From: Office of the Dean
Date: April 6, 2015 at 3:48:22 PM EDT
To:
Subject: Fostering Discourse at the Law School
MEMORANDUM
To: The Law School Community
From: Trevor Morrison
Date: April 6, 2015
Re: Fostering Discourse at the Law School
I write to address recent allegations that some of our students have been intimidated by NYU Law faculty for their support of a “Statement of No Confidence in Harold H. Koh.” Although I accept that these allegations of intimidation are made in good faith, I believe they are unfounded and the product of miscommunication and misunderstanding.
How 8am LawPay Takes The Sting Out Of Legal Billing
Getting paid can be an arduous task. You should make it as easy on yourself and your clients as possible.
Several weeks ago, some student members of our community, as well as others, circulated the statement, which includes an account of Professor Koh’s role in shaping U.S. drone policy during his time as Legal Adviser to the State Department. Professor Koh, who is Sterling Professor and former Dean at Yale Law School, is serving as a distinguished scholar in residence here during the 2014-15 academic year. The statement that circulated is addressed to President Sexton and me.
In the last week, it has come to my attention that some Law School students feel that they have faced intimidation from faculty and administrators for supporting the statement. I take these allegations extremely seriously. We are a community deeply committed to academic freedom, which means recognizing the right of all members—students and faculty included—to express their thoughts on matters of public concern.
Some members of our faculty have views about Professor Koh and his service in government that are just as deeply held as those expressed by the supporters of the statement against him. Faculty have articulated their confidence in Professor Koh in emails, have explained the basis for that support, and/or have urged Professor Koh’s opponents to investigate the matter further and consider revising their positions. Individual faculty members also have invited students to meet with them to discuss the substantive issues at the center of the statement. I offered my opinion on the matter in my Constitutional Law class, as we prepared to analyze congressional testimony by Professor Koh from his time in government.
Faculty members always must be mindful that power differentials might affect their interactions with students. Yet if sensitivity to that dynamic required faculty members to censor themselves on matters of import, our institution would fail to live up to its ideals of honest dialogue and mutual respect for each other. I am confident that no member of our faculty intended the expression of his or her opinions to be construed as intimidation. Certainly, I did not. To be clear, no student faces any penalty for supporting the statement.
Plugging The Profit Leaks: How Your Firm Can Stop Burning Money
Join the webinar on September 25th and learn some quick wins you can implement right away.
Outreach to students was meant to foster an exchange of ideas. It is unfortunate that faculty and administrators’ efforts to discuss the ideas at the heart of the students’ statement have been perceived by some as a form of intimidation. To ensure there have not been communications about which we are not aware, administrators have invited students to provide information about alleged intimidation so the students’ concerns can be addressed. And discussions around these issues continue. Later this month, students who organized and supported the statement will hold an event at the Law School on drone policy and human rights.
Academic freedom requires space to express contrary views. Just as all members of our community, students and faculty alike, enjoy a broad freedom to voice opinions on matters of public concern, so too do they enjoy a right—truly, an obligation—to contest, challenge, and dispute the views with which they disagree. The debates that may follow are the lifeblood of a vibrant intellectual community.