Defending torture

Imagine this scenario: It’s discovered that a professor at the IU law school, in her capacity as a former employee of the U.S. Justice Department, once wrote an official memo endorsing torture. Using complex legal jargon, she dismissed international treaties and constitutional provisions, thereby justifying cruel and unusual punishments. How comfortable would you feel knowing that this individual was a member of the IU community, imparting her “wisdom” to law students? \nRecently, administrators at the University of California, Berkeley law school found themselves in this situation. John Yoo, a professor of law, wrote a secret Justice Department memo in 2003 authorizing the military’s use of torture. The contents of this memo were released last week thanks to a request filed by the American Civil Liberties Union under the Freedom of Information Act. In the memo, Yoo declares that inflicting pain would not be considered torture unless it caused “death, organ failure or permanent damage.” \nNot surprisingly, these odious revelations have led to stronger calls for his termination and prosecution for war crimes, both of which are minor punishments for the pain this man has inflicted. However, in a statement released last week, Christopher Edley Jr., dean of the Berkeley School of Law, defended Yoo, claiming he enjoyed “not only security of employment and academic freedom, but also First Amendment and due process rights.” \nSuch is the state of academia today. Professors often shield themselves from necessary scrutiny by invoking First Amendment rights, thereby escaping accountability \nfor their work. This is simply \nunacceptable. \nIn the case of Yoo, his legal opinions were formulated with the explicit purpose of devaluing and degrading human life. He perverted the Constitution and international treaties in order to provide a twisted interpretation of presidential power. For instance, in a 2005 debate with Notre Dame professor Doug Cassel, Yoo claimed that no law or treaty existed which prevented “crushing the testicles of a person’s child.” Is this what supporting academic freedom entails? \nSadly, Yoo is not the only legal scholar to escape scrutiny for his inexcusable work. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, Alan Dershowitz, a pro-Israeli law professor at Harvard, has consistently produced writings that justify the torture of Muslim terrorists. Yet he is considered a serious member of our political discourse, regularly making television appearances. There is a noticeable double standard here – while Yoo and Dershowitz continue to be employed by educational institutions, left-wing professors such as former University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill and former New York University professor Norman Finkelstein were fired for ... well, I’m not really sure why. \nLet me state that I don’t take issue with an off-handed remark or a crude comment, but with a body of work that continually perverts the law. As the case of Yoo demonstrates, legal theory and academic research, in general, have genuine implications for our society. \nSerious research is not produced in a vacuum and often the consequences of pursuing such work are not limited to the Ivory Tower. It is our responsibility, then, to ensure that academic work conforms to community values and of course, the law.