May 12, 2009

Defining Academic Freedom Down

by Cliopatria

Writing in today's Daily Beast about the Bush OLC legal staff, University of Colorado law professor Paul Campos has guidance for law school personnel committees around the country:

For instance, if you’re doing a job interview with a candidate who has worked with or under or in the same office or the on the same city block as any of these people, ask him or her about this subject. And don’t be bullied by nonsense about “academic freedom” if you need to make it clear that you don’t hire torturers, or those who support them.

For better or for worse (I would say for much worse), recent polls show over 40 percent of the country is willing to consider the use of torture to protect the national interest--thereby seeming to fit under Campos' definition of"support" for the Bush OLC positions.

I'm sure the AAUP will rebuke Prof. Campos for suggesting that personnel committees can so blithely dismiss"nonsense about 'academic freedom.'"

More Comments:

Ralph E. Luker - 5/13/2009

KC, If a law school refused to hire either Alan Dershowitz or John Yoo because they advocate the legality and moral necessity of torture, I don't see how that could be construed as a violation of their rights of academic free speech.

Jonathan Dresner - 5/13/2009

You're going to define law by polling now?

There's a prima facie case that anyone who participated in the authorization or administration of torture, as defined by interational law, by the US is, at best, a really bad lawyer. How is that not relevant to a law school?