That Empty Berkeley Tradition Strikes Again
From the tread immediately below:
[Update 04/16/09, Patrick: as a commentator notes, it's only a matter of time until this thread pops up elsewhere. So, maybe I should say what I think instead of just assuming I'm such a loudmouth that everyone knows.
What I think is this: we should let the University do its job. No one is using the Torture Memos anymore nor are the Memos part of the curriculum at Boalt, so there is no need to head off an emergency. It's downright disturbing to me that the very same people who are angry at Yoo for bending and breaking the law are also willing to sidestep the University rules in their quest for vengeance. I'd like to sit the petition writers down for a basic Q&A on topics like "explain with precision the legal flaws in the Memos, and cite the Memo that contains them," spell "Abu Ghraib" or "locate Iraq on a map." The results of that session would reveal the petition for what it is: an expression of political animus, heavy on passion but light on principles, and hastily conceived as the Torture Memos themselves.
Finally, this may be petty of me but as a factual matter I'd like to flag a hurried revision to the petition (HT, again, to a commentator). It used to be called the catchy, "Reconsider John Yoo for Civ Pro II." Now it is the much more benign,"More Options for Civ Pro II." The new title gestures toward free choice and expression, but not enough to carry the day: you'd like to see him fired. Fine. I get that. But if you love this country and its laws, may I politely submit that this is a fantastic opportunity to embrace them. Wait for a conviction, and then can him by the book.]
Anonymous said...I don't know about the petition, but if it is a demand to replace Yoo with someone else, I know what I think (comments).
On a different note. Can we get a post on the silly petition being circulated re: Yoo's civ pro II class.
Posted by Anonymous to Nuts & Boalts at 4/15/2009 4:18 PM
[Update 04/16/09, Patrick: as a commentator notes, it's only a matter of time until this thread pops up elsewhere. So, maybe I should say what I think instead of just assuming I'm such a loudmouth that everyone knows.
What I think is this: we should let the University do its job. No one is using the Torture Memos anymore nor are the Memos part of the curriculum at Boalt, so there is no need to head off an emergency. It's downright disturbing to me that the very same people who are angry at Yoo for bending and breaking the law are also willing to sidestep the University rules in their quest for vengeance. I'd like to sit the petition writers down for a basic Q&A on topics like "explain with precision the legal flaws in the Memos, and cite the Memo that contains them," spell "Abu Ghraib" or "locate Iraq on a map." The results of that session would reveal the petition for what it is: an expression of political animus, heavy on passion but light on principles, and hastily conceived as the Torture Memos themselves.
Finally, this may be petty of me but as a factual matter I'd like to flag a hurried revision to the petition (HT, again, to a commentator). It used to be called the catchy, "Reconsider John Yoo for Civ Pro II." Now it is the much more benign,"More Options for Civ Pro II." The new title gestures toward free choice and expression, but not enough to carry the day: you'd like to see him fired. Fine. I get that. But if you love this country and its laws, may I politely submit that this is a fantastic opportunity to embrace them. Wait for a conviction, and then can him by the book.]
Labels: Classes/Professors, Rabid Liberals, Yoo-Hoo
posted by Patrick Bageant at 4:20 PM
110 Comments:
really? if you don't want to take a class with him why not just take the other section?
I would recommend TAKING Prof Yoo's Civ Pro class. I took his International Civil Litigation Course (basically, Civ Pro II with an international twist), and it was one of the best I took at Berkeley Law. He teaches effectively, efficiently, and as we all know, is really humorous. His final was manageable, too. I do not agree with the legal analysis he employed in his memos while he served in the U.S. government, but that had no bearing, impact, or influence on his syllabus or his teaching. I am sure Boalties are aware of this, and I recommend everyone to take this class.
I'm happy to have one last ridiculous only-in-Berkeley fiasco before I graduate.
On a side note, I hope we don't have protesters at graduation this year.
Civil Procedure II is about the following limited topics:
1) Subject matter jurisdiction,
2) Personal jurisdiction,
3) Venue (including transfer and forum non conveniens), and
4) Choice of law in federal courts (Erie question)
That's it. With the arguable exception of personal jurisdiction, none of these have anything to do with due process, cruel and unusual punishment, or the Executive Branch.
Nobody should be worried that Yoo has lost his credentials as a faithful teacher of civil procedure, or that he "just can't teach it." He can, and has.
I generally am a big fan of Berkeley and its law students, but this petition is just ridiculous. How is it that Berkeley (and Boalt) espouse free speech and the free flow of ideas and different perspectives, yet throw these vindictive and childish hissy fits? Just because you don’t agree with the man’s political position and/or legal analysis gives you no right to start this petition that makes the rest of Boalt look like illogical crybabies with nothing better to do than attempt to take away a man’s well being. Further, I really, really, really hope the petition-starter isn’t a Boaltie because through this pathetic attempt, you have implicated us all. Get a life and stop making us, and yourself, look so pathetic.
Almost universally accepted is the fact that Yoo is a great professor who checks his personal views at the door. Let him do his job and shut up.
What does the petition say? How does it get around the fact that there is another section being offered?
This is what it says:
We, the undersigned students and student organizations at Boalt Hall urge the administration to reconsider its decision to schedule Professor John Yoo as professor of one of the only two remaining sections of Civil Procedure II. Many Boalt students have serious moral, professional, and academic objections to taking a course with Prof. Yoo. In light of the lack of notice about the phasing out of Civil Procedure II , rising 2Ls and especially rising 3Ls opposed to taking courses with John Yoo are forced to choose between foregoing a core class in their academic career (Civ Pro II) or foregoing one of sixteen conflicting courses, two of which are required clinical seminars.
As the course schedule currently stands, the only alternative to Professor Yoo's course for those students who have not yet taken Civil Procedure II is a section taught by Professor Margaret Thomas. This section has a maximum enrollment of 100 students. Even if this is enough space to accommodate all the students who are opposed to being taught by Professor Yoo, the section taught by Professor Thomas conflicts with 16 other courses available to second and third-year students, including Constitutional Law, and the East Bay Community Law Center and Death Penalty Clinic seminars.
