pageok
pageok
pageok
Berkeley Dean Chris Edley on John Yoo and Academic Freedom:
Well put, I thought.
Cato The Elder (mail) (www):
He can write long rambling essays, but when it comes down to it, will Chris Edley use the powers at his disposal to protect John Yoo from harassment, or worse, violence? I doubt it. We only have to look at the record of such incidents to see that. Prof. Yoo, I hope you will take care to guard against the bricks that will soon be hurtling towards your head.
8.21.2009 5:44pm
OrinKerr:
Cato,

What are a law school Dean's powers to protect a professor from harassment and violence? Perhaps Edley should find the people who want to harm Yoo and subject them to repeated fundraising requests until they give up?
8.21.2009 5:49pm
Cato The Elder (mail) (www):
What you linked to was the speech of a modern day Pontius Pilate. There are too many reservations and caveats trying to appeal to the worst instincts of the leftist protesters within the essay that it shouldn't properly be called a straightforward defense of academic freedom. This is a coded message to the Berkeley faculty and outside observers: "I wash my hands of him..."
8.21.2009 5:50pm
frankcross (mail):
Cato, are you predicting that the Berkeley students and faculty will assault him physically? When do you expect this might occur?
8.21.2009 5:53pm
Steve:
The analogy of Yoo to Jesus arguably does not hold.
8.21.2009 5:53pm
troll_dc2 (mail):
What sorts of protests and disruptions are going on? I am in Philadelphia, and we have received no news as to what the protesters are doing and what is being done about it.



What are a law school Dean's powers to protect a professor from harassment and violence?


Does he lack the authority to call in the univeresity's police force?
8.21.2009 5:53pm
OrinKerr:
The analogy of Yoo to Jesus arguably does not hold.

Steve wins the thread, if not the year's threads.
8.21.2009 5:56pm
Cato The Elder (mail) (www):

Cato, are you predicting that the Berkeley students and faculty will assault him physically?

Yes, I am saying that there is a fair probability of that. I certainly think that it is greater than zero, which should be a terrible admission for any institution of higher learning.

When do you expect this might occur?

How on Earth would I possibly know this? I tend not to opine on things I have no rigorous way of ascertaining.
8.21.2009 5:58pm
OrinKerr:
Does he lack the authority to call in the univeresity's police force?

Is there any evidence he (or others) are not doing that? The stories I read have the police coming quite quickly, as they should.
8.21.2009 5:58pm
OrinKerr:
Cato:
Yes, I am saying that there is a fair probability of [colleagues or students at Berkeley physically assaulting Yoo]. I certainly think that it is greater than zero, which should be a terrible admission for any institution of higher learning.

. . . .
I tend not to opine on things I have no rigorous way of ascertaining.
What is the rigorous way of ascertaining that there is a "fair probability" that Berkeley professors or students will physically assault him?
8.21.2009 6:00pm
Cato The Elder (mail) (www):
No, Prof. Kerr. Bayesian inference.
8.21.2009 6:01pm
notedscholar (mail) (www):
Students have justification for fear of Professor Yoo on campus, because he has demonstrated ability to rationalize, and pre-emptively justify, physical assault on human beings. This puts students in danger.

NS
8.21.2009 6:04pm
Dan Simon (mail) (www):
Perhaps Cato the Elder is Jewish? To a Jew like myself, comparing John Yoo to a bright guy who said some pretty strange things, but still didn't deserve to get crucified for them, seems right on the money...
8.21.2009 6:04pm
Eli Rabett (www):
Cato, you have a prior?
8.21.2009 6:07pm
Eli Rabett (www):
More to the point, asking that Yoo be fired and charged is not quite the same as assaulting him
8.21.2009 6:07pm
Dan Ensign (mail):

Bayesian inference.


It would seem to me then that you're not looking for a "greater than zero" probability of violence on Yoo, but rather a positive probability that you believe to be unacceptable.

But without showing your work, it's hard to judge your calculation. This can be done; surely controversial figures have been assaulted and not been assaulted on the Berkeley campus in the past, which data can be used to construct your likelihood function (a binomial, probably), even including a parameter to describe the degree of controversy for each person, and either estimating that for Yoo or removing it by marginalization or what have you.
8.21.2009 6:09pm
Mike& (mail):
The analogy of Yoo to Jesus arguably does not hold.

Will you be my new best friend?
8.21.2009 6:12pm
Mike& (mail):
What is the rigorous way of ascertaining that there is a "fair probability" that Berkeley professors or students will physically assault him?

Obviously Orin has never roamed the mean streets of Boalt Hall.
8.21.2009 6:14pm
ArthurKirkland:
I believe the evidence demonstrates Mr. Yoo to be morally bankrupt, ideologically unhinged and professionally substandard. He has exhibited the character of a weasel and the judgment of a newborn weasel.

The ability to perform as an adequate lawyer (let alone to practice with merit) is not, however, a requirement associated with a faculty position.

I therefore believe he should be permitted to keep his job as a professor, should he lack the decency to resign, until convicted or disbarred (and that he should have an opportunity to defend his record in a disciplinary or criminal proceeding).

Those who peacefully demonstrate their objections to Mr. Yoo's record, speaking for the victims of his weakness and failures, should be commended.

Tenure should be strong enough to protect even a John Yoo.
8.21.2009 6:19pm
Melancton Smith:
Maybe he can get a carry permit...
8.21.2009 6:20pm
Cato The Elder (mail) (www):
Yes, Dan Ensign, I should work to build a complicated model in the comments section of a law blog, without getting paid, for your intellectual satisfaction. Surely you understood the principle of what I meant without me going into technicalities, right?
8.21.2009 6:26pm
troll_dc2 (mail):
The link contains this excerpt:

In recent weeks protestors have frequently gone to Professor Yoo's home and posted signs in his neighborhood. Now, protestors have intentionally disrupted our classes and threatened to continue—not just assembling to voice their views, but attempting to prevent Professor Yoo from teaching, to the detriment of students who have chosen to enroll in his course. Other classrooms are also affected.


What is going on there?
8.21.2009 6:27pm
SATA_Interface:
Hopefully someone will protect his children's reproductive organs, but that assumes that he has any information worth knowing.
8.21.2009 6:27pm
richard1 (mail):
A few people have disrupted his classes and been removed. No one has assaulted him. There is no history of assaults on professors at Berkeley (my undergrad and law school alma mater). To claim that there is a probable threat of assault is nonsense.

