Letters to Yoo’s Colleagues
As I mentioned a few posts down, I believe a campaign should be undertaken to drive John Yoo from the Faculty at Boalt Hall. I have thus begun writing letters. So far I have written to Christopher Edley, the Dean; Victoia Ortiz, Dean of Student Services; Louise Epstein, Dean of Alumni Relations and Development; and Jonathan Simon, Dean of Jurisprudence and Social Policy.
I have tried to target each of my letters, sowing doubts about their colleague and remarking on how his association with the University is not only damaging to their reputation, but damaging their ability to raise money. I also try to personalize the letters to make personal association with Yoo radioactive.
My letter to Dean Epstein:
Dear Dean Epstein:
Please pardon this communication from a stranger, but after reading the text of John Yoo’s memos, which gave the Bush Administration broad (and most likely illegal) authority to torture detainees at Guantanamo Bay and in Iraq, I was so shocked and dismayed by what I read, I felt it was proper to get in touch with Mr. Yoo’s colleagues at Boalt Hall.
As I am sure you have read, Mr. Yoo, acting as a government official, argues that the Bush Administration has the power to torture children. His memos, recently unearthed by the Washington Post, led directly to war crimes at home and abroad, staining our national reputation. Although many of his memos were ultimately rescinded, the underlying theory has led to violations of many US laws, including those surrounding the treatment of prisoners, wiretapping and surveillance, habeas corpus rights, and numerous Congressional oversight requirements.
Like you, I work in development, and I am keenly aware of the impact negative publicity can have on an organization: for example, I work in human services affiliated with the United Way, and regularly have to answer questions from individual donors who are concerned about giving, because of the United Way’s past problems.
I am also a parent, with a child approaching college age. I have already suggested to my son, who is interested in law, that he consider any other institution than Berkeley until John Yoo is gone from your faculty. I will be suggesting the same to my friends and family with college-age children. However, as a development professional, I was wondering what you think of these revelations personally: John Yoo, who advocates for the torture of children and the violation of international law, has been all over the newspapers and television for the past three days, in an understandably unflattering light. Have you received many letters or phone calls from prospective donors or alumni who no longer wish to donate to Boalt Hall? Are there concerns that John Yoo bring dishonor to your field and to your institution? Is John Yoo the kind of person you would want instructing your children? Does John Yoo live up to the University’s stated principles of “honesty and integrity”, affirm[ing] the dignity of all individuals and striv[ing] to uphold a just community”, “freedom of expression and dialogue”, and “civility and respect”?
As a concerned parent and a development professional, I would be interested in hearing your views on Berkeley’s seemingly lawless law professor, John Yoo, and whether his involvement with what can only be called war crimes is expected to have an impact on your fundraising and development work. Speaking for myself, I would be deeply embarrassed and offended by this man’s continued presence on the faculty of Boalt Hall, and would take steps to encourage his voluntary departure.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Brendan Skwire
Philadelphia, PA
To Dean Simon:
Dear Professor Simon:
Please pardon this communication from a stranger, but after reading the text of John Yoo’s memos, which gave the Bush Administration broad (and most likely illegal) authority to torture detainees at Guantanamo Bay and in Iraq, I was so shocked and dismayed by what I read, I felt it was proper to get in touch with Mr. Yoo’s colleagues at Boalt Hall.
As I am sure you have read, Mr. Yoo, acting as a government official, argues that the Bush Administration has the power to torture children. His memos, recently unearthed by the Washington Post, led directly to war crimes at home and abroad, staining our national reputation. Although many of his memos were ultimately rescinded, the underlying theory has led to violations of many US laws, including those surrounding the treatment of prisoners, wiretapping and surveillance, habeas corpus rights, and numerous Congressional oversight requirements. Although I am not a lawyer, from what iI have read in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and read on website maintained by constitutional lawyers like Glenn Greenwald, Mr. Yoo’s memos were based on extremely shoddy legal premises, and deliberately set aside decades of precedent dating to the Youngstown decision, which specifically limited presidential powers.
I have already suggested to my son, who is approaching college age and is interested in law, that he consider any other institution than Berkeley until John Yoo is gone from your faculty. I will be suggesting the same to my friends and family with college-age children. However, I was wondering what you think of these revelations personally: are you comfortable being associated with a war criminal like John Yoo, who advocates for the torture of children and the violation of international law? Does John Yoo bring honor to your field and to your institution? Is John Yoo the kind of person you would want instructing your children? Does John Yoo live up to the University’s stated principles of “honesty and integrity”, affirm[ing] the dignity of all individuals and striv[ing] to uphold a just community”, “freedom of expression and dialogue”, and “civility and respect”? Given that Mr. Yoo’s memos have led to national disgrace and war crimes, and were based on such poor legal foundations, do you believe that this man is the best person to teach constitutional law
As a concerned parent, I would be interested in hearing your views on Berkeley’s seemingly lawless law professor, John Yoo. Speaking for myself, I would embarrassed to be in the same company as Mr. Yoo, and would work to encourage him to leave Boalt Hall faculty voluntarily. I believe his continued presence on campus and as a member of the faculty is a stain on the University’s reputation, and suggests that students who take his classes will be ill-prepared to meet their duties as lawyers.