We, the undersigned students, believe that Professor Yoo's work limiting detainee due process rights and providing justification for enhanced interrogation techniques was not only unethical and immoral, but also calls into question the academic validity of Professor Yoo's interpretation of constitutional law, international human rights law, and civil procedure. It is deeply troubling that the administration has slated him to teach a course in which individual due process rights play such a central role, given that he currently faces domestic civil charges, and international criminal charges for violation of those rights.
For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully urge the administration to appoint an alternate faculty member to teach Professor Yoo’s section of Civil Procedure II or, alternatively, to create an additional section of this course in the fall or spring.
We thank you in advance for your earnest consideration of this morally and academically imperative issue.
The issues being tackled by the petition are not what the comments so far indicate.
First and foremost, the petition being circulated refers to the moral and ethical concerns of students who are being potentially forced to take his class. This concern is completely separate and distinct from any sort of academic qualification argument. Referencing a right to free expression is actually helpful. Civ Pro II is considered to be a near-requirement of the curriculum (evidence: it's being lumped into the mandatory 1L curriculum as of next term). A lot of students wish to freely express their disapproval of Prof. Yoo's legal work by not sitting in his class for an entire term. The Administration is making that pretty difficult, hence the petition.
Second, as to Prof. Yoo's academic qualifications, it's fine that he can regurgitate doctrinal course material in a high humored manner, entertaining and effective manner. But Boalt students expect more than that and in my experience often receive more than that. I am not at this school to hear someone recite information that I could find in a commercial outline. I want depth, analysis, interpretation, and more. I pay for that. In Prof. Yoo's case, his ability to ethically engage in legal analysis is questioned by respected legal scholars in this country and others. I think it's fair to say that his academic qualifications are being questioned for legitimate reasons.
What concerns me most is the conflation of Prof. Yoo's right to free expression with that of the students signing the petition. Freedom of expression goes both ways, which is apparently easy to forget.
Oh, please. Get over the self-entitlement. We are here to be law students, not bask in the wombs of our personal moral comfort zones.
As an attorney, would any of you dare sign a petition demanding Judge Bybee be removed from your case because it involves civil procedure? Of course not. Yet in that case not only would your values be threatened, but your client's future as well!
This petition seems little more than an opportunistic grab at the political dish of the moment. Suck it up. Learn something new while you are here instead of demanding the school mould its curriculum to the beliefs you came here with. You'd have far more to complain about I'd your personal beliefs were NOT challenged in law school.
I just went ahead and put your name on the petition, Patrick. You can find it here.
Rare is the day that I am in such complete agreement with Patrick. Well said.
Patrick,
I'd be interested to hear more about your definition of entitlement. If I were to go down the posts of this blog, I might be deceived into thinking it had something to do with Zeb taking credit cards, the amount of square footage alloted to student run journals, and what the 3L class deserves to receive from the administration for a situation neither created nor affected by the school.
What I mean to say is that it's rhetorically disingenuous to say 'welcome to the real world' when we've been in the real world all the while, and this school just happens to be a part of it that students hold a little power and influence. I'm glad they sometimes decide to use it.
I think I see the problem here: ipetitions.com.
People getting the benefit of petitions without all the leg work = a lot of stupid petitions.
And of course, the converse benefit to ipetitions.com is that you can put as many ridiculous names on it as you want. In fact, an organized effort could totally undermine any petition and render it ridiculous.
Yes Patrick, idle and sometimes witty observations about Berkeley and Boalt are just as much a manifestation of a sense of entitlement as a PETITION demanding that the school remove a professor from teaching a course. And you were a Moot Court finalist?
Before any of the geniuses behind the petition take me literally, let me say the above statement is tongue in cheek. But I say this with all seriousness: can you guys stop making liberals look bad? I thought I could go through the day enjoying humiliation of the teabaggers. Alas you guys had to come in and balance things. Nothing irritates me more than the groupthink mentality / fear of opposing and/or contrarian views that grips Boalties who with a straight face claim to be about tolerance and inclusiveness.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The only thing more silly than this petition is the people who stoop to an even more asinine level and sign it with fake, "humorous" names.
Come on, guys. This isn't middle school.
Yeah, what Armen said. Nobody should take my "sometimes witty" observations about Boalt seriously. Except when I'm being serious.
The petition suggests two remedies, one of which is: "or, alternatively, to create an additional section of this course in the fall or spring."
Secondly, I don't really see the issue as liberal/conservative. I apologize if the petition makes liberals look bad, but I don't identify as a liberal and I support it.
Additionally, I again think it's rhetorically misleading to slam the petition with claims of intolerance or lack of inclusiveness. You might be looking to point out perceived hypocrisy, but to suggest that a community is incapable of taking a moral or ethical stand on an issue is ludicrous. We, as a society, and within smaller groups, do this all of the time. Many of our laws have a moral component. Many of the international agreements that Professor Yoo's memos found unpersuasive also have a basis in a general consensus about what is morally right and wrong.
To say that somehow all liberals are tarnished by a group of students (some who are 'liberal' and some who aren't) who are organizing on their own behalf and in their own interest is taking something too far.
Oh get off your fucking high horse.
But it's really high, and I'm scared of heights!
The John Yoo affair is a big one and not to be treated lightly. Morally and politically I am in the same boat as the petitioners but thankfully I have the intellect to temper my moral reaction with principles and reason. You are all law students, so surely you know that we can't go around disciplining people without first convicting them of something. To do so cuts against the spirit and the letter of the law, and it cuts against the idea that we make decisions in a principled and not a gut way. This isn't credit cards in Zeb, kiddos. It's a man and his fucking job.
And while we are on the subject of jobs, if any of those names cross my desk this fall, know that I'm chucking your application straight into the round file. I don't need to work with reactionary hotheads (even when I agree with them) any more than Boalt needs a vermin population.