Dean Edley has eloquently come to his defense as someone whose tenure should not be revoked but Yoo, to his dying day, will have to answer in the arena of ideas for his contemptible advise he gave President Bush.
8.21.2009 6:33pm
matthewccr (mail):
Ward Churchill.
8.21.2009 6:34pm
troll_dc2 (mail):
Are the disrupters other law students, students from other parts of the university, or non-students?
8.21.2009 6:37pm
FelixW:
At least, he is only teaching civ pro. :)
8.21.2009 6:37pm
tvk:
Wait, this seems like passing the buck to me. The line is one that most people agree on: offering bad advice is not itself warrant to revoke tenure. Offering unethically or criminally bad advice is. The sum of the matter seems to be that Dean Edley will presume Professor Yoo innocent until convicted in court. Ironic, given that Professor Yoo apparently was not so generous toward some people. But more importantly, there is no reasonable possibility that Yoo will ever be charged even if he is guilty as sin, and Dean Edley knows it. If O.J. Simpson and Al Capone were tenured professors, can we fire them before the respective convictions for robbery and tax evasion?
8.21.2009 6:59pm
richard1 (mail):
(link)troll_dc2 (mail):
Are the disrupters other law students, students from other parts of the university, or non-students?

There are videos of the disruptions on You Tube. They're clearly not law students but whether they are other Berkeley students or non-students can't be determined from the videos
8.21.2009 7:00pm
PC:
Surely you understood the principle of what I meant without me going into technicalities, right?

As Steve so aptly pointed out, you also indirectly compared Yoo to Jesus. If you are going to make a claim about Bayesian inference, please show your work. Some of us familiar with probability theory would love to see your model.

Back to the original post...I think Dean Edley does a good job of laying things out. While some people may think Prof. Yoo has broken the law, the Dean makes it clear that the University of California's professional conduct rules have not been breached so no action is warranted. The references to academics that have been harassed in the past is especially poignant.
8.21.2009 7:03pm
FelixW:
Sorry, commenter troll, but why do people ask for info they can easily google, themselves. (slight, rant off)
8.21.2009 7:07pm
troll_dc2 (mail):

Sorry, commenter troll, but why do people ask for info they can easily google, themselves. (slight, rant off)



Because I don't always know what is on Google and because I have other things to do besides live on Google. (Right now, for instance, I am following a couple of threads on VC and a hockey message board while also trying to get some writing done. Who has time to google?)
8.21.2009 7:13pm
DangerMouse:
I believe the evidence demonstrates Mr. Yoo to be morally bankrupt, ideologically unhinged and professionally substandard. He has exhibited the character of a weasel and the judgment of a newborn weasel.

Sounds like your standard Marxist college professor. Yet they're not subject to constant harassment.
8.21.2009 7:26pm
Bruce Hayden (mail):
Dean Edley has eloquently come to his defense as someone whose tenure should not be revoked but Yoo, to his dying day, will have to answer in the arena of ideas for his contemptible advise he gave President Bush.
I thought that Edley was pretty mealy mouthed about it, but maybe that is all that he could do without being lynched himself. But then I saw this:
On the other hand, prosecution, followed by conviction and unsuccessful appeal, would be a very different matter. As a board member of the Obama Presidential Transition, I argued that fidelity to the Rule of Law requires investigation of possible criminality by officials in the previous administration, despite the political cost of being attacked for conducting a "witch hunt". My belief then, and now, is that only in a court of law can we have definitive findings of fact and conclusions of law. We need both. My friend Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States, should either pursue the matter, or tell us that he believes there was no criminality.
And that is why I think that he finds himself in such a spot.
8.21.2009 7:39pm
josil (mail):
Growing up in the 1950s, a conventional slogan of liberals was "I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it". Of course, the times are different, but Mr Edley's defense of Yoo (although less than enthusiastic)is a welome change from what passes as liberal these days.
8.21.2009 7:55pm
Leo Marvin (mail):
I agree with Orin twice:

1. "Well put, I thought", and

2. "Steve wins the thread, if not the year's threads." Maybe the funniest use of arguably I've ever seen.
8.21.2009 8:01pm
zuch (mail) (www):
Cato The Elder:

It's been scientifically proven (at a P<.01) that people who are azos or worse have a non-zero probability of being assaulted. Yoo would do best to minimise that by avoiding bars, I'd think.

Cheers,
8.21.2009 8:01pm
ArthurKirkland:

Sounds like your standard Marxist college professor. Yet they're not subject to constant harassment.



If any Marxist college professor facilitated torture by engaging in discredited and deceptive legal fig-leafing, that professor should also be confronted by peaceful demonstrators (if enough valiant volunteers are available) every remaining day of that professor's life.

I believe Yoo should be protected from any legitimate threat of violence but he seems more likely a suicide risk -- assuming he possesses a shred of conscience -- than a target of violence.
8.21.2009 8:04pm
Stan Morris (mail):
Is the Artur Kirkland who responded in such a petulant manner a real person or the Manga character? If real I find your comments trite in the academic left milieu. Or, if a Manga character why is necessary to hide behind an avatar?
8.21.2009 8:04pm
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
I would not claim that Edley CANNOT come to the conclusion he has come to, but it is surely not the ONLY conclusion one could come to.

One could also come to the conclusion that no matter what decision is made on prosecuting Yoo, conspiring to torture detainees is a federal felony and thus falls within the grounds for removing a tenured professor.

I would also note that this is NOT a matter of academic freedom or free speech as Edley implies. Giving legal advice that aids and abets criminal act is not protected by the First Amendment and is not protected by any notion of academic freedom that I have ever heard of. Professor Yoo is free to publish papers advocating torture (and should be free to do so)-- that is academic freedom. Aiding and abetting a serious federal crime-- not so mucn.
8.21.2009 8:07pm
DaveJD (mail) (www):
I certainly think that it is greater than zero, which should be a terrible admission for any institution of higher learning.

Of course, there is a greater than zero probability that every professor at Boalt might be assaulted by fellow faculty and students, as well as at all other institutions of higher learning. But never mind the mathematics, it just gets in the way of the rhetoric.
8.21.2009 8:07pm
zuch (mail) (www):
Mike&:
Obviously Orin has never roamed the mean streets of Boalt Hall.
I have. Have you? One of my closest friends at Boalt was very conservative, and I never thought he stood any risk of being assaulted there. Yoo was faculty advisor for the Federalist Society student chapter then, and I don't think he stood any chance of being assaulted. But that was in the 90's before.... Things get a little more weird, though, when someone goes out and participates in governmental actions that would make Beria and Himmler smile.

