I hate to be forced into the position of defending the academic rights of someone as universally abhorred and who I personally find extremely repellent, but recent diaries arguing for public interference in academia have got me riled, so here goes.
Last night a diary popped up which argued that John Yoo, former assistant DA in the Department of Justice and author of the infamous "torture memo" should be fired from his tenured position at UC Berkeley Boalt Hall because of his role in the writing of the memo.
Here is some of the diary, a section which argued that we in the Netroots, believers in freedom of speech, should interfere in the realm of academia because we're angry at what John Yoo wrote:
I want to know, is there any way that we, as the netroots, can start a push to at least force UC Berkeley to fire Yoo? If Yoo can not just argue for, but enable, such depravity and not be punished for it, then who is to stop the next John Yoo? We cannot allow this type of depravity to stand.
Additional comments backed this view up and argued for the trial and execution of Yoo.
He is one of the 33 members of the neocon cabal who will face prosecution and hopefully, be sentenced to death for war crimes and treason.
And an opposing and well thought-out alternative view:
As much as I detest Yoo, some of these comments are just plain scary. I got my PhD at Berkeley, a place with extraordinary ideological diversity and I would hope it stays that way. I find Yoo's arguments and claims beyond reprehensible, but intellectual freedom remains, for me, the highest virtue of the university. Should he be ostracized from the "community"? Perhaps. Should he be fired? My god, no.
Kossacks don't govern my college, nor will they rule on my tenure. And, above all, I would fear the consequences of these arguments for the left (let's admit that the university is one place where there is more of "us" than "them") -- targeted attacks on left-wing professors have been a staple of the right-wing, particularly those shaped by the culture wars. David Horowitz would be salivating at the thought that the left might be just as willing to trample upon academic freedom as he is -- and for his "most dangerous professors in america" list (it is a sincere professional ambition to make it on that list one day), the kossacks will have their own?
Again, I'm not defending John Yoo or what he wrote or his tenure at Justice. I AM defending his right to express opinions that I find abhorrent and wrong. That is an absolute for me. Tenure is designed to allow a professor to express radical or unpopular points of view without fear of losing their jobs. So the diarist is incorrect, we absolutely CAN allow "this deparavity to stand" because not doing so is lowering ourselves to the level of the writer of the depravity in the first place.
I've got a dog in this fight. I used to be a student at UC Berkeley, took a legal studies class at Boalt Hall and am a current student at NYU. I take a very, very dim view of any attempt to interfere in the tenure process or in actions to remove tenured professors. My record on this issue is clear.
I feel that Alan Dershowitz's campaign to deny Norman Finkelstein tenure at De Paul was wrong and I am a committed Zionist with a deep abhorrence of Finkelstein's views on both the Holocaust and Israel. Outside campaigns to either deny or revoke tenure of professors are dangerous and antithetical to free expression in academia and they must be fought at all costs. Tenure can only be withdrawn by a vote of the Regents of a particular academic institution or system and should only be done so in instances of criminal behavior or academic dishonesty.
Yoo's interpretation of the law was incorrect in my view and goes against over 200 years of constitutional law as well as customary international law and treaty law. It was wrong. His interpretations will not stand the test of time or the rigors of academic or legal scrutiny but none of those rises to the level of calling for a revocation of tenure.
As progressives and reformers but most importantly as Americans we must uphold the ideals of this country above our (in some cases justified) desire for revenge and justice. By fanning the flames of this intellectual witchhunt we undermine our own claims to be defenders of the US Constitution and the true protectors of our civil liberties. Sometimes one must run the risk of otracization and unpopularity in pursuit of a greater cause - in this case that of academic freedom. As a student and a believer in the rights of free speech I'd say the same thing about any of you that I am saying about John Yoo - that our community is better than stooping to the lows of the right-wing and anti-academics like David Horowitz.