Search News


Browse Archives

News

Appointment Roils a Law School

November 29, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

For the last several years, Robert Delahunty has quietly toiled away as an associate professor of law at the University of St. Thomas. But now controversy surrounding his background as an architect of the Bush administration's policy on torture of war prisoners is resurfacing -- not at St. Thomas, but five miles away at the University of Minnesota, which has sought to hire Delahunty to teach a class next semester.

“He’s prominent for all the wrong reasons,” said Jon Taylor, a first year law student at Minnesota who has been circulating a petition asking the law school's dean to reconsider the hire. “I don’t think this is what we’re paying for at a top 20 law program.” The law school has about 800 students, and Taylor said that he has gathered close to 70 signatures and expects to reach 100 by Friday.

The controversy stems from a memorandum drafted in 2002 by Delahunty and a Justice Department colleague, John Yoo, a conservative scholar and professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley’s Boalt Hall. Drafted shortly after 9/11, the memo concluded that the Geneva Convention did not cover al-Qaeda suspects captured in Afghanistan, and helped lay the foundation for the Bush administration’s handling of prisoners captured during the war on terror.

Contacted at his office, Delahunty said that he was trading calls with the dean of Minnesota’s law school and did not wish to discuss the issue.

Guy-Uriel Charles, the interim co-dean of Minnesota's law school, characterized the objections to Delahunty's hiring as "not that big of a deal," adding, "You've probably only got three students who are unhappy." He said that the law school would never make a decision to hire or fire based on ideology.

In an article that ran on Tuesday in The Minnesota Daily, the university's student newspaper, U. of Minn. law professor, Michael Paulsen said that the controversy was coming from a few extreme individuals, was based on a misunderstanding of the facts, and was a “gross violation of academic ethics and academic freedom.” Delahunty is one of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars, he told the paper. When contacted yesterday, he declined comment to Inside Higher Ed.

But Taylor disputed any attempt to make this issue an ideological battle. “We’re concerned about ethics,” he said.

“Delahunty has got absolutely nothing to do with academic freedom but all to do with legal ethics,” wrote nine U. Minn law professors in a sharply worded letter sent yesterday to the school’s deans. “Mr. Delahunty’s role in the Torture Memos was not academic and we object to hiring someone of his credentials rather than to anything that he may say in class should he be so hired....” The letter called on the school to reconsider hiring Delahunty and singled out Paulsen’s comments to The Minnesota Daily as “deplorable.”  

Shortly after Yoo and Delahunty wrote the memo in 2002, William Taft, legal adviser to the U.S. Department of State, wrote a rebuttal, calling the memo’s legal analysis “seriously flawed” and its conclusions “untenable”. When the memo was later leaked along with other internal documents, a long list of prominent law experts wrote a letter to President Bush stating, “The lawyers who approved and signed these memoranda have not met their high obligation to defend the Constitution.”

Ironically, if Delahunty does end up teaching the course next semester, one of the students attending his class would be Taylor. The class on constitutional law is required for all first year law students. “I’m sure if he is my professor, he will grant me respect," Taylor said. "And I will grant him respect in return."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Appointment Roils a Law School

  • Posted by Larry on November 29, 2006 at 6:35am EST
  • One thing that has disturbed me about these incidents is that people don’t realize that for everyone we know about involved in a torture memo of sorts, there are probably a couple of others. Many of them have the credentials to teach law school. (And, there are others who were involved in other unsavory business, such as unethical prosecutions of people, who might also seek employment.)

    What is disappointing about these appointments is that Yoo’s scholarship, for the most part, doesn’t seem to provide any really deep analysis into the views he supports in public. While lawyers for the administration can cite Yoo’s articles, everyone knows that they are doing so for political reasons. (Not that there is anything wrong with that.) Other lawyers cannot because, in my opinion, they are not deep enough to offer persuasive legal reasoning. Maybe Delahunty will be different. Based on Delahunt’s background I think he might propose an intricate system of jurisprudence (involving torture), but so far these guys have not be giants of the law. Unfortunately, most of his recent scholarship has been done with Mr. Yoo, anyway. (Also, web-CV lists a work with Mr. Yoo, twice.)

  • Advocating torture is not an academic freedom issue
  • Posted by JMG on November 29, 2006 at 10:10am EST
  • As Stanley Fish has eloquently explained, keeping someone like this from serving as a law professor in no way diminishes academic freedom.