Cheers,
8.21.2009 8:08pm
MarkField (mail):
I posted my thoughts over at Balkinization and won't repeat them here, but Dilan is absolutely right.
8.21.2009 8:22pm
Leo Marvin (mail):
Dilan Esper:

One could also come to the conclusion that no matter what decision is made on prosecuting Yoo, conspiring to torture detainees is a federal felony and thus falls within the grounds for removing a tenured professor.

I assume Dean Edley would say a University is ill-suited to find the facts that make up that sort of conspiracy. As long as he stays open to everything revealed by DOJ investigations, his approach seems reasonable.
8.21.2009 8:31pm
Constantin:
I believe the evidence demonstrates Mr. Yoo to be morally bankrupt, ideologically unhinged and professionally substandard.

I don't.
8.21.2009 8:33pm
PC:
bush basher: others think yoo's a psychopathic shit, who should be shamed at every opportunity. yeah, yeah, tenure's a wonderful thing. he should be protected, he shouldn't be fired. glory be to academia. but he's still a psychopathic shit.

He can be shamed, but he shouldn't be assaulted. Classes shouldn't be interrupted either.

One could also come to the conclusion that no matter what decision is made on prosecuting Yoo, conspiring to torture detainees is a federal felony and thus falls within the grounds for removing a tenured professor.

I would also note that this is NOT a matter of academic freedom or free speech as Edley implies.


Doesn't "conspiring to torture detainees" require some finding of fact? If only we had some system that could do that...
8.21.2009 8:43pm
Perseus (mail):
One could also come to the conclusion that no matter what decision is made on prosecuting Yoo, conspiring to torture detainees is a federal felony and thus falls within the grounds for removing a tenured professor.

That presupposes that administrators are competent to determine whether a federal felony was committed.
8.21.2009 8:44pm
Leo Marvin (mail):
Mark, how is the University supposed to get access to the evidence e.g., DOJ correspondence, necessary to prove Yoo's memos were designed to skirt the law?
8.21.2009 8:47pm
CDU (mail) (www):
One could also come to the conclusion that no matter what decision is made on prosecuting Yoo, conspiring to torture detainees is a federal felony and thus falls within the grounds for removing a tenured professor.


You know, it would be helpful if you actually read the piece Orin linked to, particularly the part where Edly quotes the university's Academic Personnel Manual regarding when a tenured professor can be removed:

Commission of a criminal act which has led to conviction in a court of law and which clearly demonstrates unfitness to continue as a member of the faculty.
8.21.2009 8:53pm
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
CDU:

Edley is taking that statement grossly out of context. It actually says that a criminal conviction is one form of disciplinable conduct, but contains a catch-all that can include unprosecuted crimes.

To the rest of you:

There is no need to wait for courts to find facts, especially when Yoo probably won't be prosecuted. The memos themselves contain advice that is flatly contrary to established law and legal reasoning that is beneath the standards of 4th-tier law school STUDENTS, let alone top-tier law school professors.

Edley can certainly come to the conclusion he came to. But he could have come to the other conclusion as well, and it would have been more persuasive.
8.21.2009 9:11pm
Off Kilter (mail):
"It's been scientifically proven (at a P<.01) that people who are azos or worse have a non-zero probability of being assaulted. Yoo would do best to minimise that by avoiding bars"

Wine bars, perhaps...
8.21.2009 9:32pm
MarkField (mail):

Mark, how is the University supposed to get access to the evidence e.g., DOJ correspondence, necessary to prove Yoo's memos were designed to skirt the law?


First, I need to say that, as I explain in my post at Balkinization (the link Prof. Kerr provided), and as Dilan just said, criminal misconduct is not the test. It's merely an example of the type of misconduct which can be found to violate the ethical standards. Thus, it's not clear at all that the university needs to prove a crime.

Second, the university has an independent obligation to investigate the accusations. As its own Standards set forth, "Conduct which departs from these precepts is viewed by faculty as unacceptable because it is inconsistent with the mission of the University. The articulation of types of unacceptable faculty conduct is appropriate both to verify that a consensus about minimally acceptable standards in fact does exist and to give fair notice to all that departures from these minimal standards may give rise to disciplinary proceedings."

It may well be that an investigation would demonstrate that the university doesn't have any factual basis to proceed. But it can't decide that without actually collecting the evidence and beginning to evaluate it. Dean Edley has foreclosed that route without actually knowing the answer.
8.21.2009 9:43pm
Eli Rabett (www):
An elegant catch 22: The lawyer is not responsible for the actions his analyses lead others to take, the others are not responsible for their actions because the lawyer has told them it is OK.

The good Dean knows this is a nonsense, but it is a smokescreen.
8.21.2009 9:48pm
MikeS (mail):
to the detriment of students who have chosen to enroll in his course

The class Yoo's teaching is required. If Boalt gave him an elective to teach, we'd see how many students would actually choose him.
8.21.2009 9:49pm
Eli Rabett (www):
8.21.2009 9:53pm
Leo Marvin (mail):
Dilan,

The memos themselves contain advice that is flatly contrary to established law and legal reasoning that is beneath the standards of 4th-tier law school STUDENTS, let alone top-tier law school professors.

I suspect Yoo's reasoning was purpose driven, but I'd be very troubled by a decision to yank his tenure without more evidence of that purpose than a mere inference from the memos themselves. Don't you think it's at least a remote possibility his judgment is so ideologically biased that the memos reflect his honest opinion of the law?
8.21.2009 10:06pm
Leo Marvin (mail):
Mark, you and I been through whether Edley met his formal obligations under the University Code, and we disagree, so I'm not trying to re-litigate that. I just don't understand, when you say

But it can't decide that without actually collecting the evidence and beginning to evaluate it.

what evidence you have in mind, apart from the memos themselves and people's opinions of them. What would you investigate?
8.21.2009 10:18pm
Psalm91 (mail):
Sounds like Yoo couldn't handle a visit from Armey's Army (aka teabaggers).
8.21.2009 10:23pm
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
I suspect Yoo's reasoning was purpose driven, but I'd be very troubled by a decision to yank his tenure without more evidence of that purpose than a mere inference from the memos themselves. Don't you think it's at least a remote possibility his judgment is so ideologically biased that the memos reflect his honest opinion of the law?

So if you are merely completely incompetent, you can teach at Boalt?
8.21.2009 10:36pm
MarkField (mail):

what evidence you have in mind, apart from the memos themselves and people's opinions of them. What would you investigate?


There's more evidence available than just the memos. There are emails which have been released and lots of statements by the participants. Plus, as noted, there are the decisions by the Bush Administration to withdraw the memos.

IF the standard for academic inquiry applies to Yoo's conduct while at OLC -- and I don't believe it does, but Dean Edley clearly thinks so -- then the ethical standard at Berkeley requires that Yoo's work not "Violat[e]... canons of intellectual honesty, such as research misconduct...."*

I think there may very well be a basis to reach conclusions about this from the existing, public information. Certainly lots of experts have weighed in on this and labeled Yoo's work "intellectually dishonest" (including, IIRC, Prof. Lederman, who now occupies Yoo's old slot). Surely the law school faculty is capable of evaluating his work on this basis.

Again, though, if it turns out that this can't be done -- that, for example, there are facts which bear on Yoo's honesty which can't be explored -- then the investigation should be halted unless and until those facts become available.

My problem with Dean Edley is that he has foreclosed an investigation, not that he refuses to fire Yoo right this minute.

*The quoted language is actually an example, not the standard itself. However, it's close enough for this discussion. The full standards are available here.
8.21.2009 10:54pm
ArthurKirkland:
Tenure should enable Prof. Yoo to teach (until he is convicted, is disbarred, or resigns), but inflicting him on first-year students, and assigning him to a required course, sound like bad ideas. Surely there are enough upper-class electives available to complete his academic schedule.

When the classroom door closes, the professor and students should be left alone.
8.21.2009 11:00pm
CDU (mail) (www):
Edley is taking that statement grossly out of context. It actually says that a criminal conviction is one form of disciplinable conduct, but contains a catch-all that can include unprosecuted crimes.


The problem with that is that by including a phrase requiring a conviction in the example, the university has implicitly disclaimed any right to revoke tenure for an alleged crime someone hasn't been convicted of.
8.21.2009 11:21pm
MarkField (mail):

The problem with that is that by including a phrase requiring a conviction in the example, the university has implicitly disclaimed any right to revoke tenure for an alleged crime someone hasn't been convicted of.


No, they were careful enough to avoid that implication. The policy expressly states that "The Types of Unacceptable Conduct listed below in Sections A through E are examples of types of conduct which meet the preceding standards and hence are presumptively subject to University discipline. Other types of serious misconduct, not specifically enumerated herein, may nonetheless be the basis for disciplinary action if they also meet the preceding standards."
8.21.2009 11:29pm
MarkField (mail):
Hmm. My link above didn't work. Let's try again. The Berkeley Standards are here.
8.21.2009 11:31pm
Cato The Elder (mail) (www):
Hilarious. I suppose it was just my imagination that caused Arthur Jensen and Hans Eysenck, Berkeley researchers, to be assigned bodyguards when wandering to and fro from their offices in the '70s because we're all aware of the Berkeley campus' famous tolerance for views they don't like. They had to hold some of their seminars in secret, IIRC. What world are you in living in?
8.21.2009 11:32pm
Leo Marvin (mail):
Dilan Esper:

So if you are merely completely incompetent, you can teach at Boalt?

Maybe. The requirements for practicing lawyers and legal academics are overlapping, not identical, skill sets.
8.21.2009 11:33pm
Leo Marvin (mail):

What world are you in living in?

For one thing, a world where most people at Berkeley now weren't born when what you're talking about happened.
8.21.2009 11:39pm
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
I suspect Yoo's reasoning was purpose driven, but I'd be very troubled by a decision to yank his tenure without more evidence of that purpose than a mere inference from the memos themselves. Don't you think it's at least a remote possibility his judgment is so ideologically biased that the memos reflect his honest opinion of the law?

Well it's one thing to say that "those who can't, teach", but at Boalt?
8.21.2009 11:47pm
CDU (mail) (www):
No, they were careful enough to avoid that implication. The policy expressly states that "The Types of Unacceptable Conduct listed below in Sections A through E are examples of types of conduct which meet the preceding standards and hence are presumptively subject to University discipline. Other types of serious misconduct, not specifically enumerated herein, may nonetheless be the basis for disciplinary action if they also meet the preceding standards."


I don't know if that really gets around the problem. The example says that tenure may be revoked for being convicted of a crime. The statement you quoted says that "Other types of serious misconduct, not specifically enumerated herein, may nonetheless be the basis for disciplinary action if they also meet the preceding standards." I don't see how being suspected of a crime, but not being convicted can be a different ("Other") type of misconduct as committing a crime and being convicted. It's the same conduct, just with less proof. So I don't think their attempt at a catchall is sufficient in this case.
8.21.2009 11:53pm
Leo Marvin (mail):
MarkField:

No, they were careful enough to avoid that implication.

I agree. The Code clearly contemplates sanctions for misconduct short of a crime. And maybe you're right that there's enough evidence publicly available to justify an investigation. Still, I think without a smoking gun or a finding of wrongdoing by an impartial third party, an investigation would appear to many, and I don't mean just the extreme Right, as politically motivated. I agree with Edley that that sort of concern shouldn't chill a proper criminal investigation, and I hope one is proceeding. But Yoo wouldn't have all the protections in a University hearing he'd have in a criminal court, so I think Edley's right to bend over backward to avoid the appearance of unfairness.
8.22.2009 12:04am
Leo Marvin (mail):
Dilan Esper:

Well it's one thing to say that "those who can't, teach", but at Boalt?

For some, yes, at Boalt or anywhere else. I know great lawyers who would make horrible academics, and I can think of some wonderful professors I had (at Boalt) who I don't think would have been very good practitioners.
8.22.2009 12:15am
A. Zarkov (mail):
Leo Marvin:

"For one thing, a world where most people at Berkeley now weren't born when what you're talking about happened."


Do you assert that UCB has mellowed out since the 1970s? Upon what do you base this conclusion?

Personal observation.

