point that should be raised though: should the judgment rendered and/or the standards applied vary b/c he is a law student? E.g. entering a profession especially keyed to navigating delicate ethical situations?
I suspect a lot of people might say no -- that's too confusing for a University-wide judicial council to parse. Or, it's just not fair to the student. But context matters is this.
Ok..I just have to say this. Why do people keep saying there is a rivalry with Hastings? The definition of rivalry is that there is some competition between the schools. We have no more of a rivalry with Hastings than we have with a school like UC Davis. They are both good schools, but there is no rivalry.
A "joke" that causes a school to be shut down, and brings in the FBI, is a "Hoax" in my book.
Even if he wasn't going to be expelled, the bar would never accept him when they find out who it is.
Anonymous 10:32, don't worry. John Yoo isn't going anywhere. Many in the legal academy consider him to be a dishonest scholar (as in he "selectively uses history") and the memos were both morally repugnant and examples of poor legally reasoning. He is radioactive and no other law school would hire him. So we're stuck with him at Boalt.
I don't think it's entirely fair to judge a joke solely by its unintended effects.
Consider a situation: I'm waiting in line to get X-rayed at SFO. I'm exasperated that I can't bring my bottle of Evian through. I turn to my friend and say, "yeah, because this is obviously filled with liquid nitroglycerin!" Someone behind me overhears and tells security, who shuts down the entire airport.
I'm NOT saying that airport security--or Hastings--did anything wrong to take an ambiguous statement as a threat. Nor am I denying that people should bear responsibility for their actions. But I don't think it would be fair to throw the water-drinking, joke-telling traveler in jail.
I realize that this isn't a popular sentiment, at least on this blog, but I think posting a hoax threat to a school - especially right after what happened at Virginia Tech - goes well beyond the notion of making a mistake. It demonstrates extremely bad judgment and extreme disregard for the impact of your actions on others. Expulsion is a severe punishment for a severe lapse in judgment.
Well that is a legitimate concern. However airport security probably WOULD throw you in prison, at least for a little while, for saying something like that.
We try to stop people from making comments like this, and so we take them very seriously...even when they probably were a joke. I mean, you won't say that you have nitro in your backpack at the airport for that very reason. I doubt many people will post fake threats on xoxo now either.
Agree with 10:52.
I can't imagine the comments here are representative of the Boalt community in general. I'd say Mr. Trustafarian only has about 10% support in the student body. It seems he is over 50% here.
Armen,
Didn't you get the memo? Speaking for Boalties about John Yoo protesters is my job.
Not commenting on the punishment, but could any 3Ls who are still planning on making a class campaign donation please specify that their money should go to creating an email system that would allow Edley to actually email students directly? Why does everything have to be re-sent? It's pathetic that our dean can't get an email to send to all students.
DE is handling this situation in a manner that is best for all involved: the student, Boalt, and Hastings. By recommending expulsion he is communicating that the school will not tolerate behavior harmful to other legal/academic institutions, even when that behavior is reckless, not intentional. Such a statement goes a long way towards rehabilitating the damage done to Boalt's reputation and to its relationship with Hastings.
However, by recommending the situation to UCB Judicial Affairs, DE left open the possibility that the student will not be expelled despite his recommendation. So DE and Boalt's reputation will be untarnished if people disagree with the Judicial Affairs' decision.
It's a brilliant move and I wouldn't want to play chess against DE.
Also, I disagree 100% with John Yoo's politics, but he is the best professor I have had at Boalt. He is supportive and respectful of students' academic research, even when it conflicts with his own viewpoints. I too did not sign the petition yesterday because I did not want the Habeas organizers to use my signature as evidence that Yoo should be fired.
Ok, first off I hear the "temporary lapse of judgment" phrase bandied about a lot. This is not an excuse in itself. You don't know how often this particular person has lapses in judgement, the severity of these lapses, or the probability of future lapses. If someone has a temporary lapse of judgement, gets in the car drunk, and runs someone over, I doubt you would be so lenient. The issue here is really that relatively little harm was done.
Trustafarian made more than one lapse in judgment. The smart move would have been an immediate public apology. I think this would have helped greatly in the eyes of the student body (including those who send the Dean emails). I personally have found, while considering the issue, that I feel much more sympathy when I imagine Trustafarian as a particular person I know. Without being able to associate his name with whatever goodwill he's earned in the time I've known him, it's much harder to empathize.
That said, expulsion is harsh. I'm guessing DE might think so too, deep down inside, in the cockles... maybe in the sub-cockle region... but for political reasons is not willing to go to bat for the guy. Maybe he hopes that he can play the tough dean while Judicial Affairs lets the guy off. Pure speculation. But I'd like to believe it.
Mike M - How do you propose to balance your right to make hilarious nitroglycerin jokes against the high cost of shutting down the airport each time you do (since we're assuming for the moment that the airport is right to do so)? A really large fine? For those who think expulsion is too harsh, I'd like to hear some alternatives. I'd go for suspension... it's "on the record" but not quite the end. Some have suggested "forced public apology", which I think is too lenient as public apology is already the right thing to do. A bit like punishing a thief by making them return the stolen item.
Agreed: Edley made a smart move. Now he can get back to that Obama campaign conference call.
I personally cannot make up my mind what is the proper punishment. Expulsion is the ultimate sanction, but this was a stupid, disruptive, and dangerous thing to do--it seemed close to instigating panic, based on comments I saw on a Hastings blog before this was confirmed to be a hoax. Whatever happens to our judgmentally-impaired peer, the taint will likely follow Boalt Hall for some time. As a result, I think that a more impartial body is the better adjudicator, since people within the Boalt community could be biased, especially if they know the person.
Also, why all the fixation on whether Armen, the bloggers, or the comments are representative? I don't think this blog is representative, but that's beside the point: N&B is certainly widely-read and the most influential source of student discussion & commentary. Thus it makes sense to invite Armen to comment on life at Boalt, especially since he is not afraid to mingle his real-life self with his blogging persona.
If you believe that (a) Trusty should be expelled for his temporary lapse of judgment, and (b) Yoo's fine because he's "respectful" of students, you're a tard.
Go look at some torture pictures. You know, the one with the dog. or the one with the wires. Or those ones with, you know, CORPSES.
Yoo's actions actually had consequences.
Dumbshits.
I also disagree 100% (or more if it was possible) with Yoo's political viewpoints, but he is a great writing advisor and professor and I am glad he's here at Boalt. He keeps class interesting and he is very supportive of student writing. He doesn't let his own politics interfere with his job as a professor.
sean, why do you assume that edley supports obama?
I also disagree 100% (or more if it was possible) with Yoo's political viewpoints,
Wow. How courageous.
but he is a great writing advisor and professor and I am glad he's here at Boalt.
Your powerful sense of justice leaves me overwhelmed.
11:35,
Thank you for wasting my hit of the refresh button. I'm glad we all know one more anonymous boalt student hates Yoo.
11:30 If Yoo's torture position was just a temporary lapse of judgment, and he changed his mind today, would you be cool w/ it?
I don't hate anyone.
I just think he shouldn't be here.
I think it's obviously true.
And I feel some contempt for those with handy moral blinders. Or those who want to minimize the problem.
Like you just tried to do.
Douche.
Universities are horrible places for both sides of the political spectrum to be present. I mean, with BOTH sides here, how can we ever put forth a balanced effective political statement???
In fact, I agree, we really should just expel anyone that disagrees with you and your hatred of interrogating terrorists, along with only hiring Professors that include on their resume that they voted for Kerry.
trentblase--
Actually, I think pecuniary damages are the way to go. I generally don't think that jokes should be criminal, but there's no reason they can't be tortious. The only limit is proximate causation--a poorly chosen joke may predictably cause a commotion, but not shut down an airport (costing millions). I think damages of several thousands of dollars--for the police and school investigation, and limited costs for closing--would be a sufficient deterrent for both the airport and the law school scenarios.
With regard to Boalt-specific sanctions: I don't think that this issue really regards Boalt, specifically. Of course, a university may sanction a student for his or her poor actions off-campus. But Trustafarian committed a tort against Hastings, not Boalt.