Does that change your desire to sign the petition? I bet it does, and if so, then so much for your principles.
Dear Undersigned,
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
'06 Alum,
Thanks for your perspective and ambiguous threats. What Corporate firm won't I be working with next year? This reminds me of an old thread on this blog where it was pointed out there there is a difference between the due process guaranteed to individuals against the power of the state and the right of individuals to petition as an act of expression. It's interesting that punishing folks for using their right to free expression is somehow different or less reactionary than the moderate remedies suggested in this petition. I'm just happy that Title VII makes sure that your threats may not be idle, as it doesn't protect political beliefs.
Note that the petition isn't asking for Prof. Yoo to lose his position, or even necessarily lose the opportunity to teach Civ Pro II, and certainly not suggesting that he should be sent to jail without due process. It's only asking for some actual alternatives to his course. Seems like that might leave pretty much everyone happy - people who want to take his class and people who don't.
You all know this course isn't required, right? And that everything you need to know about jurisdiction you'll learn when you study for the bar, or from more senior attorneys that you work with? And that Civ Pro II is basically a history lesson on how we got to the current standards? Right?
I was born in a country that tortures, imprisons without trial, and executes summarily. I've had family members imprisoned and killed by a regime that didn't believe in the rule of law. This isn't an "empty protest" or "opportunistic grab" for me. It's about keeping the country I live in from becoming like the country I left.
As it happens, I think Dean Edley's position regarding academic freedom is a principled one. But I don't believe Yoo has a right to be insulated from knowing that people find his actions immoral, illegal, and in violation of the professional ethics of a lawyer. And I would no more take a law school course with him than I would take a medical course with Mengele.
I support the petition because it aims to give people a choice NOT to study with someone who should be (and may be soon) facing criminal charges and disbarment, and expresses moral condemnation of immoral acts without depriving Yoo of any of his rights.
So, if you want to study under an enabler of torture and pat yourself on the back for your broad-mindedness, go long. But don't throw stones at those of us who refuse to.
Nathan -- I think part of what makes the petition feel "reactionary" is that it's responsive to a situation that has not, may not, indeed probably will not, develop. If you're the 101st person who wants to enroll in the non-Yoo section and can't, here's an idea: write the Registrar. Or write our student services person, who is wonderfully responsive to these kinds of things. I'm sure they could work something out. And if they are flooded with requests from, oh, 50 kids who are "forced" to take Yoo, I'm sure something would give.
Instead, we get a petition that is bound to attract only more attention and substantiate Boalt's (inaccurate) reputation. Bets on when this shows up on ATL? We're on quite a run over there lately.
I think the point of the petition is that the harm exists even if Prof. Yoo's class doesn't fill up, due to the conflicts that preclude a ton of students from registering for Prof. Thomas's class. I agree that there are a series of possible remedies, but again, the administration seems to be more responsive these days to significant student opinion, not the mutterings of a few. The petition is a simple way to make sure that the opinions of a lot of people aren't dismissed out of hand.
I just don't agree that the petition is reactionary.
Because that long, long petition we used to get Admin Law moved was necessary, right? Oh, wait, there wasn't a petition!
Face it, you're doing this because you want it to be public. Stop lying about it.
1. Amaha, you have a choice. You can choose to take the other section. Or you can choose to skip the class. Or you can (probably) choose to take it at Hastings and transfer the credits. Or you can transfer from Boalt to another law school. Nobody is forced to take this class.
2. Nathan, the right to free expression doesn't include a "right" to have convenient classes. Every class conflicts with other classes. You can't complain that your principles are being violated just because the alternative isn't perfect. In your case, you can have Con Law, or you can have your principles. It's your choice. (And it's not like Con Law or clinical work isn't available in other semesters.)
3. Where does "individual due process play such a central role" in Civ. Pro. II? For that matter, how does JY's government work on detainees relate to civil procedure? Was there some super-secret OLC memo on Erie that I don't know about?
4. What's embarrassing about this petition isn't just that it's reactionary. Or that it appears that the signatories don't understand the issues arising from JY's work. No, what's embarrassing is that Berkeley Law students don't seem to understand what Civil Procedure is about.
5. The petition is a joke. Why is it open to the public? Why are 3Ls signing it? [They're not going to taking classes next semester.] Why are people signing it as "anonymous?" Don't they understand how petitions work?
6. If this petition wasn't intended to be a public spectacle, then wouldn't it have taken place in the law school, with actual signatures, instead of on a public website?
Nathan,
I think some of this community wants to take a stand on how shrill and annoying you are.
Maybe what's motivating this petition is a worry that some students, because they haven't taken Civ Pro II till now, will not be able to (i) take Civ Pro II before graduation, (ii) avoid any class taught by Yoo, and (iii) take one of those sixteen other courses. If so, although Undersigned are being kind of ridiculously grandiose (and, I suppose, entitled), I have no basic problem with where they're coming from. I can respect an aversion to sitting in Yoo's classroom, even though I definitely don't share it.
The thing is, though, that I have a hard time believing that that's what's going on here. Very few people are passionate about learning Erie doctrine. I think this is just a dishonest, attention-getting way to put heat on Boalt in general and DE in particular for continuing to employ Yoo. And I guess I find that pretty annoying.
Carbolic,
Thank you for illustrating comments. Do I understand you correctly?
1. Love it or leave it.
2. Stop complaining. Other people have it worse.
3. I'm confused. Are you suggesting that someone made this argument?
4. I'm confused. Are you suggesting that someone made this argument?
5. Fraud is a problem, no one should trust anything ever that doesn't include the most stringent security measure, even if the information is easily verifiable later.
6. Publicizing something on email lists automatically discredits it.
A petition expressing opposition to Yoo is fair. A petition asking for a THIRD section of Civ Pro II because you don't agree with the professor and because the other one conflicts with con law or your clinic, and you haven't taken it already, and can't wait another semester... is just ludicrous. You're blowing your credibility, Edley's going to laugh you out the door.
