Why John Yoo should be fired
Because he's a criminal. One who will likely never face criminal proceedings. But a criminal nonetheless.
By now I've seen and heard a few arguments--all similar--that though Yoo might well be a criminal (and that, in fact, he should be tried for war crimes), he should remain a tenured professor until such time (never) as he gets frog-marched off to prison. The thrust is always this: decent people (but particularly liberals) can't possibly consider Yoo's work writing ex post facto justifications for torture in a Republican Justice Department with any objectivity. It's too politically fraught. And the idea that he should be fired is no doubt be colored by those politics, no matter how soberly reasoned the arguments.
The implication, then, is that Yoo is just one or two ticks closer to "reprehensible" on the continuous egregious-academics scale than is, say, Madeline Albright (of Iraq sanctions fame) or Viet Dinh (of PATRIOT Act fame) or Ward Churchil (of Little Eichmann fame)--and that if UC Berkeley were to target Yoo because of his work at DOJ, they'd be setting a precedent that could be easily salami-sliced back to any professor taking any politically unpopular position of any kind.
But there are, I think, categorical difference between Yoo and just about every other controversial academic in this country. On the one hand there's the legal issue--admittedly a difficult one to settle. Yoo looks more and more like a criminal every day, even though he'll almost certainly never really be a criminal, because he'll almost certainly never be tried criminally for his work at DOJ. But the evidence is there: Unlike Albright (who enforced an internationally-recognized sanctions regime) or Dinh (who crafted a bill that was enacted by the American legislative system) or Churchill (who said some very mean things about dead people), Yoo, it seems, was a link in the chain between the idea that enemy combatants should be illegally tortured, and the illegal torturing of enemy combatants. His work was so dubious that the president classified it, to keep it secret, and then ditched it to prevent it from being torn to shreds before the courts. Imagine if Madeline Albright had spent her nights writing legal justifications for the embezzlement of oil-for-food money because she knew that Bill Clinton was padding his personal accounts with U.N. funds... and then imagine anybody arguing that she should be a professor of anything anywhere. And then imagine the Boalt Hall faculty finding, through a process--analogous perhaps to a civil trial--that John Yoo is in fact liable for the publicly disclosed torture tactics at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and stripping him of his tenure as a consequence.
Then on the other hand, there's the less satisfying--though perhaps more germane--professionalism question: Yoo is a lawyer teaching future lawyers how to practice law. This, of course, is despite the fact that his own views on the practice of law--now widely known--are deeply at odds with the discipline's accepted academic and ethical norms. One doesn't find many physicians guilty of extreme malpractice teaching at the nation's finest medical schools. One doesn't find many creationists teaching creationism in their roles as tenured biology professors. And this is no different. He abandoned the norms of his trade, so why shouldn't his trade abandon him?
And, yet, despite all this, it's pretty clear that he won't be losing his job any time soon.
Comments
Wow! And he's a tenured law professor at your alma mater! Go figure! Yes, you're correct. He won't be losing his job anytime soon. Yoo is a member of the California Teacher's Association (CTA), one of California's most powerful unions, so the discussion of his termination is not likely to take place. But! I too am a member of CTA and I found my employee handbook just now in my desk. Check this out:
The California Education Code provides for dismissal of a tenured teacher:
44932. (a) No permanent employee shall be dismissed except for one
or more of the following causes:
(1) Immoral or unprofessional conduct.
(2) Commission, aiding, or advocating the commission of acts of
criminal syndicalism, as prohibited by Chapter 188 of the Statutes of
1919, or in any amendment thereof.
(3) Dishonesty.
(4) Unsatisfactory performance.
(5) Evident unfitness for service.
(6) Physical or mental condition unfitting him or her to instruct
or associate with children.
(7) Persistent violation of or refusal to obey the school laws of
the state or reasonable regulations prescribed for the government of
the public schools by the State Board of Education or by the
governing board of the school district employing him or her.
(8) Conviction of a felony or of any crime involving moral
turpitude.
(9) Violation of Section 51530 or conduct specified in Section
1028 of the Government Code, added by Chapter 1418 of the Statutes of
1947.
(10) Knowing membership by the employee in the Communist Party.
(11) Alcoholism or other drug abuse which makes the employee unfit
to instruct or associate with children.
(b) The governing board of a school district may suspend without
pay for a specific period of time on grounds of unprofessional
conduct a permanent certificated employee or, in a school district
with an average daily attendance of less than 250 pupils, a
probationary employee, pursuant to the procedures specified in
Sections 44933, 44934, 44935, 44936, 44937, 44943, and 44944. This
authorization shall not apply to any school district which has
adopted a collective bargaining agreement pursuant to subdivision (b)
of Section 3543.2 of the Government Code.
However, carrying out a dismissal is difficult to do in California. The University Board of Regents is both famously conservative and incredibly slow to initiate change. The current Chair is Richard Blum, husband of California Senator Dianne Feinstein, not exactly well known for stirring up political catfights. The CTA may be another obstacle, especially if called upon to defend John Yoo's tenured status. In 2006, California rejected Gov Schwarzenegger's attempt to change tenure by voting down Prop 74, a proposition which the CTA spent millions in opposition. And yes, I voted that shit down!
In the end, a strong letter writing campaign may be the best way to influence public opinion and compel a change in Yoo's tenure. This blog doesn't hurt either!
Brian, while I certainly agree with you that Yoo should be removed, you're comparison with Ward Churhcill is a little off. Although much of the firestorm around him and his subsequent firing was due to his comments, he was actually removed from CU because of his many instances of plagiarism, which, rightly or wrongly, academics consider to be the most serious offense.
I disagree with Matt, Brian! I think it is absolutely reasonable to compare the two. Although Churchill never influenced foreign policy like Albright or Yoo did, his work was never the less, on an "egregious-academics scale," reprehensible.
John Yoo didn't "just" show show up at at this critical position in the justice department. He was hand picked beforehand for cover/excuse by the Whitehouse Neo-Con's.
Post A Comment