I do think UCB has mellowed out since the 1970s including the city itself. I have roamed the halls of Boalt and Evans, and things do seem to have calmed down a lot. I find today's students affable and pleasant compared to the 70s and 80s. However non-students do wander in and sometimes cause trouble. These days the door to Evans is locked after hours. A professor I knew would regularly find a drunk asleep in front of his Evans office door back in the 80s.

The city as well seems less dangerous and volatile. After all, in 1968 the new Tower Record store was nearly burned down just because it opened up and would compete with an independently owned record store. In the 1990s the Rodney King riots caused looting up and down Telegraph Avenue.

Of course in many ways, Berkeley, both town and gown, is still a very unpleasant place. There is much rudeness, but most of that comes from the baby boomer generation.

It is possible that Yoo might one day face violence from some crazy that walks in from the street. Being in Berkeley is a little like being in an insane asylum. There is always that undertone of risk.
8.22.2009 12:21am
A. Zarkov (mail):
Orin Kerr:

"What are a law school Dean's powers to protect a professor from harassment and violence?"

The Dean has the power to set the tone of the law school by implementing a policy of zero tolerance for any student who interferes with Yoo's ability to teach. Expel the student permanently. If outsiders come in call the police and press charges. Get really tough with the demonstrators, and they will back down because they are basically cowards and bullies.

The Dean hardly has to remain passive. If he doesn't have the power to implement the zero-tolerance policy then, he should ask for it.

But don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
8.22.2009 12:30am
MarkField (mail):

The example says that tenure may be revoked for being convicted of a crime. The statement you quoted says that "Other types of serious misconduct, not specifically enumerated herein, may nonetheless be the basis for disciplinary action if they also meet the preceding standards." I don't see how being suspected of a crime, but not being convicted can be a different ("Other") type of misconduct as committing a crime and being convicted. It's the same conduct, just with less proof. So I don't think their attempt at a catchall is sufficient in this case.


It's clearer from the Standards. They're organized so that they first state an ethical principle. In this case it reads "Faculty members have the same rights and obligations as all citizens. They are as free as other citizens to express their views and to participate in the political processes of the community. When they act or speak in their personal and private capacities, they should avoid deliberately creating the impression that they
represent the University."

This is the actual standard which faculty may not violate. It says nothing about conviction of a crime.

They then give two examples of "types" of misconduct which would violate this standard: intentional misrepresentation of personal views as those of the university; and conviction of a crime. Since those two examples have nothing in common, it's pretty clear that other conduct might also violate the standard.
8.22.2009 12:31am
MarkField (mail):
Leo, when were you at Boalt? I'm class of '77.
8.22.2009 12:32am
Leo Marvin (mail):
'88
8.22.2009 12:35am
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
All I can say is that I went to USC, and when we retain someone on the law faculty with political connections, its Susan Estrich, not John Yoo.

Plus we kick Cal's butt in football, too.

I would stop donating if I were you guys.
8.22.2009 1:02am
ArthurKirkland:

Get really tough with the demonstrators, and they will back down because they are basically cowards and bullies.


You make that sound like a bad thing . . . which is inconsistent with a defense of the coward and bully attracting the protests.
8.22.2009 1:10am
Constantin:
Query, is the legal reasoning in Yoo's memos any more absurd than the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade? Set aside the moral worth, but is it any more amateur? Any worse than the "a man has raped me if I feel he raped me, even if he just looked at me on the subway" stuff that pervades gender/race critical studies?

I get, but disagree with, the idea that Yoo is morally unfit to teach. That's a slope ridden with ice for the Left, but anyway. I don't think it's tenable to say what he wrote in those memos is indefensible as a matter of legal reasoning, when compared to what you see coming out of these schools dressed up as legal scholarship. It just mattered more.
8.22.2009 2:02am
Leo Marvin (mail):
Yeah, but I'll bet we have a better Scrabble team.
8.22.2009 2:21am
D K Warren (mail):
John Yoo is like a bodybuilder who has a great upper-body but skinny legs -- they're not fully developed and are out of balance. Yoo is very smart intellectually, but he lacks the wisdom and experience that comes with age. The best he and his supporters can do is rationalize it on an intellectual level.

But this isn't your typical tort case or a contract lawsuit. The question is, "Is this how we want our government to run?" His opinions were not merely academic. People were abused, tortured and died because of them. Causation, foreseeability and other legal doctrines are relevant in the courtroom, but the larger debate in society is not so narrowly restricted.

He was in a position where his academic opinions had the opportunity to influence (even justify) public policy and government action. Agencies and individuals are relying on his memos as a defense to claims of illegal behavior. He wasn't merely writing an article for the law journal, nor would he be fired simply because he has controversial opinions.

There is no such thing as a permission slip from an underling to commit felonies. A low level lawyer in the DOJ writes a secret memo authorizing the President to break the law, and all those who broke the laws are now immunized from punishment.

The Dean points the finger at others in the Bush Administration who are more guilty than Yoo, downplays the significance of what Yoo wrote, relies on University policies and stands behind the Provost, Chancellor and Academic Senate. What a warm, comfy security blanket. The Dean clearly has no role or responsibility in this matter whatsoever, other than to write an op-ed e-mail. His hands are clean.

Yet at the same time, he hedges about how Yoo "offered bad ideas and even worse advice during his government service" and how his arguments "reduced the Rule of Law to the Reign of Politics." He also (ostensibly) believes that we needed greater vigilance for constitutional rights and safeguards after 9/11, rather than the reduced version Yoo's memos advocate.

This is a variant of, "I support the homeless, but don't put up a shelter in my neighborhood." Not in my backyard. Everyone around the table from Eric Holder and the DOJ to the Dean at Berkley have good reasons why they aren't the proper forum to deal with what this man did.

Obama wants to protect the presidency, Holder doesn't want to clash with Obama or alienate the intelligence and security agencies, Congress doesn't want to touch such a hot political potato, and university professors want to protect their tenured jobs and principles of academic freedom.

We can't prosecute him; we don't want to disbar him; and we certainly shouldn't fire him from his day job! And so forth. Everyone has a good reason for defending what he did or at least looking the other way.

And so he gets away with it and we end up with a precedent that will be relied upon in the future for actions which are even more egregious. Eventually, someone may have the integrity to put their foot down and stand up to all the excuses. But not today.

We have endorsed what John Yoo enabled.
8.22.2009 4:03am
lonetown (mail):
He points out that Yoo does not teach a course on "Professional Responsibility".