No one is being forced to do anything. Civ Pro II is not a required course.
If you don't to take it with Yoo, then don't. It is as simple as that.
If the other section conflicts with something else you want to take, tough shit. Decide what is a higher priority, Civ Pro II or the other course that is offered every semester.
Stop making this a bigger deal than it is.
Some of us actually would like to take Civ Pro II with Yoo.
Your own moral concerns aren't taking into account anyone else. Stop being so selfish.
To part of Dave's point: the administration has said that Civ Pro II won't be offered again after next semester, which is why they're offering two sections. They also said, however, that the same issues will be taught in mass torts and complex civil litigation. This means that 1Ls who didn't take it this semester, who can't take the non-Yoo section, and who won't take the Yoo section still have a way to learn jurisdiction without being forced to encounter a person with whom they disagree.
I, for one, plan to take Yoo's section if it fits my schedule. If he tries to indoctrinate me I'll just zone out and play on the internet until class is over.
Oh Berkeley!
I was going to respond to this ridiculousness, but then I decided it's not worth it.
But I will echo 5:00 PM's sentiment: JY is a great professor, one of the best I've had in my two years here at Boalt. If you can, I'd recommend taking Civ Pro II with him. You'll learn a lot and it will not mean you endorse torture.
Nathan, I'm happy to have this little colloquy with you. Let's begin.
1. More like "Choose any of the many different options you have to avoid taking JY's class." But your formation works well, too. Nobody is forcing you to be a Boalt student. You knew JY was teaching here when you accepted.
2. "Stop complaining" is enough. Every student has to choose between conflicting classes. Hell, I never took Admin Law, because I had a conflict last semester. You have two Civ Pro classes to choose from.
3. Maybe you haven't read the petition; I thought the quotation marks would have given you a hint. Let's try again.
"We...believe that Professor Yoo's work limiting detainee due process rights and providing justification for enhanced interrogation techniques...calls into question the academic validity of Professor Yoo's interpretation of...civil procedure. It is deeply troubling that the administration has slated him to teach a course in which individual due process rights play such a central role..."
4. No, I'm making the argument that it looks like you don't know what Civ Pro II is about. That's excusable, since you haven't taken the class. But you don't need to flaunt your ignorance online. It makes us all look bad.
5. That's not my point, although I guess we could call Jay Bybee and see if he really signed.
6. I didn't know that anything was sent on email lists. Though everyone knows how much I love righteous mass emails! No, what discredits this petition is that it is hyperbolic, reactionary, and completely unnecessary. [Even if the other section filled up, any student with a sincere principled objection would be let in by Student Services.] And it's online.
This is ridiculous. JY is a great professor and some people I know are really looking forward to taking his class. If you don't want to then don't. That is your choice.
There were courses in law school that I wish I could have taken but didn't because of conflicts. Guess what I did. I picked up a book and studied the topic on my own. Civ Pro II isn't very complicated so I'm sure you could do the same.
I'm normally not too much of a fan of the "bashing" of liberals that sometimes goes on here, but for once-thank god.
As a 1L who would really like to take Yoo's class in the fall, and is (gasp!) also opposed to the use of torture, I'm amazed at the way this issue is being treated. I personally don't care if the offer another section for all the Yoo-haters out there. However, its ridiculous to argue that because you 70 or so students are personally opposed to what he has done he somehow shouldn't have the right to teach. Give me an f'ing break.
To any non-Boalties who happen to be reading: Please don't think this petition represents what we're like. If I read this petition knowing nothing about the school I would assume, particularly given Berkeley's reputation, that Boalties' greatest passions were for policing others' departures from their own unexamined beliefs. But most of the students here aren't like that at all: most of the Boalties I know love thought, love learning, love intellectual diversity, and love to have their thinking challenged. Don't believe the hype.
Dear Non-Boalties/Public
Please realize this ridiculous petition was started and is perpetuated by an entitled minority that does not reflect Boalt. These people profess to be about the exchange of ideas and understanding, yet pressure/embarrass the school with this public grandstanding in an attempt to fire a professor most acknowledge as brilliant and balanced, and who has never, ever even given a hint of his political leaning or personal beliefs.
Dear Dean Edley,
Please do not listen to this BS. These people have many other options and should not have their sense of entitlement validated and fear of being challenged nurtured.
I am amused that the petition has been hastily retitled "More Options for Civ Pro II" as opposed to the more exciting "Reconsider John Yoo for Civ Pro II"
Guys guys guys! Politics 101: test your message BEFORE you go live with the medium!
in the room the women come and go talking of michelangelo
To everyone worried that the petition makes Boalt look bad: don't worry! Your comments on this thread do a far better job of that.
Don't get me wrong--I'm not trying to defend the petition. But if you're opposed to it, don't sign it.
Just to clarify, the petition doesn't say that Yoo shouldn't be allowed to teach. The main point is that if he's scheduled for a core course, then other options should be provided that don't conflict with clinic and other critical classes.
In terms of people's decision about whether or not to sign the petition or whether to take a class with him, that's a personal decision and people have their reasons. I'm sure some people are still becoming informed and deciding how they feel about it. So here's my thought process on it for what it's worth:
I don't see Yoo's political work as separable from his teaching. I don't doubt that Yoo might be a skilled teacher, but that doesn't get around the fact that he has used his legal skills to facilitate people being terribly and illegally tortured. This also isn't something that he did only while employed by the Bush Admin. Yoo continues to engage in a public defense of torture and a drastic overreach of government/military powers - see his WSJ op-ed "Obama made a rash decision on Gitmo" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318955345726797.html (you can google for others). He does this work as a Berkeley Law Professor and with general impunity. So, for me, this is much more than a scheduling issue. I feel a moral obligation to not participate in his classes and to not let his actions be ignored or brushed aside.
It's not a huge ask for the administration to add another course section or to change the course schedule. Whether they do or not, at least we will have raised this issue and had these conversations. The danger of not speaking up, or of allowing business to go on as usual, is that it gives the impression that this community is willing to overlook human rights abuses and injustice. That's a really harmful message to send.
