Why is John Yoo Still on the Faculty?
Last spring there were numerous protests against John Yoo holding on to his faculty position at Berkeley law. The dean, who otherwise seems to be a pretty good guy, staunchly defended keeping Yoo on.
According to Dean Edley's statement at the time, short of a conviction for criminal behavior, Yoo could not be dismissed from the faculty. But the dean added a personal note suggesting Yoo is not really responsible for violating constitutional rights because the politicians made him do it:
"As critical as I am of his analyses, no argument about what he did or didn't facilitate, or about his special obligations as an attorney, makes his conduct morally equivalent to that of his nominal clients, Secretary Rumsfeld, et al., or comparable to the conduct of interrogators distant in time, rank and place. Yes, it does matter that Yoo was an adviser, but President Bush and his national security appointees were the deciders." http://www.law.berkeley.edu/news/2008/edley041008.html
This conclusion of the dean's strikes me as a distinction without a difference. Since Yoo's job was to advise the White House on what is legal and what is not, advising them that they are legally allowed to torture prisoners (or use the military to break into American homes) is tantamount to approving and supporting those behaviors.
In addition, while I am not a lawyer, my understanding is that it is considered a breach of legal ethics to advise a client to do something illegal. And even if the dean of Berkeley Law was not concerned with legal ethics, doesn't Yoo's faulty legal reasoning (there's pretty much a consensus on this) mean that he is not qualified to be teaching?
With the recent release of horrifying memos, there is even more evidence of Yoo's involvement in pleasing his master by being willing to go to any lengths to justify violations of our Constitutional rights. I can't imagine how any decent law school can justify keeping Yoo on their faculty.
Maybe according to the University by-laws he can't be dismissed unless convicted of a crime (something that might be coming). But everyone knows that there are ways and ways of getting rid of someone. The other faculty and the dean could make his professional life there a living hell (though one far less hell-like than that of our prisoners in Guantanamo and other places).
I just want to end on this note -- a particularly ironic excerpt from John Yoo's faculty profile:
"From 2001 to 2003, he served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he worked on issues involving foreign affairs, national security and the separation of powers."
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/php-programs/faculty/facultyProfile.php?facID=235
Cross-posted at Daily Kos.
Hi tamarat. You should give your blog a title so it is more easily accessable from the cafe.
March 4, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good question. Yoo need not be found guilty in a court. The majority of state bar associations have rules of professional conduct that specifically forbid attorneys giving advice to clients that they know violate the law. Thus the bar association(s) of the state(s) where he is licensed should in the face of the recently revealed be organizing hearings. I can not imagine that providing specious legal justification for acts that have resulted in death would not result in his being disbarred. Of course, he could be tried in criminal proceedings under any number of statutes, both in the US and for complicity in war crimes abroad. But, sadly might makes right and he will at most be publicly criticized by the current administration, but then again sociopaths really care little for anything.
March 4, 2009 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
For one, an ABA-accredited law school is required to follow particular rules concerning faculty. Were Yoo disbarred, he could not teach at such a law school.
For another, Edley is avoiding the issue. If Yoo were accused of sexual harassment on campus, he'd be investigated in-house. If he were arrested for robbing a bank off-campus, he would be investigated at the university in-house.
Nothing but avoiding the issue is preventing the university from investigating Yoo's involvement with and production of overtly fraudulent legal "advice". The excuse has been "academic freedom"; and that he was on leave from the university when he wrote the momes. Right: it's okay to hire as a professor, to teach constitutional law, who is accused of committing crimes, and beyond that pretend there is no reason to investigate him and his actions.
"Academic freedom" doesn't apply to what he did as a non-academic. Nor does it protect advising how to violate the law.
March 5, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink