next »

[unnamed]

To try to create a better parallel, think of it this way. What would you all want to do with someone who was a lawyer for Pinochet's administration? Should that person be able to slide back comfortably into a tenured position at one of Argentina's top law schools? What would you want to do if you were that person's colleague?

I agree with the sentiment, but I think the example would work better if one of Pinochet's lawyers was in a Chilean institution...

[sibyl]

Who's to say what is "hackwork" and what is "grueling labor"?  A lot of legitimate academic work can look like hackwork to some eyes.

That errors in judgment are possible doesn't in any way demonstrate that judgment shouldn't be made.  Saying what is and isn't hackwork is what academics do for a living. It's what we do when we recommend or do not recommend someone for a degree, or for a job, or for publication, or for tenure.  It's what we do in our research and what we do in our teaching.  It's our job.

That's a good point.  What I was trying to say is that I don't want to set up anyone outside the (particular) university as the arbiter of what is and is not hackwork.  What got me tenure here would never get me tenure at Berkeley (which is why I work here).  Mr. Yoo is tenured at Boalt Hall, and so Boalt ought to decide what is hackwork -- not professors at NYU or Georgetown or Harvard or Chicago, nor even professors of economics at Berkeley.

If academic freedom, or for that matter any civil liberty or legal protection, means anything it has to protect everyone.

I agree completely: academic freedom should be measured and enforced equally for all academics.  But this argument is question-begging.  The argument is about whether or not this is a violation of academic freedom.  A number of people have argued that this is a judgment about his professional competence, and thus not a violation of academic freedom.  I've argued that this is a restriction of his  actions as a government collaborator, not of his right to express opinions, and thus not a violation of his academic freedom of speech. 

I'm not sure I follow your argument, because it seems that you are saying that this argument is about two contradictory things, so you might have skipped a "not".  If I misunderstand you, I apologize and ask you to set me straight.

But if this is not a violation of his academic freedom of speech, why is revocation of tenure the correct punishment?  If he is incompetent to remain at the bar, then let him be disbarred; if that leads to his ouster from Boalt, so be it (I don't know what their standards or requirements are).  But what gives the university the right to rule on his conduct outside the university?

What is tenure?  If it is a guarantor of academic freedom (which I would say it probably is not) or a guarantor of job security (probably not again, but I'll assume it arguendo), then why should it be abridged for this kind of alleged incompetence outside the university?  If it is a recognition of professional competence inside and outside the university, then doesn't this mean we could fire an economist for making poor investments in mutual funds or a political scientist for supporting a losing candidate for office or a historian for denying the Holocaust?  What is tenure that it could admit of revocation for this kind of action?

[ck_dexter]

Mr. Yoo is tenured at Boalt Hall, and so Boalt ought to decide what is hackwork -- not professors at NYU or Georgetown or Harvard or Chicago, nor even professors of economics at Berkeley.

Fair point, but I still think it should be grounds for Boalt Hall to dismiss him.  And this still doesn't mean professors anywhere can't make and express reasonably informed judgments (and recommendations_ about his general professional competency, though they have no ability or authority to dismiss him.   

I'm not sure I follow your argument, because it seems that you are saying that this argument is about two contradictory things, so you might have skipped a "not".  If I misunderstand you, I apologize and ask you to set me straight.

I meant there two different arguments have been made for the view that firing him is not a violation of free speech: 1) my argument that he would be fired for unethical action, not for speech, 2) other posters' argument that he would be fired for professional incompetence, not for speech.

But if this is not a violation of his academic freedom of speech, why is revocation of tenure the correct punishment? ...But what gives the university the right to rule on his conduct outside the university?

These are good questions. However, it's possible that employers should (and do) in some cases make employment decisions on ethical issues not directly relevant to job competence.  In my argument (1. above), I am suggesting that severe legal violations are indeed justified cause for dismissal, though I admit I don't know what the legal issues about such things are -- in academics or elsewhere.  (My argument is an ethical, not a legal one).

The proponents of argument 2 above would, I suspect, argue that the university has the right to rule on his outside conduct if he acts in a professional role -- e.g., as an expert giving advice -- thus reflecting on his professional competence.

Your additional questions - the possible firing scenarios - are tough to answer, since the relationship between professional competence and popularity or acceptibility of actions and opinions is ambiguous.  To some degree the professions judgments about competence reflect prejudices, biases, and unproven assumptions, yet without such judgments there is no profession.

Despite that ambiguity, then, we have to, on a case by case basis, distinguish as best we can the difference between someone who has done something unpopular or unethical and someone who has done something that reveals professional incompetence.  Of your examples, only the last one seems plausible to me, but highly plausible: you have to be incompent as a historian to deny the holocaust.  Just as you have to be incompetent as a lawyer (and as a logician) to recommend the legality of breaking the law.

[daurousseau]

So what's the motive for kicking out an evil law professor? That he might corrupt lawyers?

Am I the only one that finds that ludicrous? Like keeping Madoff away from business students because he might infect them with greed.

[ck_dexter]

Am I the only one that finds that ludicrous? Like keeping Madoff away from business students because he might infect them with greed.

That's funny, but I don't think this is really the same thing.  The motive for kicking out an evil law professor is, in part, to increase his pariah status (which, from your early post, you seem to think is worthwhile) by destroying his association with people and institution that have reputations and credentials.  But also to decrease his political and criminal effectivity: as an isolated wacko, his opinion counts less, and is less likely to be taken seriously, hopefully by anyone but particularly by a government. 

The other motive is that to not resist someone who is actively participating in and collaborating with war crimes is to enable him -- it could be argued that the insitution becomes partially ethically responsible for indirectly funding his criminal activity (since it funds his professional work, and his criminal collaboration muddied the line between non-professional and professional advice).

Another, purely selfish motive, would be as a service to the university: to not have to have torture-pornographers as colleagues.

[ablewasi]

The motive for kicking out an evil law professor is, in part, to increase his pariah status (which, from your early post, you seem to think is worthwhile) by destroying his association with people and institution that have reputations and credentials.  But also to decrease his political and criminal effectivity: as an isolated wacko, his opinion counts less, and is less likely to be taken seriously, hopefully by anyone but particularly by a government. 

This may be a bit of wishful thinking.

Consider the case of John Poindexter.


Convicted of a variety of charges in Iran-Contra in the Reagan administration.
Conviction reversed - not on merit but due to conflicts with immunity granted during congressional heaings.
Appointed head of the Information Awareness Office in the Bush administration to oversee collection of intelligence on everyone and everything including non-criminal behavior of American citizens.

_

[daurousseau]

Or consider Robert McFarlane, disgraced by the Iran-Contra affair but an adviser to McCain during the presidential campaign. Shall we go on to Henry Kissinger, Bill Moyers, Zbigniew Brzezinski? Or all the should-be has-beens vacuumed out from under the rug into the Obama administration? Political hacks are a dime a dozen. The guys we need to go for are the ones with the clean hands. They can be found in the White House, Supreme Court, and Congress.