Berkeley City Council Delves Back into National Politics
The Marine Corps issue may have fizzled, but apparently the City of Berkeley's passion for national and foreign policy burns on.
Next week the Berkeley City Council will vote on a resolution demanding the United States charge Boalt Professor John Yoo with war crimes. The Council will also consider "whether to order Boalt to offer alternatives to Yoo's courses, so no student is forced to take a class from him if they don't want to." (SF Gate article here.) Never mind that the truth is any student CAN avoid his classes, or that the City can't "order" the law school to offer courses -- the Council couldn't order the Marines out of its recruiting office either, but was that a stumbling block?
While it is difficult to imagine a dumber idea than attempting to go head-to-head with the United States Marine Corps, at least the City's behavior in that fiasco was (relatively) harmless. As I recall, it mostly amounted to a lot of public kissing. This resolution, however, is actually dangerous. Freedom of speech and liberal ideals cannot be squared with the idea that a city government may publicly disapprove of a political point of view by taking affirmative steps to sequester it. The use of governmental power to suppress controversial (even dangerous) viewpoints is a neo-conservative tactic more befitting Karl Rove than a local municipality. The City is taking exactly the kind of reactionary moral-low ground that the "birthplace of the Free Speech Movement" is supposed to stand against. Berkeley's mindset here is cancerous, it is dangerous, it is abusive, and (from this liberal's point of view) it is embarrassing.
Next week the Berkeley City Council will vote on a resolution demanding the United States charge Boalt Professor John Yoo with war crimes. The Council will also consider "whether to order Boalt to offer alternatives to Yoo's courses, so no student is forced to take a class from him if they don't want to." (SF Gate article here.) Never mind that the truth is any student CAN avoid his classes, or that the City can't "order" the law school to offer courses -- the Council couldn't order the Marines out of its recruiting office either, but was that a stumbling block?
While it is difficult to imagine a dumber idea than attempting to go head-to-head with the United States Marine Corps, at least the City's behavior in that fiasco was (relatively) harmless. As I recall, it mostly amounted to a lot of public kissing. This resolution, however, is actually dangerous. Freedom of speech and liberal ideals cannot be squared with the idea that a city government may publicly disapprove of a political point of view by taking affirmative steps to sequester it. The use of governmental power to suppress controversial (even dangerous) viewpoints is a neo-conservative tactic more befitting Karl Rove than a local municipality. The City is taking exactly the kind of reactionary moral-low ground that the "birthplace of the Free Speech Movement" is supposed to stand against. Berkeley's mindset here is cancerous, it is dangerous, it is abusive, and (from this liberal's point of view) it is embarrassing.
Labels: Only In Berkeley, Rabid Liberals, Yoo-Hoo
posted by Patrick Bageant at 7:50 PM
49 Comments:
How does demanding someone be charged with war crimes suppress a viewpoint? The same goes for "ordering" alternative classes be taught so students don't have to take them if they don't want to? (Obviously I recognize how silly this is, as I plan on avoiding Yoo like the flu, and still plan on graduating).
None of this seems like it's forcing anything on anybody. City councils take political stances all the time. And Yoo is a particularly worthy target for such a stance. They aren't "ordering" (again, I use the term loosely because of how clueless they are) Yoo to stop talking, or stop expressing his opinions, or for students to stop listening.
I sense a bit of a man crush here...
Now I understand why Yoo is going to Chapman in the spring...
This comment has been removed by the author.
*Disclaimer: I was definitely kidding about the man crush part. But serious about the rest.
So you seriously think that city council passing resolutions on curriculum at a university is not bat sh*t crazy? Seriously? Especially a city council that is not remotely short of actual, you know, governing that needs to be done.
I'll make this deal with the Berkeley City Council: if you improve Ashby so that cars don't lose an axle while driving on it, then you're free to vote on all sorts of silly little resolutions on who or what teaches at the university. Yes, pretty soon we will all be obedient, prius driving, tofu eating, apple using obedient little liberals.