How ironic!
8.22.2009 6:52am
CDU (mail) (www):
Since those two examples have nothing in common, it's pretty clear that other conduct might also violate the standard.


Other conduct certainly might, but because of the way they worded both the example and the catchall I don't think being suspected of a crime, but not convicted does.
8.22.2009 7:40am
Anderson (mail):
The catch-22 for Yoo is that his memos were so pitifully bad, there are two explanations: incompetence, or intent to facilitate torture.

An investigation like Mark Field mentions could start with some con law and crim law profs being convened to review the memos and issue a report on their competence or lack thereof. This would be very useful, as we still get people who go, "ah, what's so bad about Yoo's memos?"

If the investigation finds them professionally incompetent, as I believe it would, then it could turn to asking Yoo whether he believed (1) the legal arguments therein and (2) that the memos met any ethical standard for providing advice to a client, most conspicuously, considering both sides of a legal question so that one's client is aware that things could come out the other way.

If Yoo says he believed them at the time and does now, then he's incompetent to teach law. I think we can safely exclude his admitting that he didn't believe them when he wrote them.

The most interesting response would be, "yeah, I was pressured for time when I wrote those, 9/11 and all that, and boy, did I blow those -- oops! How could I have believed all that crap?" That is probably not consistent with his demonstrated ego, but it would cause the most trouble for his critics and would-be prosecutors, seems to me.
8.22.2009 10:24am
MarkField (mail):

I would stop donating if I were you guys.


I already did. And I told them they won't see a dime from me as long as Yoo is on the faculty.

Not that my contributions were going to result in a new building or anything.
8.22.2009 10:30am
MarkField (mail):

All I can say is that I went to USC, and when we retain someone on the law faculty with political connections, its Susan Estrich, not John Yoo.


I'll see your Susan Estrich and raise you a Phil Johnson.
8.22.2009 10:34am
geokstr (mail):

Leo Marvin:
Don't you think it's at least a remote possibility his judgment is so ideologically biased that the memos reflect his honest opinion of the law?

All of us uneducated trailer trash out here in flyover country understand, of course, that such ideological underpinnings in legal reasoning never afflict the left as they sniff out whiffs of faint emanations from various esoteric constitutional penumbra previously undetected by two hundred years worth of lawyers, and use these to restructure vast swaths of American economics, politics and culture in ways that will make Karl M. proud.

John Yoo is just one of those demons that the left requires for their secular religion, a symbol to misdirect the great unwashed from seeing what the guy behind the curtain is really up to. Since they can't (yet) hang BusHitler and the evil Darth Cheney, Yoo will just have to be destroyed in their place.

"ALINSKY'S RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)"
8.22.2009 11:37am
ArthurKirkland:

An investigation like Mark Field mentions could start with some con law and crim law profs being convened to review the memos and issue a report on their competence or lack thereof. This would be very useful, as we still get people who go, "ah, what's so bad about Yoo's memos?"

That strikes me as a natural, wonderful project for this year's Boalt law review. Devote the entire year to examining Yoo's work. Recruit experts and scholars. Publish strong, detailed analyses of Yoo's work. Examine the practical consequences of Yoo's conduct. Address the "I merely gave legal advice/I merely followed legal advice" issue. There should be enough worthwhile material to fill four volumes (if I recall correctly) of a law review.

The Boalt law review could turn a negative -- Yoo's presence on campus -- into something that will channel students' thought and effort in a positive direction.
8.22.2009 11:47am
AJK:
So I assume that all of you are equally troubled by Bernardine Dohrn's continued presence on the Northwestern faculty? After all, she has actually been convicted of a crime (and was denied admission to the bar).
8.22.2009 12:07pm
frankcross (mail):
Let's suppose that Yoo's work was incompetent. That's no reason to fire or punish him. The problem is when conservative incompetence is punished but liberal incompetence is not. And you must know that would happen if "incompetent" legal advice were the standard. People don't think those who agree with them are incompetent.

It might be nice to live in a world without tenure, where competence was evaluated in an evenhanded manner and those who failed were fired. But that's not remotely close to reality. The second best world is one where we don't make ideologically biased evaluations of competence at all.
8.22.2009 12:11pm
zuch (mail) (www):
Cato The Elder:
Hilarious. I suppose it was just my imagination that caused Arthur Jensen and Hans Eysenck, Berkeley researchers, to be assigned bodyguards when wandering to and fro from their offices in the '70s because we're all aware of the Berkeley campus' famous tolerance for views they don't like.
And how many times were they assaulted? FWIW, when was Eysenck at Berkeley?
They had to hold some of their seminars in secret, IIRC.
Their soirees with their Pioneer Fund sponsors too?

Cheers,
8.22.2009 2:10pm
MarkField (mail):

So I assume that all of you are equally troubled by Bernardine Dohrn's continued presence on the Northwestern faculty? After all, she has actually been convicted of a crime (and was denied admission to the bar).


I don't have any idea what the Northwestern guidelines provide. However, in her case the conviction was known before they hired her, and I assume they investigated it and took that into account. That's ok with me; for the umpteenth time, I'm not saying that Berkeley needs to fire Yoo. I'm saying they need to investigate.

In fact, it's fairly hard to understand Berkeley's failure to consider an investigation when it's well known that the Bush Administration OPR began an investigation into Yoo's memos.


Let's suppose that Yoo's work was incompetent. That's no reason to fire or punish him.


It's doubtful, IMO, that the Berkeley Standards permit someone to be fired for incompetence, particularly when that incompetence was displayed outside the academy.* However, it's not an impossible reading; the Standards provide in relevant part that

"Professors, guided by a deep conviction of the worth and dignity of the advancement of knowledge, recognize the special responsibilities placed upon them. Their primary responsibility to their subject is to seek and to state the truth as they see it. To this end professors devote their energies to developing and improving their scholarly competence."

If Berkeley has a practice of treating incompetence as a firing offense, then I'd accept that as a "common law" interpretation of this Standard. Otherwise, I wouldn't buy it.

That said, incompetence by faculty in a professional school must be of concern (to students and US News if not to the administration). I hope competence would be taken into account in class assignments, if nowhere else.

Moreover, competence IS a requirement for practicing attorneys under the PA Bar Rules (see Rule 1.1), and I assume that's true under OPR as well. I don't know whether Berkeley would consider this as a violation of its Standards.