    People would rightly object if a B school proposed hiring Enron's Jeff Skilling --

    Why are lawyers who advocate unconstitutional and criminal activities surprised if people object to their presence as professors?

  • Academic freedom + torture
  • Posted by Kenneth Graham , Professor at UCLA Law School on November 29, 2006 at 11:05am EST
  • Law schools constantly hire people who have advocated bad policies when they were in private practice; for example, lawyers at corporate law firms who try to make it easier for corporations to harm consumers. So one should not assume that the views advanced are necessarily the lawyers.
    And doesn't it make a difference whether the person is hired to teach international law---the subject of his bad opinion---or securities regulation?

  • academic freedom is probably the greater good
  • Posted by Larry on November 29, 2006 at 12:30pm EST
  • JMG, I am afraid I have to disagree with you on this. Unfortunately, because I know the reaction I am going to get, I have to preface this with a couple of comment: I think John Yoo and his compatriots has done a lot of damage to the country and he is a political hack. While he has cooked up all sorts of justifications for the current administration’s policies and desires he was a constant critic of the Clinton administration’s far-less invasive policies which brutally subjected our nation to eight years of peace and love.

    Now to get down to business. Making legal arguments is what lawyers do. Studying and making legal arguments is what law professors do. Part and parcel of academic freedom is the freedom of the school to choose whatever professors they want. (The ABA provides minimal standards here, which people don’t complain about, and the free market ensures that only people with pedigrees are in the running.) To argue that academic freedom does not extend to a lawyer that happened to make an argument for a position that you find unappealing is, on its face, as great an abridgement of academic freedom as it can get.

    But, JMG, let me introduce you to some reality here. Many talented lawyers do not spend their ways figuring out how it is legal to waterboard people. Most lawyers have some involvement in some cause or other that opposes the government. (This could be either religious-types that want to expand the right to home-school a kid, more traditional civil libertarians that want to reduce the ability of the government to inflict its will over people who might have committed a crime.) Unfortunately, very often those views are unpopular. Very unpopular. In fact, I think more people favor torturing Arabs then favor exclusion of illegally-obtained evidence from a trial. Indeed, I think most Americans don’t like jury trials for other people (though they will do whatever they can to get their kid out of trouble.) If you are going to start deciding that this guy’s background makes him unfit to be a law professor, you will open the door to a blanket ban on anyone that every represented a person accused of committing a crime ever teaching at any law school ever again! Strangely enough, there will probably be discrimination against the best lawyers that were able to convince courts of their positions, as they will forever be associated with some ruling that the loser was able to play off as “judicial activism.”

  • Posted by Marvin McConoughey on November 29, 2006 at 1:35pm EST
  • The objecting professors are well within their rights to object to the hiring of Robert Delahunty as a temporary law professor. I disagree with their letter of justification, in part, because it is weak and unpersuasive.

    The fact that others disagree with Delahunty's memo--cited in the protest letter--is unexceptional. Advice givers often encounter disagreement. Recall that every court case involves a winning legal adviser and a losing adviser. We expect legal advisers to disagree. In fact, we pay them to do so.

    The objectors charge that the Deans were "unaware of the grave institutional implications of hiring Delahunty." Well, so am I. What, good professors, are the "grave institutional implications? Do they include the possible faux pas of hiring someone who is not conventional and in the main stream of current thought?

    As it happens, I disagree with the legal advice that Delahunty provided to the administration. Neither my, nor others, differing views should bar the University of Minnesota from hiring the temporary law professor of their choice.

  • Hiring whomever they want
  • Posted by Amy Bergquist on November 29, 2006 at 8:26pm EST
  • The people responsible for hiring Professor Delahunty have admitted that they were unaware of his background when they made the hiring decision. See:

    http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/16118716.htm

    "But U officials apparently didn't realize that Delahunty also co-authored one of the most controversial legal opinions from the nation's war on terror . . . ."

  • In his class...
  • Posted by futurestudent , Student at U. of Minnesota on November 30, 2006 at 5:15am EST
  • I think the real losers in this are the students who are going to be in his class and who have deep ethical concerns about Delahunty. It's not that we won't be able to learn something from him, it's just that we won't be able to learn from someone we trust or admire.

  • law professors are there to scare
  • Posted by Larry on November 30, 2006 at 6:50am EST
  • Futurestudent, Trust me on this: you don’t need to trust or admire a law professor. You just need to impress them to get an A. Even if the professor, was say, a saint, all 1L students would be scared by him by about week 8.

    Moreover, there is no indication that he teaches 1L courses badly.