Avoid a class because you disagree with viewpoints? How sad---Boalt students should try to get exposure to viewpoints. Are you afraid to listen to him or something? Or do you prefer having everyone agree with you...
Strike the second obedient.
8:20 - You may not be too far off there. I have known of a number of people who have dropped a class with a prof because the prof does not share that person's political point of view.
I find it as sad as you do (and for the same reason).
I never said that the Berkeley city council wasn't bat sh!t crazy, and I definitely don't agree with them on this. From this liberal's point of view, their actions are very embarassing. I just don't think any viewpoints are being suppressed.
And the reason I'm avoiding Yoo has nothing to do with wanting to avoid his viewpoint. Rather, I'm afraid that I wouldn't be able to suppress my own anger towards him enough for me to get the most out of the class. It would be like taking a class from Bill O'Reilly; even if Bill-O was the best professor in the world, my own inability to discipline myself enough to get what I need out of the course would make me avoid it. I have vehemently disagreed with a couple of my professors so far, and I haven't ran for hills yet.
Good post, Patrick. Well said. I don't have much to add, except this:
WTF, Berkeley?
i probably should know better than to ask a legal question like this, but how can the berkeley city council "order' the University of California to do something like that? i thought that the Regents have a state constitutional standing that places them almost at the level of the traditional three branches.
9:36: Weirdly, my California Constitutional Law instructors seemed to think the same thing.
While I completely agree that the city council is crazy here, I agree for a different reason. I think they're crazy to think anything they do here is going to have any effect. This will most likely turn out just like the protest of the Marines turned out. Not only are they wasting everyone's time (time which could be spent addressing issues a city council should actually be addressing), they're only continuing to prove their own impotence in this area.
I think the Council's approach is obviously a bad idea, but I also think it's wrong to defend Yoo on "freedom of speech" grounds.
Yoo's critics are arguing that he committed a crime when he was acting as a lawyer, not a professor. If the charge is correct, then this isn't a matter of freedom of speech.
Imagine that after you pass the bar, you get hired by the mafia (the big firms having disappeared in this economy). Do you have a First Amendment right to advise your mafia clients that it would be legal for them to carry out a hit?
Uh, yes, if you legitimately believed that were the case.
I'm gonna go outside and demand that it rain. My guess is that it will be equally as effective as what Berkeley is doing and about 100 times more intelligent.
By the way, I think it's worth pointing out that the reporter for this article is Carolyn Jones. She was the main reporter on the tree-sit, and was strongly biased towards the protesters when she wasn't flatly incorrect factually.
However misguided one thinks the city's action is here, it is mistaken to assume that they would *rather* spend their time on "silly little resolutions" than on fixing potholes on Ashby. Fixing Ashby requires money, which most CA cities have too little of; passing resolutions requires only self-importance, which most politicians have an excess of.
99% of the time, i love the city of berkeley and my time here at boalt, but in this instance, i'm ashamed of this city and expected more from the few fellow boalties who are calling for professor yoo's head.
berkeley needs to stop causing a ruckus where none is needed. it's great to support worthwhile causes, but this just isn't one of them. professor yoo has the right to perceive how he pleases and was only working within the parameters of his job at the OLC -- even if we don't agree with the issues he advocated.
8:20: i couldn't agree with you more. it really does seem that some of our peers here are deadly afraid of anyone with opposing views that aren't hinging on hippie liberal. what ever happened to the spirit of understanding and respect for one another's views?
it would be both a hit on the law school's reputation for diversity and an even bigger loss on its excellence if professor yoo were to resign in disgust as a result of this fiasco.
The Council's attempt to force Berkeley to schedule duplicative classes reminds me of the anti-Communist purges a generation ago. Once again, local government is interfering with academic freedom!
11:37 - everyone agrees (myself included) that the Berkeley City Council has the credibility of Amy Winehouse.