Gretchen
I'm not going to start a petition over it, but it would be nice if Con Law didn't conflict with both Civ Pro II sections.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/secret-interrogation-memos-to-be-released/?hp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8002262.stm
Wow. I was originally sort of annoyed by the petition, but this thread is making me come around to the other side. I mean, for heaven's sake, yes, they have other options, no, if you have strong moral objections to taking a class with John Yoo, it's not the end of the world to (1) miss taking Civ Pro II, (2) miss out on your ideal first-choice clinic first-semester 2L, or (3) to have to take Con Law (or whatever other classes conflict with the alternative section) later. I feel like the grievance is overblown. BUT, a significant number of students would like another option, so they're organizing a petition. What on earth is wrong with that? They want something, so they're asking for it. Maybe Dean E will tell them to get bent, but they're not chaining themselves to their lockers or anything. They're just circulating a petition in order to try to get something done. It's great that the administration was so responsive about fixing the scheduling conflict between Admin and Fed Courts, but if they hadn't been, a petition indicating how many students were bothered by this would not have been all that unreasonable. I agree that not getting John Yoo yanked from Civ Pro II, and trying instead to get another section added, is a more worthy goal for those who just really don't want to take a class with him. But come on, threatening to never hire someone who signed this petition? Telling people if they don't like it they never should have enrolled at Boalt, or they should take the course at Hastings? Or transfer? REALLY? You really think those options are better ideas than just starting a petition and hoping you get what you want? Because I'm not seeing it.
I love that this petition makes its detractors "ashamed" to be affiliated with this school. A group of your fellow students who share a common moral concern are attempting to amplify their voice in the hopes that the administration will take a reasonable step to accommodate them. It's a real bummer for you that this will give your buddies who love to rib you about going to school with the hippies at Berkeley one more tiny piece of evidence to taunt you with.
Generally, when others voice a concern that either does not bother you or that you believe is without merit, the normal reaction is to laugh it off and move on.
Crossing our names off of a hiring list? Really? I have family members that were tortured and killed by some of the most brutally sophisticated oppressive regimes to ever grace the face of the earth. I have a moral objection to taking a class with a man who played a key role in sending the United States significantly farther down that path than I'm comfortable with. Voicing that moral objection means that the courageously anonymous "06 Alum" is going to proactively sabotage my future employment opportunities, along with those of all of my fellow students who happen to share my concern? That kind of censorship is what should make everyone who loves to read this blog and make their pithy anonymous comments ashamed.
Here's what I find funny. Hypothetically, if there were only one section of Civ Pro II, and if Yoo were teaching it, lots of folks would (rightfully) be up in arms. Petitions would be signed, anonymous comments would be made, and eventually the school would probably add a second section. And, everyone would hail that second section as a great victory for those with a moral objection to Prof. Yoo (despite this new section inevitably conflicting with many other classes).
Well, the school already has two sections--they actually planned ahead this time! I mean, supposing again there were only one section, would the petition then ask for 3 sections? There's no reason for the school to have two more Civ Pro II's than it does in any other semester. And as for the conflicts, even if they move the second section, won't it just, um, conflict with other classes? What are you asking for here, a midnight Thursday Civ Pro II? Sunday morning?
It's fine for people to sign a petition, and it's fine for students to refuse to take Yoo's class. But the petition's demands for a different option were already met before all this even got started. So it's not real clear what the petitioners are asking for, or what the school could do to make them happy.
No one is being forced to take Yoo's class. Congrats! You win! Your petition was successful!
In the end, its a petition, and if you don't like it, don't sign it. No need to attack people for feeling a certain way and exercising their rights accordingly.
The opponents of the petition need to get off their high horses as well. As if your causes are more righteous than others.
Lastly, if you're a Boalt grad taking issue with current Boalt students trying to change the schedule of classes, GET A LIFE. You were here, it was three years, move on.
Yes. You can act as bat shit crazy as you want and the thought of anyone calling you out on it...well, we can't have that now can we.
Armen, how dare you comment on something in your own blog.
Don't you realize that right to free expression includes the right to not be criticized?
The students circulating the petition have no problem with criticism or the free exchange of ideas. Threats and comments that our expression makes others ashamed to go to our school are a little bit overboard, though.
If you think we're acting "bat shit crazy," I'm sorry, but to many people this is not a trifling issue or an outlet for scratching an activist itch. This means a lot to a significant number of people who share your halls and classrooms and who have every bit as much right to be here as you do. Taunts, insults, proclamations that our concerns are an embarrassment, and threats to the future livelihoods of people who put their name to the petition are out of line.
Meh, if you feel like you can't take civ pro because you don't like someone's work outside the classroom, then maybe I should be able to say that Liu shouldn't be our grad speaker.
Aside from H.Lopez, Liu is the most biased and close-minded professor at Boalt. Far worse in the classroom than Yoo.
Ya Armen/Carbolic
there is no difference between disagreeing with someone's stance and articulating your own viewpoint, and just calling someone "batshit crazy."
its dismissive and condescending. grow up.
I'm unsure why people are so upset about a petition that they didn't sign. Don't we live in a country where people are allowed to have opposing opinions (including John Yoo), allowed to express political ideas without being threatened with unemployment, and allowed to avoid taking classes from professors they dislike? What is so upsetting about people signing a petition? If you don't agree with it, don't sign it. But don't add to the culture of intimidation and torture by threatening people who disagree with you.
12:27:
So...they are protesting protesters. What is the problem?
Nice straw man you've got there, Carbolic. No one's saying Armen or others have no right to criticize the petitioners. We're just saying many of those voicing such criticism are making asses of themselves. They've every right to do that, too!
There's at least one comment here, though, claiming that the petitioners have no right to start a petition - take a look at 6:15. Sin, cast, stone, etc.
Exactly, McWho.
Why are the petitioners upset that someone take issue with their cause?
