Yale Daily News

"As a conservative student at the Law School, I have only good things to say about the administration and how they’ve treated us."

That the quoted student senses the "Us vs. Them" mentality, one that "tolerates" conservative views is, itself, illuminating.

"In contrast to students and alumni upset by the appearance of Yale Law suing its own alumnus, others said they are ashamed of Yale’s association with Yoo and the negative publicity he is generating for the Law School."

I am sure that they are: rigid viewpoints and intolerance permeate Yale generally, most especially the Law School.

The WSJ really gets it right:
"[YLS] is really a leftwing bucket shop using Yale’s sponsorship to achieve antiwar policy goals via lawsuit."

While I agree that Yoo's alma mater is largely irrelevant (I am sure that YLS would have just as gleefully sued a Harvard man, or even a graduate of NYU), I find the other criticisms spot on.

I should add that THIS alumnus gets it absolutely right:

"...I can’t think of anything more out of step with what Yale Law stands for."

Painfully accurate, sadly correct.

One can only hope that the plaintiff and his counsel will be subject to Rule 11 sanctions for this obviously frivolous lawsuit.

Trying to escape this association while Yale provides a home for the Taliban's spokesman, snubs $20 Million from the Basses, outlaws ROTC, and produces Hillary Clinton, is a bridge too far. I imagine all of you high fiving each other at the dean's office while piously proclaiming your even temperament at the New Haven borders.

This case is a frontal assault on the legal profession itself, and on the ability of a President to recieve frank advice (what is often referred to as executive privilege).

This is not about liberal v. conservative. We should all be alarmed by this assault of our rights, and our government's ability to function.

I am deeply disappointed in my alma mater that they allow this nonsense to go on.

If Padilla's rights were violated, he can seek to enforce his rights by an ordinary civil rights suit against the government, not against individual attorneys.

When Dean Koh says "let a hundred flowers bloom," I agree. However, if I recall correctly, when law schools participated in the suit against the Solomon Act, it was often expressed that the school itself must be free to impose its official view on important social issues such as "don't ask, don't tell." (I favor full civil rights for gays and lesbians.)

Which is it? Does the university have a duty to impose its centralized views, or does a university have a duty to let different view points flourish? One thing we can agree on: it can't be Dean Koh's position that Yale should toggle between a "unitary administrative view" and "let viewpoint diversity flourish" on an issue by issue basis, depending on the political inclinations of the top adminintrators.

Dean Koh would do well to clarify his stance and adopt a consistent approach.

Seneca:

You have no idea what a relief it is to find that I am not alone (to include remembrance of the Bass debacle).

Thank you, sincerely.

Yoo is the epitome of an intellectual fraud. He promotes a radical view of executive power based on a preposterous reading of the historical record for which his academic credentials provide an artificial cover, and as such, undermines the values of honest inquiry that any academic institution has good reason to hope from its associates.

Had the Yoo memos been written by a graduate from a 5th tier law school (like Liberty University, ahem) they would be that much less credible than they already are. As it stands, they provide cover for unconstitutional and illegal acts, giving Bush and his cronies plausible deniability for having betrayed their oath to defend the Constitution. He's an embarrassment and a disgrace. I would hope Yalies would want to undermine any sense that the integrity of one's ideas doesn't matter if you have a degree from a famous institution.

About the lawsuit itself, it strikes me as a convenient proxy for challenging Yoo's absurd and dangerous doctrines, and that's not the proper vehicle. But neither is using this case as a proxy for fighting some war against liberal orthodoxy in the academy, as infuriating as that orthodoxy might be. If the choice is between knee-jerk liberalism and radical authoritarianism dressed up with con-law-by-credential, I'll take the lesser of those 2 evils and hope Yale does the same (in a general sense) moving forward.

Dean Koh's quip of "let a thousand flowers bloom" is ironically telling of his philosophy. Someone in his position is surely aware of the maxim's connection with that Communist mass murderer Chairman Mao.

To whit:

"Let a thousand flowers bloom is a common misquotation of Chairman Mao Zedong's 'Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend'. This slogan was used during the period of approximately six weeks in the summer of 1957 when the Chinese intelligentsia were invited to criticize the political system then obtaining in Communist China.

It is sometimes suggested that the initiative was a deliberate attempt to flush out dissidents by encouraging them to show themselves as critical of the regime. Whether or not it was a deliberate trap isn't clear but it is the case that many of those who put forward views that were unwelcome to Mao were executed."

I'll add something to my previous comments, and building off of "anon's" sharp comments on the subject ("which is it?")

The solomon act litigation also followed a pattern of putting serious liberal goals in danger for a short-term political gain. As the Supreme Court noted in oral arguments about the Solomon Amendment, there is no way to find in favor of the law schools without shredding Title IX in the process. Likewise, in trying to whack the Bush administration, this clinic is seeking to destroy the ability of an attorney to freely advise his or her clients. Today this is done to harm the Bush administration, but tomorrow it will be used in a context you won't like. Likewise, hampering the ability of the executive branch to function will stop "Chimpy McHitlerburton" today from forcing Khalid Sheik Mohammed to talk. But tomorrow the same precedent will stop Obama's or Hillary's justice department from advancing gay rights.

Some are in the habit of thinking that effective government is the enemy of liberty. It can be, of course, but it is also necessary for liberty. The example of Salmon Rushdie is apt. Any delusions that freedom of speech needs only for the government to get out of the way goes out the window when you look at his case. But for the constant exertion of the British Government, Rushie would be as dead as Theo Van Gogh (google him if you don't know who I am talking about). And do I have to mention how islamofascist violence has not only silenced Van Gogh, but also terrified Comedy Central to the point that they refused to show a cartoon of Mohammed, in an episode confronting and denoucing people's fear of depicting Mohammed in cartoon form. The sly authors of that episode followed the depiction of Mohammed with a depiction of Jesus and Bush that would be offensive, to anyone who merely desired respect for those figures, their not-so-subtle way of pointing up the double-standard created by fear.

Rendering our government ineffective grants us the freedom we can only obtain for ourselves by violence. That is why the Declaration of Independance makes it clear that a government that fails to protect our sacred right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is as illigitimate as one that acvtively violates it.

Again, shame on Yale Law School for allowing this nonsense to go on.