  • The Deans didn't know?
  • Posted by Ryan Dowhower on November 30, 2006 at 6:50am EST
  • Amy -

    You expect us to believe the Deans didn't know about Delahunty's background? (Your cite to the Pioneer Press is hardly persuasive) I'm sorry, but anybody who is even half-way aware of the "torture" controversy, knows who Professor Delahunty is. Besides, his hiring at St. Thomas was not uncontroversial. Your argument is as hollow as the one Dr. Miles made in the article you linked.

  • Deans didn't know...
  • Posted by Dan on November 30, 2006 at 7:45am EST
  • Ryan-
    The dean's swear they didn't know.(I'm at the law school) They said they didn't check online, and that no one said anything about the controversy. I don't think they would have hired him if they had known, and I don't think they will ever hire him again. If they did know, they must realize now that they used very poor judgement.

  • Lawyers have ethical duties > client wishes
  • Posted by JMG on November 30, 2006 at 9:10am EST
  • ++++++++++++++++++
    Larry:
    Making legal arguments is what lawyers do. Studying and making legal arguments is what law professors do. Part and parcel of academic freedom is the freedom of the school to choose whatever professors they want.
    =================
    Key phrase: "freedom of the school"

    So we agree that the government should not be able to tell a law school not to hire someone because of an abhorrent position.

    That has nothing to do with the issue here, which is the right of the faculty and board not to hire someone who advocates human rights violations rather than resigning their government job.

    As you say, it's not whether you agree with torture or not--it's whether the law school has a right to refuse to hire people who advocate crimes against humanity.
    ======================================
    Larry:

    To argue that academic freedom does not extend to a lawyer that happened to make an argument for a position that you find unappealing is, on its face, as great an abridgement of academic freedom as it can get.
    ==============================
    Wrong -- as Fish has explained, academic freedom is the freedom to pose or take up questions for academic inquiry. Refusing to let Atty General Torquemada Gonzales anywhere near law students abridges his academic freedom not one bit.
    =========================
    Larry:

    If you are going to start deciding that this guy’s background makes him unfit to be a law professor, you will open the door to a blanket ban on anyone that every represented a person accused of committing a crime ever teaching at any law school ever again!
    ===========================
    I didn't decide anything. I note that a substantial number of the faculty and students object to the hiring of someone who advocates torture as public policy. I hope they are successful in persuading their school to reject such candidacies in the future.

    As for civil libertarians and other subversives having to pay a price for advocating for "quaint" notions such as the Bill of Rights, that is overwhelmingly already the case today. Hack prosecutors become judges and professors with ease; people who defend the despised or who challenge corporate rule are often public pariahs.

    And the difference between defending the unpopular against the power of the state and advocating that the state use torture against the unpopular is not a fine line distinction.

    At the risk of seeing Godwin's law invoked, I think it is worth considering the conduct of lawyers and judges in places like 1930s Germany, 1980s Chile, etc. When your client is the state, your duty to your client is different than when your client some abhorrent character.

    People defending the unpopular are not making policy arguments to justify their conduct; people serving the state client cannot say the same. You CAN and indeed should ascribe the views that a lawyer advocates to the lawyer when s/he is an advocate for the government.

  • response to JMG
  • Posted by Larry on November 30, 2006 at 10:25am EST
  • JMG, I think we agree about most things. However, I should note that Prof. Fish, while definitely smart, is not a lawyer and doesn’t see either law school culture, academic freedom, or legal ethics the way lawyers do. (Again, I have to add the caveat that I think this guy is a hack and isn’t much of a legal scholar, anyway.)

    First of all, I agree with you that it is up to the school whether to hire this guy. However, my point was that anyone who thinks someone should be denied a professorship because of his past legal activity is arguing that schools should essentially engage in discrimination based on past clientele.

    Secondly, unlike Mr. Fish, the Supreme Court (at least in an oft-cited concurrence) defined academic freedom (as part of the First amendment) in Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957) that the the four essential freedoms” of a university – to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.’”

    Faculty – like you – that object to him on the grounds of the positions that he took or advocated are not saying that he is incompetent, unfortunately are in good company. You are just like the faculty and politicians who think that any lawyer that advocates for criminal defendants or accused terrorists has no place in the university, as they will corrupt the kids into antigovernment thought. Luckily, the regime created by the Supreme Court’s academic freedom dicta requires that, in order for universities to have their First Amendment rights taken seriously, they must make decisions on “academic” grounds, rather than policy grounds.