And contrary to what everyone says here, the petition isn't just asking for a new section; the petition is asking for Yoo to be removed from teaching the course. They are asking the administration to appoint someone else to teach Yoo's section.
If you don't like the professor teaching the course, that's too bad. We can't petition the administration every time a professor we don't like is teaching a course we want to take. Especially when there is already another section. Every single student already has to make decisions between classes that conflict.
And as someone already pointed out, even if the administration adds a third Civ Pro II section, there will still be conflicts and some students will still be "forced" to take Yoo's section. There is absolutely no getting around the fact that some students who want to take Civ Pro II, but don't want to take it with Yoo, will only be available during Yoo's timeslot. This petition will not change that.
11:14 a.m. made the best comment so far.
Alum 06: you are more than welcome to strike my name from consideration at your firm.
-Christopher James Williams, JD Class of '11.
Where are all the petitions asking for additional sections of the 16 other classes that conflict?
I agree. Alum '06, I definitely want to avoid anywhere that hires people that make cowardly empty threats anonymously for expressing one's views (whether silly or not).
Plus, you graduated in 2006! You've got what, 2.5 years of experience? And you made hiring partner already? Congrats.
this whole thread is elaborate flame.
If only...
Why is it that law students mock alums for only having "a few years" experience? It is a shitload more than the full-of-their-LSAT-score 1L's, or "I have worked 3 months for no pay" 2Ls. Or, for that matter, the "I really think 1Ls and 2Ls suck, now that I am a 3L" people.
I don't think '06 Alum was being mocked for having 2 years experience per se, but for suggesting that he had the power to make hiring decisions, which, with that amount of experience, does seem a bit suspect in most practice settings.
I don't know why people don't think junior associated don't have any power to make hiring decisions.
I remember during OCI some firms only sent very junior associates to do the interviewing. Also, I find it hard to believe that if a junior associate on a call back couldn't stand you and gave you a bad review that you would be getting an offer.
Common sense dictates that they do have power in hiring decisions.
I don't care whether '06 alum has actual power or whether he was just puffing his chest out while trolling a law school blog. Whoever (s)he is and however much real or imagined power (s)he has, (s)he threatened to blacklist people for voicing their beliefs. In a post where people asking for reasonable accommodation were accused of McCarthyist tactics, '06 Alum went way above and beyond any standard of reasonable conduct.
Also, the petition worked. Dean Edley is adding a third section of Civ Pro 2 in the spring, and maintaining his reasonable position on John Yoo which stresses maintaining academic freedom.
I highly doubt anyone who put their name to the petition has any problem with this, even if they personally find the prospect of taking a class with John Yoo morally repugnant.
The petition worked my ass. DE basically told you to bug off in terms of getting Yoo removed from the head of the classroom - which was really your goal. And the school had already been trying to add a third section of Civ Pro II for the spring - they just hadn't found someone to teach it.
"We were wrong to offer only two sections, and we’ll fix it."
CLEARLY the petition worked to add a new section. Whether this could have been achieved via some simpler means other than a petition is beside the point.
Just because you were opposed to the petition, don't now attempt to question its obvious ability to effect change.
right on, matt. the petition, proclaiming to just want a third section of civ pro II added, was a horribly disguised attempt at public pressure of DE. right on, DE, for sticking by your guns and not giving in for the sake of preserving boalt's values and academic freedom.
Actually, my objective was to not have to take a course with John Yoo and to attempt to give myself an alternative. The petition asked to replace John Yoo and in the alternative to offer enough alternative options that nobody who didn't want to take his class would have to.
Many of us who signed and support the petition have respect for academic freedom and would vocally oppose any attempt to revoke John Yoo's tenure while still avoiding his classes like the plague. Don't impute motives on people you don't know.
I'm glad to see that Matt's torrid love affair with John Yoo continues. The petition asked for a third offering of the course. Was it successful? Yes. Denying this highlights just how silly those that opposed the petition to begin with have been acting.
That aside, I don't think Edley's response goes NEARLY far enough. If 320 students need to take the course, there's still a one in three chance you'll have to take it with Yoo! I'm starting a petition, demanding a FOURTH section be taught. Who's with me?
That's a very morally courageous and principled position to take. /sarcasm.
My comment was at J not Toney.
You can make whatever judgments on the scope of my principles you like, Armen
I'm personally embarrassed that John Yoo teaches at my school and I view his actions as part of the Bush administration were repugnant and evil. I also believe in tenure as a concept. I'm sorry that I'm not sufficiently radical to allow your blanket characterization of all petition-signers to apply to my motives. I'll try to be more easily stereotypeable in the future.
J, if you’re ashamed to have john yoo at your school, then i am ashamed to have YOU at my school because you're a deceptive dude who pretends to be principled even in light of being exposed.
your original petition clearly stated "Reconsider John Yoo for Civ Pro II", and then amidst criticism, you've conveniently said "oh, i just wanted another section". at least have the courage to admit your true motives as opposed to hiding behind a clearly more rationale request. you wanted to pressure DE into removing john yoo and was hoping the student body would go along with it. when that wasn't happening, you just merely changed the cause to conceal your real "cause"
Anonymous dude who just directed the most recent post at me: I didn't write the petition. I had no part in its title or wording. I did, however, affix my name to its message. Like everyone else who signed it, I did so for my own reasons. Painting all of us with one wide brush and saying we failed to achieve our goal is a narrow-minded strawman.
I don't much care what the original title of the petition was. The letter asked Dean Edley to reconsider having John Yoo teach a core class, and it also posed an acceptable alternative. When a letter requests one thing and in the alternative requests something else, the normal way to read that is that either would be an acceptable outcome. Yes, some will believe that Dean Edley isn't going far enough in his approach to Yoo, but to impose that opinion on all students who signed the petition is disingenuous, silly, and factually incorrect.
Thanks, Patrick. It's important to remind people that academic freedom works both ways. Yoo is a great teacher. If you have a problem with him teaching, don't sign up for his class. Otherwise, let the DOJ do its job. Yoo is a tenured professor, and it's for the DOJ, not the University of California, to decide Yoo's fate.
