In the NY Times there is a "discussion" about John C. Yoo who is best known as the author of the "torture memos" which laid out the legal rationale for the use of "enhanced interrogation" techniques. Yoo, prior to joining the Bush White House, was a tenured professor at UC-Berkeley's law school, a position he has returned to amidst much "discussion". Several lawyers and academics, including the current AAUP president Cary Nelson, try to review the issues and whether the UC system should fire Yoo for his activities in the Bush administration. See:
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/torture-and-academic-freedom/ Yoo's siutation is apparently quite complex and whether he will be held accountable for his activities is unclear (if the Obama Dept of Justice was more interested in prosecuting members of the Bush admin for alleged war crimes, this would be less uncertain). Of direct relevance to TiPS are the following issues presented by the lawyer/professor Brian Leiter; quoting from the NY Times: | |As a contractual and perhaps constitutional matter, Professor Yoo |cannot be fired or penalized for the content of his scholarship and |teaching, unless it involves research misconduct or intellectual dishonesty. |A faculty member can also be disciplined by the university if convicted |by a court of a serious criminal violation. Berkeley's regulations |on this score are typical. | |Professor Yoo has defended his views about executive power in |scholarly journals. Other scholars have defended similar views. |Professor Yoo has not committed research misconduct. He has |defended his views about executive power in scholarly journals, |as well as in the memoranda he wrote as an attorney for the government. |Other scholars have defended similar views. One may think (as I do) |such views implausible, badly argued and morally odious, but they |do not involve "research misconduct." | |If "research misconduct" or "intellectual dishonesty" were |interpreted to cover what he has done then there would be nothing |left of academic freedom, since every disagreement on the merits |of a position, especially a minority position in the scholarly community, |could be turned into a "research misconduct" charge that would lead |to disciplinary proceedings and possible termination. (Something like |this happened, in part, in the Ward Churchill case.) Interesting mixture of "research misconduct", "intellectual dishonesty", and "justifying torture". There are other considerations, particularly legal technicalities, which are relevant but better handled by legal scholars (e.g., see the following article, particularly pages 457-8, http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/roomfordebate/Clark-Torture-Memo-2005.pdf ). -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