Personally, I don't think this issue a stain to Boalt's reputation. Most people recognize that every community has a few "bad seeds." And I frankly think that the witch hunt on Saturday night was at least as damaging to Boalt's reputation. It certainly because the big topic on the Hasting blog.
The guy's comment was antisocial, bottom line. Look at his language -he wasn't just making a joke, he actually got into character he was playing. And if he's going to act like a psycho then maybe he should be treated like one. My vote is psychos get recommended for expulsion.
I know that Edley supports the Obama campaign because he said so. Last week he came to the Sax luncheon directly from a conference call with the Obama people, and left about 4 minutes later to get back to that call. Straight from the Dean's mouth. He also emphasized that he was actually on vacation while doing this.
Mike - Generally agree, but as for what role Boalt should play, it seems like a significant number of students prefer expulsion. Looking at other random coverage on the web, the sentiment is not unique. Doesn't the student body have some right, based on democratic principles, to decide when a member of their community has crossed the line? I'm not sure, but there's certainly an argument to be made.
This expulsion does in fact carry punitive aspect. About $35,000 worth. An expensive 10 minutes, to say the least.
I still think he earned it though.
If given the choice, do you think he'd rather take expulsion or have his trust fund marginalized by damages to Hastings?
Trentblase,
Nuts and Boalts doesn't fully represent the law school community. But the idea that 90% of the Boalt community wants Trustafarian's head (suggested by 10:57) is ridiculous. Most Boalties are too busy focused on exams to pay attention. And as you point out, a lot of people aren't willing to argue against expulsion for political reasons.
And no--I don't think that the student body has any rights to oust a fellow student based on "democratic principles." Just like a students doesn't have the right to vote against a professor they disagree with *coughYOOcough*.
Law school is not "Survivor." Unpopular people have the right to study or teach law, as the case may be. On the other hand, if a student is so offended by Yoo's presence, she is free to transfer somewhere else. Nobody is forcing her to stay or to go.
This student is being punished for his cooperation with authorities. According to the administrators at autoadmit they do not keep any IP records. He could have said nothing and gone free and clear. Instead he chose to immediately make amends and now he is facing expulsion.
Ah, because the FBI certainly isn't as capable as the N&B blog community at reviewing prior XO post, piecing together clues, narrowing the list, and then questioning people of interest. I mean, they missed the boat on Mohammed Atta; how would they catch Trustafarian?
I agree with those suggesting a pecuniary punishment. The costs of his hoax were quite large, particularly the costs of the investigation and extra security. It would probably be tens of thousands of dollars, which would certainly be enough to have a huge deterrent effect. I think we should figure out the cost and put him to a choice: expulsion or reimbursement. Even if the reimbursement cost was $100,000, it would probably be rational to take out loans and pay it if he was planning on going to work for a big firm. If he can't get into another law school, can't be admitted to the bar, or can't convince a firm to hire him because he was expelled from Boalt, the loss in future earning potential caused by expulsion would be enormous. He would probably recoup the $100k in the first five years.
I have done it!!! After an extensive multi-variate statistics like analysis involving complicated squiggles that resemble calculous, and after having consulted with the top scienticians in their field, I have determined who the hoaxer was...
Armen's third personality. Its the one that craves to allow reckless and silly speech on his blog. Unfortunately as the third personality, the lieutenant commander if you will, it is often shut-down by Captain Mao (Armen's 1st personality.
11:43, your conception of the "both sides" of the political spectrum is pretty odd. So all of the students at law schools where the pro-torture perspective is not represented on the faculty are missing out? What about schools where there are no fascist professors? Are they (perhaps we) missing out by not having that "viewpoint" represented?
By the way, even though the Detainee Act passed last fall specifically grants Yoo and the other architects of the torture policy immuninty, they could still be tried under universal jurisdiction human rights laws overseas in places such as Germany. If Yoo gets convicted of by a German court, wouldn't that be "gross misconduct?" Most tenure contracts allow for the firing of tenured professors who commit gross misconduct.
Also, regarding Callagy's comment, this blog may be the most-read blog at Boalt. That does not mean it is "the most influential source of student discussion & commentary." Unless, of course, you only count online resources. Otherwise, I would say Cafe Zeb and kegs in the courtyard far outdistance this blog as sources of student discussion & commentary.