But I think what's dangerous here is to assume that people are intolerant or afraid of being exposed to viewpoints that conflict with their own. I certainly welcome all perspectives, and indeed seek them out. Granted, unless you know me, you don't know this to be true, but likewise, you don't know whether or not I refuse to be exposed to opposing viewpoints either. Don't assume one way or the other unless you know for certain.
From my perspective at least, a John Yoo firing (if it were to happen) should come from the result of his actions being against the law. I have no problem with anything he says, how he teaches, his continuing tenure here, etc. But likewise, other than feeling embarrassed for them, I think the Berkeley city council should be able to continue to express their views. Of course I disagree with "forcing" (I use the term loosely) Boalt to do anything. But city councils make political statements all the time. My college town (and Patrick's!) passed a resolution calling for the end of the Iraq War. Awesome? I think so. Effective? Obviously not.
Although admittedly I wouldn't have the audacity to pull it off, I'd almost be tempted to withdraw from Boalt in protest if John Yoo were fired.
Even if he were fired because a court found him guilty of criminal activity?
Toney said...
. . . And the reason I'm avoiding Yoo has nothing to do with wanting to avoid his viewpoint. Rather, I'm afraid that I wouldn't be able to suppress my own anger towards him enough for me to get the most out of the class.
. . . .
I certainly welcome all perspectives, and indeed seek them out. Granted, unless you know me, you don't know this to be true, but likewise, you don't know whether or not I refuse to be exposed to opposing viewpoints either. Don't assume one way or the other unless you know for certain.
Huh?
Anyway, firing Yoo before he is convicted of a crime, in addition to intellectually dishonest, would trigger the wrongful termination suit of a lifetime. There is no way the Regents would let that happen.
My anger towards his actions, not his viewpoints. Those two statements square perfectly. I welcome his perspective, but if I was sitting in class, I don't know if I could stop thinking about his role in allowing torture. It has nothing to do with anything he might say in the course.
And agreed - no firing can happen before something fire-worthy occurs. That's the mistake most people here have made; I think people are assuming any firing that would occur would be due to "silencing" efforts or something silly.
Toney,
If you are saying that Boalt should fire a convicted felon, then I agree.
Of course, Yoo being convicted of war crimes is about as likely as Berkeley going red in the next presidential election. He was a lawyer doing his job---giving his legal opinion. Should Scalia be convicted for his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas? Should Warren be convicted for judicial activism?
I think why people are annoyed is that you sound like you already convicted Yoo in your own mind. Maybe you should hold off on that conviction until you have the guts to take a class from him.
Definitely true. If Yoo gets fired, that means he got convicted for a crime. If he's convicted for a crime, that means he was held criminally culpable for giving a legal opinion.
If that happens, I'm not just quitting school. I'm quitting the profession.
McWho - I'm willing to concede that I may have convicted Yoo in my own mind. But offering up legal justification for the allowance of torture, denial of HC rights, etc... the implications of these actions are a step beyond a typical political disagreement.
Everything I've heard from people that have taken his class indicates that he teaches it by injecting as little personal politics into as possible. Having said that, I only want to take con law once, so I want to get the most out of it. If I'm thinking of Guantanamo while I'm taking the course, I'm going to get less out of it than something that I have less mental baggage with.
It was a tough decision I made, but one that ultimately is best for me. It's easy to point a finger at me and shout "Intolerant!", but I've carefully considered all sides of this and weighed out my options. At least I'm not being intolerant and unthoughtful. And who knows, maybe I'll change my mind next year. It certainly would be intriguing to take his course, and everyone testifies to how great it is.
Is a defense attorney arguing that tobacco is a perfectly healthy herb any better? A lawyer who works for the Berkeley City Council?
Don't worry about getting much out of Con Law though, Yoo only teaches Con Law II. You would already get the amazingly more biased version from any of the other, ah, less than conservative professors we have teaching Con Law I.
I only say that because they freely admit that they do not teach a neutral class.
"If he's convicted for a crime, that means he was held criminally culpable for giving a legal opinion.
