Is This Law School Championing Academic Freedom Or Pandering To Bigotry?
There's a fine line between supporting freedom and officially supporting hate. Where is the line in this case?
Oliver Wendell Holmes laid out the classic definition of freedom with “the right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” It’s nice and pithy.
The problem with the zealous defenders of “freedom” is the inherently subjective definition of the “end of your nose,” especially when it comes to words. Is it hurt feelings? God I hope not. On the other hand, a sustained workplace campaign of verbal intimidation and harassment that constructively robs someone of their livelihood? That’s more than hurt feelings. What about something in between? Your willingness to see something short of physical violence as the limit of freedom has a lot to do with the size of your personal blindspot to your place in society. Sticks and stones don’t break my bones, but that’s because I’m a straight white male. Everything kind of works out for me.
Now academic freedom is not constitutional freedom. The unique brand of latitude granted academics in the interest of producing scholarship is not bound by the First Amendment (at least outside of state schools) and can both exceed and limit the freedom for government intervention. But the subjective definition of what crosses from academic freedom into the end of another’s nose is still there.
Document Automation For Law Firms: The Definitive Guide
Take this case study. Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law sent out its recent newsletter noting prominent media mentions of its faculty. Pretty standard. One media mention highlighted in the newsletter involved Professor Robert Destro, who was quoted in a National Catholic Register piece about the ongoing Alabama marriage equality stand-off:
“This is indeed activism, and it is justified on the grounds that anyone who disagrees with the new wisdom about same-sex relationships is a bigot,” said Robert Destro, a law professor and director of the Interdisciplinary Program in Law and Religion at the Columbus School of Law at The Catholic University of America.
Well, no. It’s justified on the grounds of a pretty straight-up reading of the 14th Amendment. But the anti-marriage-equality game plan rests on dismissing constitutional arguments as ad hominem attacks on religion, so 10 points for Cobra.
One alum wrote the school to express concern that the school’s editorial decision to include Destro’s quote in the alumni newsletter crossed into lending the endorsement of the school to anti-gay sentiment:
Sponsored
Are Small Firms Going Big On Legal Tech?
How AI Is The Catalyst For Reshaping Every Aspect Of Legal Work
Early Adopters Of Legal AI Gaining Competitive Edge In Marketplace
Are Small Firms Going Big On Legal Tech?
The decision to include Prof. Destro’s interview, discussing same-sex marriage (or “marriage” as the article repeatedly–and insultingly–refers to it) makes me seriously concerned that the atmosphere of acceptance I experienced is no longer present at the law school.
I understand that a Catholic institution has certain beliefs, but highlighting the article in question as if it is something to be proud of is insulting and, quite frankly, embarassing for the law school. The vast majority of my generation, and including my fellow alumni, support marriage equality.
One has to wonder, had interracial marriage been considered “illegal,” “unnatural,” or “less than” other marriages by a minority of the population in 2015, would an article discussing that topic have been so brazenly highlighted to your alumni? How about equal rights for women?
Dean Daniel F. Attridge responded to the criticism.
Now it is true, of course, that a reader could have clicked through to read the story that appeared in the National Catholic Register in which Professor Destro was quoted. That is obviously what you did, and that is the source of your offense. But it is not correct to say that we included Professor Destro’s interview in our newsletter or even described his views.
This is an astoundingly weak argument. “Whoa, we didn’t really expect you to read the article we linked to” is not the Dean’s finest moment. I can’t even use that excuse for Non-Sequiturs. Thankfully, he doesn’t stop there and comes back with a much better argument:
Part of the essence of academic freedom is the right to express views with which other people might disagree. Professor Destro has his own views on same-sex marriage. Neither you nor anyone else needs to agree with him. But as members of the CUA Law community, it is important that we be respectful of one another’s views. You may disagree with Professor Destro, and vice versa, but it is not helpful to the debate to label his views as “insulting” and “embarrassing” to the Law School.
Sponsored
Profit Powerhouse: Elevating Law Firm Financial Performance
Document Automation For Law Firms: The Definitive Guide
True enough. And yet, does dismissing a wealth of constitutional law arguments, precedent, and even the text of recent Supreme Court opinions by suggesting the only basis for marriage equality is “that anyone who disagrees with the new wisdom about same-sex relationships is a bigot,” justify the invocation of “academic freedom”? If so, can I get tenured? Because I can churn out 30 journal articles of that depth by the end of the week.
It’s a fine line between honoring academic freedom and supporting non-academic, warrantless, prejudicial rhetoric. Professor Destro’s reasoning may be specious, but should the school set limits on what rises to the level of academic thought? On the other hand, when legal academics are recognized by the school for tossing around prejudicial rhetoric devoid of legal reasoning aimed directly at a minority population, how is that not sanctioned hostility?
But we don’t need to reach these weighty questions, because Dean Attridge concludes by shining a light on the truly important question:
Lastly, let me respond to your comment about continued support for the Law School. You are, of course, not required to recommend that prospective students attend CUA Law or make donations to the Law School. Whether you do so or not is up to you. But I think you’ll find that if you do support us – or more particularly the students here – that you will find it to be very rewarding.
Yep. It’s all about the benjamins. Don’t ever change, law schools!
(For the whole exchange, alumnus name redacted, check out the next page.)
Alabama’s Judicial Process Becomes a Marriage Battleground [National Catholic Register]