*As I said above, I don't think that some of the academic standards should apply to faculty who are on leave and working in a different job.
8.22.2009 2:15pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
zuch:

"And how many times were they assaulted? FWIW, when was Eysenck at Berkeley?"

Jensen had to have a campus police escort even to visit the university library. That's why he wasn't assaulted. Do you think the police were wasting their time.

"Their soirees with their Pioneer Fund sponsors too?"


Did you read your link? If you had then you might have noticed this statement.
We make no grants to individuals but only to research institutions, mainly universities, mostly for specialized "niche" projects, which have difficulty attracting funds from government sources or from larger foundations.
If somehow Jensen and Eyesack were tainted by Pioneer Fund money, then so was the University of California who would have had to approve the grant. Not only that-- most likely the UC took 50% of the grant money for "overhead." My friend at UCSB told me that 50% of any contract money he brings in.

Finally what's your beef with the Pioneer Fund? Reading their web page I do not see anything particularly repulsive, but perhaps I missed it.
8.22.2009 2:42pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
What evidence exists that Yoo discharges his professorial duties incompetently? If he gave incompetent advice to a client outside the UC system, that's the client's problem not the university's unless in that capacity Yoo was acting on behalf of the UC.

I don't see how anyone at UC should have a beef with Yoo.
8.22.2009 2:51pm
Joseph Slater (mail):
Zarkov:

Around the same time as the events you cite, some Ohio National Guardsmen shot and killed four student protesters at Kent State.

Before I draw any conclusions about what that means for, say, other campuses in Ohio today, I'm curious what you think the relevance of events that took place 39 years ago when student radicalism and militancy was an at all time peak in U.S. history is for Berkeley today?
8.22.2009 4:30pm
frankcross (mail):
Let's recap

Cato says Yoo will be physically threatened and not protected by Berkeley

The supporting evidence for the threat is the Jensen example

Zarkov notes that Jensen was protected by Berkeley and therefore not attacked

Conclusion?
8.22.2009 4:56pm
zuch (mail) (www):
A. Zarkov:
[zuch]: "And how many times were they assaulted? FWIW, when was Eysenck at Berkeley?"
Jensen had to have a campus police escort even to visit the university library. That's why he wasn't assaulted. Do you think the police were wasting their time.
I'd note this answer is non-responsive. But for a substantive response to Mr. Zarkov's point, I will defer to the authoritative Murdoch's Fox companies:
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm!

Lisa: That's specious reasoning, dad.

Homer: Why thank you, honey.

Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.

Homer: Hmm. How does it work?

Lisa: It doesn't work; it's just a stupid rock!

Homer: Uh-huh.

Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?

Homer: Hmm... Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
Cheers,
8.22.2009 5:51pm
zuch (mail) (www):
A. Zarkov:
[zuch]: "Their soirees with their Pioneer Fund sponsors too?"
Did you read your link? If you had then you might have noticed this statement.
We make no grants to individuals but only to research institutions, mainly universities, mostly for specialized "niche" projects, which have difficulty attracting funds from government sources or from larger foundations.
Yes, I did. Did you?:
In considering grant proposals, the Fund has always sought excellence in the researchers. We review the scholastic background, extent of field research, published writings and citations of those writings, and reputation among peers of all applicants. Two of our grantees are among the most cited psychologists of all time (Hans J. Eysenck, Arthur R. Jensen). One won a Nobel Prize (William B. Shockley). Three are Guggenheim Fellows (Arthur R. Jensen, Ernest van den Haag, and J. Philippe Rushton).
J. Phillipe Rushton was the pencil-dick that 'proved' that intelligence was inversely correlated with penis size, with black having the largest schlongs and the least upstairs, with whites in the middle, and Asians with the smallest dicks and the most up top. Shockley was the guy that thought that Nobel Laureates ought to set up a sperm bank to father a Maste... ummm, sorry, "smart babies" for those privileged women who could afford to purchase such "services" (Shockley's Nobel was in physics, not medicine, needless to say).

Jensen may be cited quite a bit, but it doesn't say "approvingly". ;-)

Cheers,
8.22.2009 6:02pm
Randy R. (mail):
Arthur KIrkland:" The Boalt law review could turn a negative -- Yoo's presence on campus -- into something that will channel students' thought and effort in a positive direction."

Aw, now you're sounding like you want to turn this in to a 'teachable moment.'
8.22.2009 6:45pm
HoyaBlue:

"Let's suppose that Yoo's work was incompetent. That's no reason to fire or punish him"



To those that think this (generally: that being a competent professor does not require not being competent in field such as non-academic work), I have a hypothetical argument:

Isn't competance a prerequisite to teaching, insofar as a requirement of being an effective teacher is that one can be taken to be a credible authority on the subject matter?

Isn't it possible that if we assume that John Yoo can be said to be incompetent, it limits the ability of his students to take anything he says seriously?

To draw a parallel, if a biology professor said outside of the classroom that he does not believe in evolution and instead believes creationism, and I were a student in his class, I would have trouble believing anything he said in the classroom. So even if everything he said in the classroom were technically correct, it may make him a poor teacher, because he would not be able to effectively impart information.

I'm not necessarily endorsing this argument, because I haven't really fully thought it out and considered possible counter-arguments (slippery slope comes to mind). But it strikes me as reasonable at first glance.

Why would this not be a good argument against Yoo?
8.22.2009 8:07pm
HoyaBlue:
Also, apologies if the same argument has been made elsewhere and been effectively rebuked.
8.22.2009 8:09pm
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
So I assume that all of you are equally troubled by Bernardine Dohrn's continued presence on the Northwestern faculty? After all, she has actually been convicted of a crime (and was denied admission to the bar).

You know, I am a liberal so this is supposed to be some cutting edge comment, but I don't really have a penny's worth of concern for the academic careers of Bernardine Dohrn or William Ayres. The Weather Underground was a bunch of domestic terrorists and as far as I am concerned, it would be perfectly just if nobody hired them. Ayres, it should be noted, only was able to rehabilitate himself because he was the son of a very rich and powerful person in Chicago.

So screw Ayres and Dohrn, and screw Yoo as well.
8.22.2009 9:00pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
frankcross:

I don't agree with Cato. I think the campus police will protect Yoo if necessary.

Bringing up Jensen merely serves to show UCB professors have been threatened in the past. That's all.
8.22.2009 9:01pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
Zuch:

The Pioneer Fund hands out grant to institutions for research. What's the big deal? You also seem to think that since somehow Rushton and Schockley getting money from them through the UC somehow excuses threats against Jensen.