Cal Alumni Against John Yoo:
http://www.tinyghosts.com/johnyoo/
Fire John Yoo:
http://www.firejohnyoo.org/
I'm glad I turned down Boalt for a better law school. I don't have to put up with this shit.
flame.
My favorite part of this exchange is that the petition would have remained contained within the Boalt community if Nuts and Boalts hadn't decided to assume an air of haughty superiority towards it by posting about it on the internet.
Nobody googles or remembers anything circulated through ipetitions.com. The people posting that they're ashamed of how the public will view the petition (and as a result, our school) might want to ask themselves whether or not preserving the petition for all eternity by bringing attention to it on the boalt student blog was the best way to vocalize your shame. Nuts and boalts is a fun diversion sometimes, but right now, this blog is the thing embarrassing our school.
5:37, you picked another LAW school? Then yeah, you have to deal with exactly this shit. For the rest of your life.
like i said earlier, this entire thread is elaborate flame.
Nathan and petition drafters and supporters--Dean Edley favors and spends taxpayer resources to promote and entrench race-based admissions policies that disproportionately exclude socioeconomically disadvantaged Asian Americans and Caucasians. I happen to think that by definition, it makes him (and people who support race-based preferences) a racist. Why isn't anyone circulating a petition to remove him? Where is the moral outrage? If Prof. Yoo's memos creating a legal foundation for the use of torture for external enemies of the United States are morally repugnant (and I would even agree that torture should be disfavored or even prohibited as long as a society/civilization can afford to not use it and other extreme means to defend itself, which thankfully the US presently can), Dean Edley's writings and activities to harm underprivileged citizens of the United States who happen to have skin colors he disfavors are infinitely worse. He and his ilk are modern day Bull Connors--racialism now, racialism forever, racialism at any price. As morally repugnant as I and many others find his ideas and actions, people on the right side of the political aisle seem to have a higher regard for the right for people to have different ideas and even act on them to start a movement demanding a separate law school program for anyone who disagrees with Dean Edley's skin-deep version of "diversity." Creating a separate class/section in response to the petition is such a monstrous waste of limited institutional resources to appease a bunch of whiny, privileged, self-righteous, cosseted children with overdeveloped senses of entitlement. One more reason for me and like-minded alums to not give another dime to Boalt--I'd hate to see my limited charitable contribution budget used to subsidize bullshit.
And I also am even less inclined to hire Boalt grads than before. Trust me, no loss at all.
Oh no! Argument! Discussion! These have no place in a law school!
Seriously, if you are going to threaten not to hire someone because they participate in the very fundamentals of legal education, and yet you are cowardly enough to post anonymously, at least give us the name of the place you work, so we know to avoid a place that hires morons like the plague.
Who is letting 6:34 hire people? Sounds like he really gives each candidate the proper consideration. I also love the idea of a person who hates Boalt but spends his day reading this blog. Masochist?
Whoever sent a tip in to ATL about this is annoying. For the record.
Toney--
You'll have to take my word for it that I've done more than my fair share of fighting injustice publicly. I am posting anonymously precisely because extreme lefties have a nasty habit of threatening the livelihoods and sometimes lives of people they don't agree with. I am afraid that because you and other petition supporters probably have a lot less to lose than I do, that you might be willing to do something extreme and potentially self destructive. The experiences of donors to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign (which I incidentally voted against) does not leave me inclined to take chances with my family's well being with liberals on a self-righteous crusade.
Only in a very very strange world could someone confuse and state that some of the extreme activities I saw during my time at Boalt, and the movement to discredit and get John Yoo fired, could be considered participation in "the very fundamentals of legal education." For the record, I also did not make any personal threats or to threaten not to hire anyone specifically (although if you will kindly and bravely provide me with your identity, I will do my part as well to make sure that our professional paths will not cross. I would not hire you or be willing to work with you for purely personal reasons).
I expressed an opinion that I am even less inclined to hire Boalt grads than before because of the behaviors of the anti-John Yoo crowd. I disfavor graduates of Boalt and other Top 10-15 law schools because I have found that they tend to have very inflated senses of entitlement and self, and make and expect fulfillment of demands for resources, attention/recognition and compensation far in excess of their ability to contribute to anyone, certainly on a relative basis. I have also learned over the years to overlook academic pedigrees and other common proxies for intelligence and legal acumen (like work experience at a "top" law firm). As a result, I have hired and have the privilege of working with a diverse (in every way, including politically) group of smart, hard-working, team-oriented attorneys who are uniformly graduates of less-esteemed law schools. I do consider each person based on his or her individual merit and I would not rule out hiring a Boaltie or other blue-chipper, but my experiences have caused me to conclude that students from such institutions have attitude problems and entitlement issues far more frequently. When I want that higher level of aggravation, I can always pick up the phone and call outside counsel and have them try to convince me that they're getting screwed over and not making money if I don't agree to pay them a premium on top of $700 an hour.
Dan--
I was forwarded this blog by someone who used it to mock me for graduating from a place that harbors such a disproportionate number of whack-job students. I don't hate Boalt--that's a pretty gross mischaracterization and you suck for making it (but still, I hold out hope for your eternal soul). I don't think highly of its racist current Dean and many of its racist extremist professors, but I would readily acknowledge that there are many good people there, including John Yoo, and that the institution has turned out many brilliant legal minds who have made a positive impact in the world. Why did I spend the time posting anything or responding? I guess there is enough of an optimist in me to hope that I can still help to change some minds. I am admittedly not the most conciliatory, but I wasn't enough of an optimist to think I could change minds like Toney's anyway.
9:27 - I wish I was strong enough to resist taunting the lunacy of something like this, but unfortunately I'm not. A quick summary: 1) I didn't support the petition, I just don't think the insane outcry against was warranted. 2) Argument and discussion are precisely the fundamentals of a legal education. Are you sure you went to Boalt? 3) Saying you're posting anonymously because you think some "leftie" is going to go postal? Really? Man, that's not even creative. 4) I totally agree that refusing to hire the most talented students is the secret the success!