Nothing wrong with facism, it is merely a developmental ideology which seeks to inspire citizens to endure hardship today for the benefit of their and their children's future. Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini all gave fascism a bad name by injecting racism and brutality into the mix.
Much like communism and enlightened dictatorship, fascism is a beautiful idea, it is just a spectacular failure in practice.
2:10: Good point. Cyberspace cannot replace all the face-to-face interactions, and those are where the real action is. However, this blog is the most active mass medium for Boalt discussion, and one of the only ways the outside world can see what's up here, so it's understandable that non-Boalt people turn here first.
Callagy, you may be right that many non-Boalt people--apparently including journalists--turn to this blog first to get a sense of what is going on at Boalt. But I think that is precisely the "sloopy journalism" point. As you point out, the real action is what actually goes on at Boalt (or at 9:00 tonight at the Down Low). Non-Boalt people who look to this blog for info about Boalt should take it with a *huge* grain of salt.
Also, I want to give props to 2:13 for an excellent Michelle Malkin/Ann Coulter parody. And this talk of Malkin reminds me we don't have any pro-Japanese internment professors at Boalt. This is California folks! We need to go out and hire an internment apologist so that perspective can be represented as well. Otherwise Boalt students are really getting short-changed.
Regarding Yoo's potential prosecution in Germany, can/will the German courts apply US conspiracy law (including the Pinkerton Doctrine)? I doubt German conspiracy law is nearly as strong as the federal version here in the States.
Putting politics completely aside for a second, one good thing I've heard about Yoo is that he really helps students when it comes to clerkships. My understanding is that he is probably more willing than any other professor to make phone calls to judges. Granted, a lot of Boalt students wouldn't want him calling judges on their behalf. But the point is that it'd be nice to see more professors so actively campaigning for their students.
Personally, I prefer those with whom I disagree to promote good law -- you know, like, accurate. It helps with the debate. I don't just disagree with Yoo's views, I think the legal analysis in his torture memo is bunk, hoo-ey, and harmful.
And not everyone has such loving perspectives on his mentoring.
3:25--I probably agree with you about him as a scholar. As for him as a mentor, I was only saying what I've heard from friends--I've never dealt with him in any way. But, if some people haven't liked him as a mentor, couldn't they choose to just not have him as one? Or is he forcing students to use him as a recommender against their will? [Insert obvious joke here].
3:41, I think you are missing the point. A lot of people have been saying Yoo is a great mentor (largely based on hearsay). 3:25 is just pointing out this is not a consensus view. Also, it really sucks if you want to write in an area of his "coverage" and he isn't supportive of your project or approach because Boalt may not have hired anyone else in that area since Yoo supposedly has it covered.
Speaking as someone whose experience is NOT based on hearsay, I am not sure what you are suggesting. Are you saying that Yoo's presence has prevented Boalt from hiring other professors in his same "coverage" area? I don't see why Yoo's field is different from the other fields such that Boalt would only need one scholar. Have you considered that it might be a lack of supply and not because of Yoo that Boalt hasn't hired other professors in his same area?
Also, I don't know why you would assume Yoo would be unsupportive of your project or approach. I know personally that my topic wasn't aligned with his views, but he was helpful to me.
3:53 here. I was just trying to explain the earlier poster's comment. If people are finding Yoo unsupportive and they want to write in the area of, say, Con Law Structural Issues (he is the only one who teaches that class), it may be hard to find another advisor. I don't have any experience with Yoo but I was just taking the earlier comment at face value and exploring the potential implications. You may be right about supply and demand of professors in his area, though. I just don't know enough about it.
3:53/4:31, do you have ANYTHING to base your speculations on? I mean anything? You don't even have the anecdotal evidence that myself and Max Power allude to. You're just implying that within the realm of all that is possible in this universe, some people MIGHT find Yoo unsupportive. Do I have that straight? I would have thought that rampant speculation in the comments of this blog would come to an end after the witch hunt fiasco, but I guess not.
There's a serious thing going on here where you don't talk about it. But you know it, Chris Edley knows it, fucking John Yoo knew it, and Trusifarian should have fucking better fucking known better.