If that happens, I'm not just quitting school. I'm quitting the profession."
If you as a lawyer advise someone that it's legal do something you know is illegal, that's a crime.
Don't believe me? Google Raymond "RJ" Ruble, who's about to be convicted in SDNY for writing opinion letters on tax law.
So I guess you'll be leaving the profession now?
Um, no. I'm aware of that.
But if you what Yoo did was advising his client to do something illegal (it wasn't - immoral, yes; illegal, no), then I'm quitting.
A lawyer named Ruble is about to be convicted for doing just this: Here you go:
http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2008/10/sidley-partner.html
"Ruble would write letters to clients saying the shelters appeared kosher under U.S. law. Those letters were designed to shield clients form any liability."
Gee, substitute "torture techniques" for "tax shelters", and who does this describe?
Maybe it would be helpful if you went back and read McWho's comment and started over.
The phrase "if you did what Yoo did" reminds me of "who's on first?"
patrick, your comment on the chronicle article got over 650 thumbs up in 24 hours. that has to be some kind of record. props!
Yeah, usually they get 650 thumbs DOWN in the first 24 hours . . .
You are assuming that Yoo knew what he was writing was false. I doubt that.
IF he knew what he was writing was false, then you have an argument. But since there is still a major debate going on as to that issue, you can't say he KNEW that he was wrong when he gave his opinions re: torture.
Maybe we should convict DE for saying that there wouldn't be noise during finals this semester, like he did at the beginning of the fall.
And you, McWho, are assuming Yoo misstated the law. I do not believe he did. Just because something is legal does not mean you should actually do it. My belief is that's what happened here.
I'm not assuming anything. I just said that I don't think he lied about his legal opinion.
As for the rest, I have no idea.
It is important that we keep in mind that American soldiers in Bagram and Abu Ghraib, betraying their oath by doing the bidding of the organizers of the torture, have been sent to jail. Those soldiers, from decent American families are serving life sentences for those convictions (dishonorable discharges, etc). Those soldiers faced a jury of their peers and the persons who orchestrated the torture should also face a jury of their peers. John Yoo is one of those persons.
Yes but even if true, what does any of have to do with the Berkeley City Council?
The Peace and Justice Commission’s Resolution on John Yoo binds UC Berkeley to address the criminality of torture and John Yoo’s authorization and implementation of torture. Torture is a war crime that attaches universal jurisdiction, thus enabling localities, such as Berkeley, to prosecute individuals responsible for negligent, purposeful, and reckless disregard for the domestic and international laws of war, even if these violations were pursued under the auspices of the law. When international laws are adopted, they become domestic laws that must be upheld on the local, federal and state levels. This means that the City of Berkeley is “bound by international instruments to which [the United States] is a party as well as jus cogens norms” — ‘higher law’ that can neither be violated nor modified by any state under any circumstances, including during a declared emergency state of war.
For certain values of "bind."
Unless the Berkeley City Council grows the stones to send the city police to arrest Yoo, none of that comment is relevant to the issue at hand. This is a long line in Berkeley City Council decisions that stop short of actually taking action that might have consequences.
*eye roll*
The issue is torture is a war crime to which John Yoo is implicated and responsible. Torture is not an intellectual masturbatory exercise; it is not a tasty theoretical morsel to chew on.
Calling for an investigation is reasonable, and we must hold the BCC's feet to the fire. What was stated two comments before is critical to the issue at bar. Confronting the facts and the authority the BCC has calls on law students uphold the tenets and ethics of legality. The ramifications of torture that John Yoo has authorized are still intact. How quick will the illegality of torture once again be dismissed?
Passing the BCC Resolution will have consequences. What happens in Berkeley regarding John Yoo matters around the country where other war criminals are seeking safe harbor.
The City Council meeting on the Yoo resolution is on channel 33 now, if anybody wants to listen to the comments.
Worthy of a bump back to the top?
BCC passes resolution
double *eye roll*
Don't talk about Karl like that.
Post a Comment
<< Home