I would suspect that it’s a little hard for people to defend (in addition to their own arguments), other people’s opinions as well.

This isn’t a defence of tenure [...], but of people’s general rights in the workplace. It’s a case that I have made before without any reference to the academic world whatsoever. So in short – my defence of Yoo doesn’t turn on the privileges of academe [...].

It is true that you do not explicitly defend the privilege of academia. However, your argument does exactly that – by ignoring the differences between the position of a powerful member of the intellectual elite and that of an average employee.

This maneuver is similar to that of the supreme court rulings that thwart campaign finance reforms, allowing the rich and powerful to use their money and power to gain significant political influence, by ignoring the difference between the political activity of those barons and the “free expression” activity of an average citizen.

Beside both cases using the technique of taking situations that are materially different and claiming that they are the same, it is illuminating to note how in both cases, the rule being applied to the situations holds rather feebly when it applies to the average person (employment at will, restriction to “free speech zones”) but holds in its maximum extent when it concerns the powerful (must not be laid-off, have complete freedom to act politically).

Anyone calling for [Yoo] to be fired is calling for him to be punished for his ideas, and nothing else. [emphasis added] … That is not the law in the United States… nor should it be for reasons that are familiar to anyone who has ever read John Stuart Mill.

John Stuart Mill:

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.

I fixed the parts where you incorrectly used a plural pronoun, since I was not aware that Leiter spoke for anyone but himself.

Katherine,
Who found the activity unethical? I think, although I might be wrong, nobody with any institutional authority. Berkley is not, so far as I know, competent to judge if a lawyer has behaved unethically. If Yoo had violated the standards of academic conduct while acting as an academic, then Berkley can act.

In other words, Yoo, I think, is guilty of misconduct but not misconduct on which Berkley can act.

So, for example (as documented here: Jon Wiener, Historians in Trouble: Plagiarism, Fraud, and Politics in the Ivory Tower (New Press, The, 2007)) Michael Bellesiles lost his job because he violated the rules of the historical profession while acting as a historian at Emory.

What’s annoying about this (as someone who bitterly hopes to one day have tenure) is that others who have violated academic standards have not lost their jobs precisely because there was no extra-academic hounds baying for their heads. Bellesiles crossed the NRA, in addition to breaking the rules.

)

It’s also a bad idea for employers to fire employees for private conduct that has nothing to do with job performance, whether it’s political or not: rooting for the wrong sports team, living with your boyfriend or girlfriend before marriage, getting divorced, etc. It’s just not really their business.

But, unethical conduct that would otherwise be a perfectly legitimate basis for firing or not hiring someone doesn’t magically become irrelevant or immune because it’s done while serving as a political appointee, or because a major political party supports it. (Arguing that having sex with a minor was religiously required would likewise not put that in the category of protected religious activities). So there’s another part of Henry’s argument that makes no sense whatsoever to me.

작은 가격을 지불할 – 치히로의 행방불명 무료 대화를 유지하는 undesirables 떨어져합니다.

Please leave blank posts when you delete banned commenters. Deleting the entire posts, as you seem to be doing, confusingly shifts the numbering of the remaining comments.

E.g. I assume Jim Johnson’s reference to “Engels @ 201”, above, means the comment now at 200. Having to guess what comment someone is replying to, makes the risk of talking past each other even greater than it already was.

(@ 201) What is insulting is the preemptive and then repeated charges in Katherine’s interventions that academics who disagree with Katherine are simply self-serving weenies… how many times do we have to be accused of circling the wagons an so forth. Note she is not alone, a number of others have agreed with her.

(@ 203) Yes, because Katherine has left those options off the table in order to argue for a strategy that is, at best, difficult to justify (I am trying to be charitable there) and almost certainly going to fail. Her strategy and the suspicions she entertains in order to push for it are a distraction if the point is to try to bring Yoo and others to some reckoning.

You mean sue for damages? Uh, yeah. We’ve tried. Many times. They keep getting thrown out. Arar v. Ashcroft, El-Masri v. Tenet, Jeppesen, the suit against Rumsfeld in D.C….There are a few left (including a recent one against Yoo), & they’re still being vigorously pursued (I can personally assure you), but I’m not optimistic at all. We’ve also tried convincing Congress to act, but (a) they don’t care much (b) the Bush administration flouts their subpoenas. Likewise for prosecution under a new administration—they should certainly try, but I don’t think they well. We’re not going to give up on any of this, but it’s not working very well. If you think people are talking about Yoo’s tenure as a first resort rather than out of a desperate wish that someone somewhere be held accountable, you’ve not been paying very close atttention.