Trustafarian and John Yoo ain't the same thing. It ain't even the same blog post.
Oh wait, it is.
frankly, yoo has done far more harm than the other guy
Armen, 3:25 said: "And not everyone has such loving perspectives on his mentoring." The 3:53/4:31 comments were in response to that one. Hope this helps.
To quote National Lampoon's Loaded Weapon 1, "my mistake."
2:45 - The law school is filled with internment apologists, See every law Professor that coos over FDR.
callagy - What? Expulsion is the ultimate punishment? Obviously you haven't' been reading the same constitution that John Yoo and I have been reading. The right to torture insubordinate law students is fundamental. This trustafarian may have material information. He's obviously a terrorist. Hello, we're fighting a war here.
To those insisting on Yoo's firing, don't you know that a Professor's tenure is constitutionally protected property. You need due process and stuff to take it away. Now sure, as we now know from Yoo's keen insight, the only necessary due process to prevent you from being randomly abducted, stripped, and electrocuted in your genitals is the approval of the executive. But, this is tenure we're talking about, something too important to be taken lightly.
Ohhhh, I love it. (But I don't care enough to go find the time stamps of all the anonymous commenters...maybe Armen will do it for me.)
Do I reeaaaallly hear some Boalt Hall lefties complaining that they want to write in an area of law but can't because there's only one law professor here and he's conservative (and apparently a war criminal for writing a legal memo that was such poor legal research/writing that 4 Supreme Court justices agreed with it)? Can you imagine what it must feel like to be a conservative student at Boalt? Talk about not having supportive faculty around...want to write a conservative-perspective paper on race? environment? labor law? procedure? torts? copyright? animal law? international law? Oh, you'll be sure to find all sorts of "supportive" faculty around to help you out. I'm sure they'll give you a big frickin' hug they'll be so supportive.
Speaking from actual personal experience of being in his classroom, Professor Yoo goes out of his way to remove his own personal views from his teaching. No, he doesn't do it perfectly...no one could. But at least he tries. It seems like most of the left-leaning profs wear their politics like a badge in the classroom.
...lacking a supportive environment for lefty paper-writers at Boalt...kiss my ass.
I know I'm a little late weighing in on this issue, but this forum is the only place where I get a sense of wide-spread support for letting Trust off the hook without expulsion. Who are you people?
As long as we're discussing Boalt's internment guilt, pretend that there's a tee shirt waiting for the first one of us to post the name of the California Attorney General who supported internment -- the one whose portrait we all constantly see as we wait interminably for our salads and sandwiches to be prepared.
7:56, in all fairness, I think Mike M has been a constant supporter of trust, and mayyyyybe one or two others. If I replied (anonymously) to every post supporting trust then people would have the opposite view.
Here's a thought. What if WE Boalties fashioned his punishment. What would you do? 200 hrs of IP talks? Make him sit on that rounde table where all the comp labs are with a "Dunce" hat? What?
Why do you all keep talking about John Yoo? Will you people not be happy till you've purged Boalt of all dissent?
A student is being railroaded for making a mistake and then coming forward about it. I hope that if trustafarian gets expelled, he sues the hell out of Boalt and gets a nice chunk of change.
There's also a big difference between being "supportive of Trust" and being a stickler for procedure.
I don't really understand why people are claiming that trustafarian is being punished for his "honesty" and "bravery" for coming forward. I saw the same thing on the xoxoth thread about the expulsion. It's absurd. He wasn't honest or brave; he was saving his ass from federal prison.
If trustafarian had not come forward, the FBI would have had to launch a full-scale investigation to figure out whether the original post was a hoax or not. Hastings probably would have been shut for days, rather than a few hours. The cost would have been multiple times what it was.
Say that the xoxoth board moderator doesn't keep IPs like apparently they claim they don't. But that's not the only place that tracks IPs. IPs are also tracked by huge providers like PacBell, the hosting companies, etc. Contrary to the claims of some of the xoxoth posters, those IP logs are kept, at least for a period of months, specifically so the FBI can get at them if needed. Nothing on the Internet, unless it's going through an offshore anonymizer, is truly anonymous.