Unless this is a really veiled (and thus brilliant) piece of bone-dry sarcasm, I sincerely recommend staying away from this blog for a while. If you can't laugh off being "mocked" for the contents of a blog (for Christ's sake!), then I might recommend some other help as well.
Yeah, 9:27. You strike me as a real optimist.
A real "glass half racist" type of person.
The post at 9:27 is a blast of fresh air.
Could we kill this thread? It's pretty much run it's course.
1. Certain people on this thread seem to be really sensitive about not being hired. They probably should be. This is the absolutely worst recession in my lifetime and it has been and is going to result in some fundamental changes in the way legal services are delivered, including how and what junior associates get paid.
2. Toney--are you mentally deficient (and thus can only read what you want to read) or do you think you are just being clever, in not addressing what is actually being said? No one objects to argument or discussion. Verbal and physical intimidation, attempts to get tenure revoked, threats to peoples' livelihoods--unacceptable. I wasn't, in fact, bothered by the fact that my wife sent me the blog link. I happen to agree with her. A tradition of extreme left wing activism is not something I'm proud to be associated with.
For your info, I have in fact seen lefties go postal, and some have tried to damage my livelihood and well-being for expressing a different viewpoint. I have also achieved a pretty decent level of professional success, partially after learning that law school pedigrees and grades are not necessarily correlated with good judgment or talent allowed me to see past certain biases to hire the right people. If you assume that I am saying this out of jealousy, I can say with a decent amount of confidence (based partially on the quality of your postings and arguments) that I seriously doubt you went to better schools than I did, scored higher on the LSAT, or will be working at law firms considered "better" than the ones I've worked at. At the risk of sounding patronizing, the easiest explanation for your ignorance is youth and lack of experience. I hope, sincerely, for your sake, that you have the capacity to learn.
3. Dan--you are neither funny nor clever. Brevity without wit is not witty. An utter lack of substance in anything you have written isn't impressive either. I hope your future employer, if you have one, and your clients will have the benefit of more creative thinking and writing.
If I have a somewhat different perspective on the existence and source of racism in 21st century America, it's due to having had racial epithets directed toward me, or being beaten up due to my ethnicity, by people of many ethnic groups from childhood through my teenage years. It's due to being told that people of my ethnicity needed to work harder and do everything better because there were "too many" of us at a school. It's from seeing people like Dean Edley use the resources of a public institution to try to circumvent a law banning discrimination. If you have nothing to contribute to a discussion, you would be well advised to stay silent. At least Toney has an impassioned, if ill-informed and immature, perspective.
Haha Dan! I may be mentally deficient, but at least I'm passionate!
Toney: 1
Dan: 0
Well, there goes my burgeoning comedy career.
The only thing I find embarrassing about this post is some of the comments from people claiming to be alumni.
I find it hard to believe for example that 9:27 has dealt much at all with Boalt. His description of the school might be what certain uneducated members of the public believe but it hasn't been my experience at all.
"I seriously doubt you went to better schools than I did, scored higher on the LSAT, or will be working at law firms considered "better" than the ones I've worked at. At the risk of sounding patronizing, the easiest explanation for your ignorance is youth and lack of experience. I hope, sincerely, for your sake, that you have the capacity to learn."
As someone who actually *is* a grownup, I hope that you have the capacity to learn wisdom, and not just patronizing douchery. This portion of your post would have been right at home on XOXO.
I continue to be amazed that people are so upset about a student petition that resulted in a promise of a third section of Civ Pro II considering that they've told us it will never ever be taught again.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I'm an 03 boalt alum, a liberal, and I strongly disagree with what Prof. Yoo wrote in the torture memos. Nonetheless, I share the view that signing this petition is good reason not to hire someone. If Boalt were to turn into the type of place where a tenured professor could be fired when political tides changed, based solely on views he expressed in advocacy to his client, then freedom of expression (not to mention the legal code of ethics) would take a pretty big hit. I could not, in good conscience, endorse a decison to hire a law student who fails to appreciate how disturbing this is, or how illogical it is to demand employers recognize your freedom of speech when circulating a petition that attempts that same sort of censure as to Prof Yoo.
As a Boalt Alumni from way back (how far back? Melvin Belli was still holding his parties, that's how far), I would caution students about politicizing the school. The fact that you agree, or disagree, with his memos is beside the point. If he violated a law, prosecute him (and plainly, he did not). If he did not violate any law, let him teach.
What just blows me away is the lack of any idea of "right" and "wrong" by so many of you John Yoo apologists.
Sadly by reading this board I see the next generation of morally relativistic, opportunistic future lawyers and politicians that will continue to drive this country into a moral abyss.
God help us.
1. 4/18/09 12:24 Poster: Just because you didn't experience something doesn't mean it didn't/doesn't happen. Boalt is a hotbed of left-wing extremism--many liberals there would probably admit it. Yes, there are a lot of good folks of all political stripes there, and I had a great time with many of them both in and out of the classroom, but that doesn't mean we didn't have extremists who tried to disrupt others' educations when they didn't get what they wanted or demand special rights, privileges and resources.
2. 4/18/09 12:39 Poster: just because you call yourself a grownup, or because you are old, doesn't make you a grownup. Ditto for wisdom. "Douchery" is one of the more ambiguous accusations that have ever been leveled against me, and I'd probably be offended if I had any reason to respect the source as having even a modicum of intelligence or wisdon. However, just using a term like "douchery" so strongly suggests a substantial absence of either.
3. Dan, so sorry to hear that you now recognize that you'd be a failed comic. I was hoping for your sake that you'd have some way to make a living other than by practicing law. Some day, you and Toney can probably get together and commiserate about not being treated fairly by morons like me who just couldn't appreciate how a degree from a fancy law school automatically made you guys "the most talented" lawyers.
Post a Comment
<< Home