    The distinction between rejecting someone solely because he advocated torture, or rejecting someone solely because he represented defendants is, unfortunately, quite a fine line. Without some indication that their conduct was unethical, you are just making a political argument that some legal arguments SHOULD exclude people from faculties.

    Since nobody has successfully claimed that their work on behalf of the administration was unethical, it is difficult to claim that this guy did anything wrong. (Indeed, legal ethics are generally regulated by state bars, so there is little or no danger that the Bush administration would also decide whether his conduct was wrong.)

    However, you are wrong, as a factual matter that “hack” prosecutors become faculty members with ease. Why? Most line prosecutors (and all elected ones) don’t have the time or inclination to write enough to get on faculties. In general, the only faculty members that were former prosecutors were short-time AUSAs or saw the government as just a pitstop on the was to faculy-membership.

    I should probably note that MANY other people who advocated similar positions in the current administration now hold faculty positions. They were just not as colorful about it.

    Finally, to claim that a lawyer who works for the government automatically adopts their views is, simply wrong. Lawyers for the government must defend the government’s positions, without whatever parameters of legal ethics exist. It doesn’t matter whether he personally would go another way. Likewise, just because a judge disagrees with the law doesn’t mean he must resign or break the law. Instead, he can simply hold that the law is whatever binding precedent tells him it is. Strangely enough I hear the same arguments against people that represent criminal defendants: that they should resign if they disagree with the actions their client took – unless the client agrees to plead guilty. I don’t see the difference between your view of government attorneys and, unfortunately, the popular view of people that represent criminal defendants.

  • Yes
  • Posted by JMG on November 30, 2006 at 12:40pm EST
  • You wrote:

    The distinction between rejecting someone solely because he advocated torture, or rejecting someone solely because he represented defendants is, unfortunately, quite a fine line. Without some indication that their conduct was unethical, you are just making a political argument that some legal arguments SHOULD exclude people from faculties.
    =============
    Yes, I think it unethical per se to advise a government busily engaged in rounding up people that torture of prisoners is acceptable.

    Further, the memo identifies Delahunty as "special counsel"---presumably then, not an employee but rather someone who is free to take his name off the memo if he doesn't agree with it.

  • legal ethics
  • Posted by Larry on November 30, 2006 at 3:35pm EST
  • JMG, As a matter of legal ethics, you are simply wrong. (Legal ethics, a.k.a “professional responsibility” are somewhat different than the “ethics” that philosophy-types talk about.) There is nothing wrong with providing legal analysis of the question of whether people should be tortured. It is wrong as a substantive matter. Moreover, although various canons of ethics apply to prosecutors (including ones that direct them to deal with defendants via counsel and assist defendants in obtaining counsel), there is nothing unethical in any state with analyzing the question of whether such canons do not apply to interactions with a whole class of people. E.g. ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(b)

    (Though some have suggested initiating state disciplinary proceedings against these folks, none succeeded.)

    Moreover, his position in the OLC, while definitely the product of years of networking, and a job he accepted willingly, was not the same as a contracted or seconded “Special US Attorney.” He was a full time employee at OLC and of the DOJ. Whether he could or should have taken his name of the memo is really irrelevant. However, much I suspect that he personally believes in these issues, he was still acting as an attorney for the government.

  • delahunty et al.
  • Posted by michael livingston on November 30, 2006 at 3:35pm EST
  • If this isn't an academic freedom issue, then what is?

  • Posted by SB on November 30, 2006 at 8:30pm EST
  • hiring decisions are not academic freedom issues. It is not correct to frame the hiring of faculty as an issue of "academic freedom". Academic freedom is related to professors in the classroom, not the period before they get there. Further, I believe it is absolutely justified for a legal institution like the University of Minnesota to proclaim that they value human rights and that torture is a fundamentally at odds with this value. Thus to hire a faculty member who has advocated a position-that many have said is legally questionable-that facilitates torture would go against the values of most students and faculty at the school. There is much talk at the school that Delahunty is being singled out because he is conservative--I personally do not think either the political right or left holds torture as a treasured value.

  • Deans didn't know?
  • Posted by Ryan Dowhower on November 30, 2006 at 8:35pm EST
  • Dan -

    You've got to be kidding me. Charles teaches Con Law, and Morrison is an expert in International Law. You expect me to believe they didn't know about Delahunty? As a classmate said to me, "The torture memos were frontpage news on the New York Times for over a month, and we all know the Law School professors get the New York Times." Or could it be, as a professor suggested to me, that now that the Deans have seen the reaction, they regret their decision. What's the petition up to, 75 out of over 800? Who's exercising poor judgment here?