Jensen got threatened because he published a technical paper in a scholarly journal. That's what set the crazies off.
8.22.2009 9:06pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
zuch:

"I'd note this answer is non-responsive."

It sure is.

Do you believe in vaccinations? Do you think the disappearance of polio means we don't have to vaccinate any more?
8.22.2009 9:09pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
Joseph Slater:

"I'm curious what you think the relevance of events that took place 39 years ago when student radicalism and militancy was an at all time peak in U.S. history is for Berkeley today?"


I said that I thought both town and gown Berkeley have somewhat mellowed out. To show that I listed the kinds of events that don't happen any more. I should have put in People's Park for completeness. As I said, I think the new generation of students don't go for these violent confrontations much. But you do get the random crazy type popping up now and then. Outside of that I think Yoo is safe. Of course I don't know if he has received any threats.
8.22.2009 9:15pm
Anderson (mail):
To draw a parallel, if a biology professor said outside of the classroom that he does not believe in evolution and instead believes creationism, and I were a student in his class, I would have trouble believing anything he said in the classroom. So even if everything he said in the classroom were technically correct, it may make him a poor teacher, because he would not be able to effectively impart information.

I think your substantive point is dead-on (of course, I *would* think that); I started a comment with the same analogy I've quoted above, but didn't want to draw the likely cross-fire on the whole evolution thing.

I think one difference is that, like it or not, law is more values-based than science -- not that science is 100% objective -- and thus, a predisposition like Yoo's towards executive tyranny is much more difficult to "cordon off" in one's legal philosophy, just like a radical Marxist's ideology would be difficult.
8.22.2009 11:41pm
Cato The Elder (mail) (www):

I don't agree with Cato. I think the campus police will protect Yoo if necessary.

Zarkov, I'm not sure that I appreciate your validation of the quite activist frank cross's straw-mans of my position. I never once doubted that the campus police would protect Yoo, once instructed to do so by an authority, such as the dean's; instead, I doubted that Mr. Edleys' vacillating essay firmly committed him to such a course of action even when the situation at Berkeley had clearly escalated to the point of concern.

But why should I be surprised? Our dishonest interlocutor specializes in straw-manning, which is why a major focus of research consists of validating a bizarre interpretation of the term "activist" that only a partisan like himself could enjoy. Far be it from my uneducated self to impugn his results, but based on his tactics in this forum, I do suggest that his reviewers double-check his definitions: carefully.
8.23.2009 12:03am
A. Zarkov (mail):
Cato:

You are absolutely correct. I should not let frank cross speak for you. I should have read you more carefully or qualified my statement with something like, "If Cato thinks ...,"

I also agree that Dean Edley's message is rambling and vacillating. UCB is the land of double standard. I sometimes wonder how some of the professors and administrators can look at themselves in the mirror.

In the Hass School of Business a professor plagiarized his student's work. The student didn't complain, but someone did in her behalf. Then a campaign of vilification started. Unfortunately for the administrators in Haas, they put their lies in writing and had to ultimately compromise or face a lawsuit. The student did have to leave, and nothing happened to her adviser. I personally have seen the paperwork in this matter and know the details. It was ugly.
8.23.2009 1:53am
Leo Marvin (mail):
Cato, accusing Frank Cross of dishonesty would discredit your accusation that Edley's commitment to Yoo's safety is questionable, if that accusation had any validity to begin with. What evidence do you have for either accusation?
8.23.2009 2:21am
Leo Marvin (mail):
A. Zarkov,

"UCB is the land of double standard"

Based on what? One anecdote from the business school I'll assume happened as you say? If that's the test, doesn't Edley's letter make UCB the land of academic freedom? And by the way, where's the land of the single standard?
8.23.2009 2:33am
Joseph Slater (mail):
And by the way, where's the land of the single standard?

+ 100.

Cato:

What set of facts, if they occur, do you think would falsify your thesis about the danger to Yoo and the nature of the students and administration in that regard?
8.23.2009 1:16pm
epeeist:
Aside from the "real" answer possibly being that even if they dislike Yoo it's not worth the aggravation of trying to do anything about a professor with tenure...

A couple of quick thoughts (which may have been addressed):

1. There's a difference between taking controversial positions and stupidity. Some of Yoo's memos demonstrate the latter - I disagree with his conclusions but that's beside the point, his "reasoning" and in particular as I recall not addressing any counterarguments to fully inform his "client" fall into the category of stupidity and I think negligence/malpractice, not just being controversial.

2. There's also a difference between advocating a controversial position in e.g. a paper or editorial or public speeches or whatever versus actually advising your "client" regarding controversial practices, the latter in a sense being more participatory (that is, if I as a lawyer tell a client he can rob a bank without committing a felony so long as his gun is unloaded, I'm horribly wrong, he'll still be found guilty, maybe someone gets shot and killed by the security guard or police, but I should certainly face consequences for having encouraged illegal behaviour with such horribly wrong advice).
8.23.2009 3:28pm
Anderson (mail):
in particular as I recall not addressing any counterarguments to fully inform his "client" fall into the category of stupidity and I think negligence/malpractice

Yes, exactly. If you were a CIA spook relying on the Bybee-Yoo memos for guidance on what doesn't violate the Torture Act, would *you* be pleased with the quality of the advice provided?

The legal analysis was offered in bad faith, relying on the "get out of jail free card" quality of OLC memos.
8.23.2009 4:26pm
zuch (mail) (www):
A. Zarkov:
The Pioneer Fund hands out grant to institutions for research....
I just pointed out that their own page says [proudly] that their "grantees" included Jensen and Eysenk. Suck on that and tell me what it tastes like.
What's the big deal? You also seem to think that since somehow Rushton and Schockley getting money from them through the UC somehow excuses threats against Jensen.
Neither Rushton nor Shockley got money through the UC. But that's beside the point.
Jensen got threatened because he published a technical paper in a scholarly journal. That's what set the crazies off.
As Hertz would say, "Not exactly." It wasn't the fact he published a paper (lots of people did such and didn't receive the disapprobation that Jensen did). It was the substance of his paper that aroused the ire.

BTW, I linked to the Pioneer Fund's own site. They, of course, are going to paint themselves in the most flattering light possible. Others have rather different opinions on their racism.

Cheers,
8.24.2009 1:36pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.