Sincerely,
Brendan Skwire
This morning, I sent today’s NY Times editorial on Yoo to Dean Edley and Dean Ortiz with the subject “John Yoo is Ruining Boalt’s Reputation”.
Mr. Yoo, who, inexplicably, teaches law at the University of California, Berkeley, never directly argues that it is legal to chain prisoners to the ceiling for days, sexually abuse them or subject them to waterboarding — all things done by American jailers.
His primary argument, in which he reaches back to 19th-century legal opinions justifying the execution of Indians who rejected the reservation, is that the laws didn’t apply to Mr. Bush because he is commander in chief. He cited an earlier opinion from Bush administration lawyers that Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners were not covered by the Geneva Conventions — a decision that put every captured American soldier at grave risk.
Then, should someone reject his legal reasoning and decide to file charges, Mr. Yoo offered a detailed blueprint for escaping accountability.
You’ll see that the NY Times calls out Berkeley by name for Yoo’s continued presence on their campus. This is NOT a man who should be teaching law, and in my opinion, it’s not a man you should allow anywhere near young children as he’s clearly a sociopath.
People should be calling Boalt Hall and reading this editorial to them. I’m going to call RIGHT NOW.
April 7th, 2008 at 3:15 am
Dear Brendan,
I am student at Berkeley Law and I believe your campaign is unfounded.
Demonizing a legal professional for producing a predictive memo is, to borrow words from the New York Times, the stuff of “some authoritarian regime and has no place in the […] United States.”
Let me begin by saying that I am confident we share many values. I am distressed by validation of torture. I am ashamed and outraged by many actions of my government. I mourn the war in Iraq.
I do not know if you have legal training, so please understand the following explanation is not intended to be condescending.
A legal memo is a predictive, not persuasive, document. In other words, a legal memo should be an even-handed evaluation of the law in its current state.
The memo to which you refer was written John Yoo as a lawyer for the Justice Department. Mr. Yoo was asked to answer the following question: “What are the legal standards governing military interrogations of alien unlawful combatants held outside the United States?” Yoo researched the question, and offered predictive conclusions about the state of the law. Your elected leaders then made decisions. Has Yoo thus “caused” the government’s course of action in this matter?
Consider this imaginary parallel:
A client asks you the following: “Is riding my bike without a helmet legal?” You research and write a memo concluding that, according to current law, it is probably legal to ride without a helmet. Have you then “caused” or “advocated” that your client “should” act unsafely?
I suggest that your outrage is better directed towards your elected leaders. I suggest you strive to reform a system of legal authority that avails itself to morally-troubling interpretations. I also suggest that criminalizing Yoo for writing a predictive memo in his professional capacity as an attorney is dangerously wrongheaded.
Your call for Yoo’s expulsion does not reflect the value of the “freedom of expression and dialogue” that you praise above. Furthermore, labeling a man you have never met and misunderstand a “sociopath,” you betray your call for “civility and respect.”
In fact, Yoo is an exceedingly gifted, intelligent, and friendly professor. I believe he is an asset to the legal education here at Berkeley.
Kind Regards,
Aaron
April 7th, 2008 at 10:55 am
LIEBKIND: Oh, sure. I used to take him his hot milk and his opium. Achhh, those were the days. Vat good times ve had. Dinner parties vit lovely ladies and gentlemen, singing und dancing. You know, not many people knew about it, but the Fuhrer vas a terrific dancer.
BIALYSTOCK: Really, I never dreamed …
LIEBKIND (flies into an indignant rage): That’s because you were taken in by that verdampter Allied propaganda. Such filthy lies. But nobody said a bad vord about Winston Churchill, did they? Oh no, Vin Vit Vinnie! (he gestures V for victory) Churchill, vit his cigars and his brandy and his rotten paintings. Couldn’t even say Nazi. He would say Narzis, Narzis. Ve vere not Narzies, ve vere Nazis. But let me tell this, and you’re getting it straight from the horse, Hitler vas better looking than Churchill, he vas a better dresser than Churchill, had more hair, told funnier jokes, and could dance the pants off Churchill!
April 7th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Ah, the ‘ol “allude to Hitler” chestnut.
Let me be clear.
I am not saying: “Yoo seems to be a nice guy, thus it’s great he teaches here at Berkeley.”
I am saying: “Yoo was a professional offering a researched, predictive memo about the law. Regardless of how we feel about the memo’s conclusions, I believe Mr. Yoo deserves his position as a professor of law on the merits.”
The range of political and legal discourse that *should* be allowed in institutions of higher education is open for debate, and I’m guessing we come down differently on the issue.