They probably would have figured out who it was eventually. Trustafarian left plenty of evidence that he went to Boalt on that site. Then the FBI would have been at Boalt, sifting through the 1L class, trying to find Trustafarian. That probably would have been enough.
Maybe they wouldn't have figured it out. Then Trustafarian would have been really fucking lucky. But if they did figure it out, then he would have been way more screwed than he is now. He couldn't have claimed it was a hoax rather than a terrorist threat, and he probably would have been strung up on federal charges.
Yes, Trustafarian is paying a severe penalty, but he would have paid a penalty orders of magnitude worse if he hadn't come forward and they'd figured out who he was.
So, there are entirely too many comments for me to read all of them, so if I repeat someone else, whatever, everyone just says what others have said already. I don't think the school has any right to do anything. First, I think that his comment, whatever your view of it, is constitutionally protected speech. Second, even if it isn't protected, I don't see how it is at all related to Boalt except for the fact that he goes here. Unless the school can show he posted it from a Boalt computer, or something like that, this seems equivalent to the school giving someone the boot for going into a movie theater and shouting "fire." If it doesn't involve Boalt, they need to stay out.
P.S. For those of you that are so opposed to John Yoo, why not go to the Federalist Society meetings so you can hear what he has to say as opposed to making lame quips about him with no substantive argument to them. Seriously though, nobody comes to our events...
While he does have a right to free speech, and what he said may or may not be constitutionally protected (I haven't had Con Law yet), nothing in the constitution says he has a right to go to law school. For that matter, he doesn't have a right to pass the character & fitness section of the bar. If this incident could keep him from passing (as some have commented it might), why should the school let him spend ~50k and use a spot that could be given to a transfer student for the next two years?
Admittedly, I've never read it, but I'm assuming we all agreed to abide by a code of conduct as students here. As long as he gets a fair hearing, I don't see a problem with expulsion if Judicial Council finds it appropriate.
You have a right to free speech, but you are still responsible for what you say.
Dear 8:15,
People keep talking about John Yoo because that's the blog thread.
There's this phenomenon that happened, around the emergence of Rush Limbaugh in the 1990s, where "balanced" news became more frequently about merely interviewing two people with divergent views and giving them equal weight, regardless of whether one view was more historically or scientifically correct--in other words, we began to loose a shared understanding of the common facts because the opinions were given predominance. I think a similar thing is going on when students address Yoo as dissent, as if he is a fair/only representative of conservative viewpoints at Boalt. Yoo’s scripting of the torture memos was a radical, not conservative action, and people are right to be concerned about the implications.
History provides numerous examples of horrific government abuse that was at one time backed by “legitimate” scholars. When Yoo's position at Boalt lends his theories credit or gives him added play in the media to promote legal theories that dramatically threaten civil and human rights, our institution is implicated.
That said, we can correct bad speech with good speech. Most students who passionately disagree with Yoo's viewpoints are not trying to kick him out of his job. We're using his presence on campus as an opportunity to better develop our arguments and awareness and, yes, create discussion, as was done this week by the students leading the "restore habeas" project.
It would be just plain silly to have someone like Yoo on campus and think that people wouldn’t care. I care because I know people who have been tortured. I care because it is scary to know that someone could come along and gain national prominence while lending credibility to theories that seek to set us back 100 years in the human advances, advances that were the result of massive suffering during many, many wars—not the least of which was World War II. Lest we forget what we’re really talking about here.
Personally, I don’t mind if he gets a nice office with pretty views—fight law with law, theory with theory. But I don’t have to sit down and drink coffee with the guy. And I will not call him “teacher.”
btw:
http://www.workingassets.com/lawyersforhabeas/
for those interested.
I completely agree with 9:47 AM that, in interests of "balance" and "fairness" and "non-partisanship," we too often see opposing views presented as if there is no right answer. In reality, history, as you say, shows us quite simply there were right answers and wrong answers. A larger segment of America denounced FDR for being a traitor to his class, vigorously contesting the New Deal, but of course today, except for a tiny libertarian fringe, the New Deal evolution of the state is the bedrock anchor of our conception of liberal democracy. The GOP doesn't even dare touch its found precepts. FDR was right and opponents were wrong. Indeed, one of the reasons I'm a liberal is that, for most of the 20th century's great advances--clear air, clean water, civil rights, abolition of child labor, Medicare, the GI bill--it was Democrats leading the charge and Republicans opposing it. Some people were right and some were wrong.
