Re: [tips] What Does Tenure Protect?
It seems to me that the matter is actually fairly clear (though it is superficially juicy enough that the media is pumping it for all it's worth). As much as I may personally despise Yoo's legal opinions, if the US government is unwilling to prosecute Yoo with a criminal offense, then one can hardly expect his employer to leap into the breach in their stead (and if they did, it would begin a very expensive legal and public relations brouhaha from which UC Berkeley might not actually recover). If Yoo were convicted of something, he could be fired. If he is not convicted of anything, then there is no legal basis on which to over-ride the protections of tenure. The rhetorical question of what tenure protects? in this case is exactly parallel to the question of what the right to remain silent protects? when faced with a person who is well known to have committed a crime, if not yet actually convicted of it. It protects everyone else who the police might want to arrest who have done nothing illegal. And in the case of tenure, it protects all those other people who university boards might want to fire because they have uttered embarrassing truths, but done nothing illegal. Now what might make the Yoo case a little more interesting, would be if some International (or other national) court were to convict him of War Crimes, or such like (presumably in absentia, because he'd be a fool to appear before them). That would make Berkeley's position a little more uncomfortable (though I suspect, in the end, they would do nothing). Regards, Chris Green York U. Toronto Mike Palij wrote: 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) -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo Office: 416-736-2100 ext. 66164 Fax: 416-736-5814 = --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
RE: [tips] What Does Tenure Protect?
I can see lawyers wanting to disbar (or even file a civil lawsuit) against someone on the basis of legal malpractice for giving bad legal advice but I don't suppose many want to set the precedent of trying someone criminally for the legal advice they gave (unless the advice-giver was not licensed as an attorney). Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences Professor of Psychology Box 3055 John Brown University 2000 W. University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 rfro...@jbu.edu (479)524-7295 http://tinyurl.com/DrFroman Forwarding any part of this e-mail to the White House is strictly prohibited. -Original Message- From: Christopher Green [mailto:chri...@yorku.ca] Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 11:53 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] What Does Tenure Protect? It seems to me that the matter is actually fairly clear (though it is superficially juicy enough that the media is pumping it for all it's worth). As much as I may personally despise Yoo's legal opinions, if the US government is unwilling to prosecute Yoo with a criminal offense, then one can hardly expect his employer to leap into the breach in their stead (and if they did, it would begin a very expensive legal and public relations brouhaha from which UC Berkeley might not actually recover). If Yoo were convicted of something, he could be fired. If he is not convicted of anything, then there is no legal basis on which to over-ride the protections of tenure. The rhetorical question of what tenure protects? in this case is exactly parallel to the question of what the right to remain silent protects? when faced with a person who is well known to have committed a crime, if not yet actually convicted of it. It protects everyone else who the police might want to arrest who have done nothing illegal. And in the case of tenure, it protects all those other people who university boards might want to fire because they have uttered embarrassing truths, but done nothing illegal. Now what might make the Yoo case a little more interesting, would be if some International (or other national) court were to convict him of War Crimes, or such like (presumably in absentia, because he'd be a fool to appear before them). That would make Berkeley's position a little more uncomfortable (though I suspect, in the end, they would do nothing). Regards, Chris Green York U. Toronto Mike Palij wrote: 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
Re: [tips] What Does Tenure Protect?
It seems to me that the question really is what Berkeley's faculty contract specifies. If a clean criminal record is stated as a condition of employment, then UCB (the State of California) would have clear grounds for firing him. Otherwise, if he is meeting the terms of his contract (including its definition of job competence) he should be protected by tenure. Tenure usually puts the onus of proof on the employer: they would have to prove that he was violating the conditions of his employment. On Aug 21, 2009, at 11:52 AM, Christopher Green wrote: It seems to me that the matter is actually fairly clear (though it is superficially juicy enough that the media is pumping it for all it's worth). As much as I may personally despise Yoo's legal opinions, if the US government is unwilling to prosecute Yoo with a criminal offense, then one can hardly expect his employer to leap into the breach in their stead (and if they did, it would begin a very expensive legal and public relations brouhaha from which UC Berkeley might not actually recover). If Yoo were convicted of something, he could be fired. If he is not convicted of anything, then there is no legal basis on which to over-ride the protections of tenure. The rhetorical question of what tenure protects? in this case is exactly parallel to the question of what the right to remain silent protects? when faced with a person who is well known to have committed a crime, if not yet actually convicted of it. It protects everyone else who the police might want to arrest who have done nothing illegal. And in the case of tenure, it protects all those other people who university boards might want to fire because they have uttered embarrassing truths, but done nothing illegal. Now what might make the Yoo case a little more interesting, would be if some International (or other national) court were to convict him of War Crimes, or such like (presumably in absentia, because he'd be a fool to appear before them). That would make Berkeley's position a little more uncomfortable (though I suspect, in the end, they would do nothing). Regards, Chris Green York U. Toronto Mike Palij wrote: 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