But, 9:47 AM, you're off your fucking rocker if you think the physical interrogation of non-citizen suspected terrorists falls into one of those clear-cut classes. You mention a "history of horrific government abuse." Perhaps you'd care to share similar examples of other country's "torture" of foreign actors suspected of terrorism, and then tell us all the bad things that happened.
I agree the moral issue is complex. I don't like what happens in Guantanamo. I would vote to give full habeas rights to those detained (it's legally unclear whether they ever had them to begin with though.) I'd open the camp to International monitoring.
But you know what? Those are all contestable position. And, unfortunately, through the DTA of 2005, the MCA of 2006, the actions of a President, and in the decisions of the Supreme Court, it's fair to say a democratic majority of America has rejected those ideas so far. Maybe this will change with the Dems in charge. But it should be instructive for you that, even with Speaker Pelosi, the Dems have not rushed in to reopen the MCA or legislate about Guantanamo. Why? The answer is obvious: a lot of America is ambivalent! Americans aren't so sure we don't need tough tactics down there! That's the debate we're currently having. It's a difficult one. I tend to fall closer to your position, but, respecting my fellow citizens, I also respect that the opposing side is legitimate -- no quotes needed. I don't need to scream at the rest of America, "Fascism is on the march you idots!" Unlike you, I'm confident we can tell the difference between the moral quandary of the torture of terrorists, and "horrific government abuses" that "threaten everyone's human rights and civil liberties." Your hyperbole gives you away, old chap. The general does not govern the specific. The slippery slope argument is for people who don't know how to use the guardrail. We're talking about 150 suspected terrorists in Cuba, not your grandmother.
All of which gets back to John Yoo. In light of this, what we was doing was this: trying to advocate on behalf of a client (the President) to give him the flexibility as he saw it to fight the war on terror. I personally think it was bad legal reasoning, bad judgment, detrimental to this country's moral standing, counter-productive, needlessly incendiary, and, yes, radical.
But, really, Nazism on the march? Get over yourself.
to 10:36 - "physical interrogation" - best. line. EVER.
Here are some pictures of Yoo's work.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/
Take a look if you have the stones, you naive, privileged law fucks.
um, I didn't scream anything. I wrote it. And I didn't write what you put in quotes, you did. Please take your projections elsewhere.
For clarification, my reference to WWII was intended to invoke the post-World War II context in which many of the contemporary notions of human rights were codified.
oops. 11:01 here.
I did write part of what 10:36 quoted: the stuff said poster referred to as hyperbole--human and civil rights.
But I didn't call anyone an idiot, that was all 11:01. Classy post, by the way. Especially the part about the grandmother. Such a charmer, you.
It's my understanding that the Yoo memo sought to exempt the U.S. from the application of Geneva to Al Queda and Taliban detainees in Guantanamo, not Iraq. (That didn't happen for another two years, after all.)
True, it may have produced a mentality that carried over to Abu Ghraib, but as far as I understand it, no one has alleged that Iraq POWs are anything other than official, covered-under-Geneva POWs, which is precisely why some US service-members have been prosecuted for their involvement in Abu Ghraib (probably not enough.)
So you're free to calls us "privileged law fucks," but you should at least have a rudimentary understanding of...uh...the law before nosing around on a law blog.
Hey, there's a nifty new witch-hunt tool:
http://bookblog.net/gender/genie.php
Apparently, it looks at gender tendencies in writing to deduce if the author is a male or female. According to this, 10:36 is a man, 9:47 is a female, and "Andy" and "Ashley" are completely phony names.
Someone plug in Trusti -- he could be a she!
Oh, it also says Tom Fletcher is a woman.
11:49, that reminds me of the tennis elbow joke
Note that 10:36's defense of Yoo in which s/he accuses critical posters for saying "Nazism is on the march" is in fact the only post here to use the "N" word.
Also, in response to the commenter who asked who the posters are who are defending Trustafarian, check out Andy's comment at 10:49. After saying the murder-suicide threat against Hastings was "constitutionally protected speech," he also argues Boalt doesn't have jurisdiction to discipline the student unless he posted from a computer on campus. Then he refers to "our meetings" in lamenting the fact few people attend Federalist Society meetings to hear Yoo's views. So, apparently at least one of the Trustafarian supporters is a member of the Federalist Society. Of course this could just be flame to get everyone riled up about the Feds.
Wow 12:04. You win the award for "most spectacularly missing the point since Bush said, 'You forgot about Poland'" award.
By the way, it doesn't really matter that Andy is a member of the Fed Soc. He isn't speaking for the organization.
Just so you know, the Hastings community is paying attention to the outcome of the UCB decision regarding this terrorist threat against Hastings.
Hastings is a large school, and many powerful people attending Hastings. There is a great deal of pressure being applied to make sure that this individual is dealt with properly considering the fact that he posted a threat to a fellow UC law school, and that the school was subsequently shut down for a period of time as a direct result of this threat.
If he isn't expelled, their will be a shadow cast upon every male 2L interviewing at OCI.
This act diminished Boalt in the eyes of many. The comments here further diminish the reputation of your otherwise fine law school.
Condisdering the fact that Hastings grads end up working at the same firms as many of you Boalties, and are highly represented in the SF Bay area, I would think that one attending Boalt would want to have a friendly relationship between the students of both schools.
Seriously.
Fellow Boalties,
It is time we got over some of our own "smug superiority" regarding Hastings. After all, I am sure that many of us are at Boalt because we failed to get into Stanford, Harvard, or Yale for that matter.
I know that if I had gotten into Stanford I would not have given Boalt a second thought.
Just sayin'.
I did get into Stanford but after I got into Boalt I didn't give it a second thought. So there! And I totally respect people who go to Hastings.
Whoever wrote the comment about every male 2L at Boalt having a shadow cast upon him during "OCI" (by the way, it's called "OCIP" here) is a complete idiot who is just trying to bash Boalt. The comment is so ridiculous on its face that I don't think it requires any further response. I'd also bet money the commenter came from Auto Admit.
I do agree, however, that the "discussion" on this blog is often quite embarrassing. Fortunately, most people realize every law school has its own "problem blog" that is usually quite unrepresentative of the student body as a whole. Also, did anyone catch Judge Kozinski's recent remarks calling blogs "hateful things?"
http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/04/kozinski_disses_blogs.php
Armen has built a real institution here. It is at once Boalt's most popular blog, most representative blog, least representative blog, only blog, must updated blog, problem blog, essential reading blog, most visited blog, administration-read blog, politically diverse blog, most insular blog, and most bloggy blog.
Not bad work Armen.
1:22PM,
Speak for yourself. Boalt was my first choice and didn't even think about going to Harvard, Yale or Stanford (or any other school).
Just because Boalt was YOUR 4th choice, or whatever it may have been, don't assume that most of us are only here because we couldn't get into a "better" school.
1:22, I call shenanigans. I think you are an XOXO troll. Tell us something about Boalt that only Boalties would know.
I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable assuming that a student at Hastings or Boalt wishes he or she had been admitted somewhere else. There are plenty of reasons to pick a lower-ranked school over a higher-ranked one. Not everybody makes their decisions based on rank.
I think Blogger ate my comment. I just pointed out that Hastings could be the right pick for someone for a number of reasons, such as wanting to get involved in SF politics. On the other hand, Boalt or Stanford may be better if you want to clerk, work at a big firm or be a law professor. And this talk of a rivalry is downright silly! There is no widespread belief at Boalt that Hastings students are beneath us. We will all get diplomas signed by the Governator and, if we pass the bar, we will all be attorneys with the same rights and privileges.
Can someone explain to me how Trustafarian's actions in *any* way represent the general Boalt community? Perhaps, I'm slow, but I don't see the connection... Why should I be embarrassed by some fool? Seems overly dramatic to say T's actions in any way reflect the rest of the student body.
5:14--
Hear, hear!
Post a Comment
<< Home