  • Posted by Sarah on November 30, 2006 at 8:35pm EST
  • Please read this take on the issue:

    http://legalethicsforum.typepad.com/blog/

  • reply to SB and Sara
  • Posted by Larry on December 1, 2006 at 7:30am EST
  • Again, before I begin this post, I have to say I think this guy has no place in academe. But, nevertheless, I need to address some points.

    SB, I appreciate your interesting views on this issue. While you may posit that hiring decisions are not academic freedom issues, the Supreme Court has indicated otherwise in Sweezy v. N.H, 354 U.S. 234, 267 (1957), which I posted above. Here is a link to a copy of the case: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=354&invol=234

    The language “". . . It is the business of a university to provide that atmosphere which is most conducive to speculation, experiment and creation. It is an atmosphere in which there prevail `the four essential freedoms' of a university - to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study." Is probably the most frequently cited language by the Supreme Court and lower courts when dealing with academic freedom issues.

    It may be, that, in fact, you are correct. However, for people that actually need to deal with academic freedom issues, deciding universities have been able to invoke Sweezy, when faced with incursions into their hiring decisions.

    Sarah, The full link of the post you cite is here: http://legalethicsforum.typepad.com/blog/2006/11/opposing_doj_la.html . The post is searching and careful, but ultimately it may be flawed. He traces the legal-ethical debate to MRPR 2.1 and 1.1. Rule 2.1 does not impose any resections on what sort of advice a lawyer can render when working as an adviser, in fact it allows them to consider just about ANY factor (including “moral” and “political.”) Rule 1.1 requires competence. There is no indication that the administration (as his client) ever was represented incompetently. Indeed, Congress has not specifically rejected his initial ideas, and any anti-torture legislation subsequent to the memo, has specifically exempted people from punishment for following that memo. Moreover, no court has ever said that these memos were incorrect, or did not provide anyone with qualified immunity. Finally, for better or worse, no lawyer, to my knowledge for the DOJ, has EVER been disciplined by a state under 1.1 for screwing up their job.

  • They had to know ...
  • Posted by tjb on December 4, 2006 at 4:40pm EST
  • While International Human Rights is not necessarily either Morrison or Charles's chosen area of specialty, they both had to know who this guy was. Also, I've taken both mandatory classes and electives from both professors and respect them, but it’s fair to note that both are more than adept at law school and university politics.

    Honestly, I doubt I agree with Delahunty on much, but I'm fine with him teaching one course at U of Minnesota. I read the memo in two classes at there (aren't there a couple memos?? Maybe only one by Delahunty/Yoo); in Michael Paulsen's class (can't remember the name -- Constitution at War or something) and either Weissbrodt's Human Rights or Oren Gross's Use of Force. It's an overly aggressive, one-sided memo that pushes the law further than I've attempted in a brief. It's poor public service. But still, is it so bad it's legally unethical? I'm not up on the ethical obligations of Justice Department lawyers.

    Incidentally, from where I'm standing, it was clearly unethical in a broader sense, but since when do we hold lawyers out to be ethical as most people understand the word? I'm being facetious, but seriously, if Bush or Gonzales or Ashcroft or whoever said "give me support for arguing that persons captured in Afghanistan aren't covered by Geneva Conventions," the memo is in bounds. There is an argument, though I (and many lawyers much smarter than I) think it’s wrong.

  • legal ethics and morals
  • Posted by Larry on December 5, 2006 at 11:32am EST
  • TJB, First of all, I agree with your underlying premise.

    I should note that although DOJ lawyers do have their own internal disciplinary structure, they are still subject to discipline by state bars. This guy has not been, despite ample opportunity to do so.

    You touch about two issue that are much bigger than this hiring issue:
    1) The gap between “classical” ethics and “legal ethics.” Most people, including myself, see them as different issues, and prefer to call “legal ethics” professional “responsibility.” Scholars have not made much of an effort to link the two.

    2) The line between substantive law and legal ethics. Some people think that they can effectuate a certain result by their clients by invoking a “rule” of legal ethics against their opponent. This is a little crazy. People seem to think that the a change in substantive law can be backdoored via professional responsibility.

    3) Arguing that a certain body of law doesn’t apply is a valid legal argument. In fact, these “threshold” questions come up in many legal disputes. Some scholars argue that SOME body of law ALWAYS applies, legal decisions are really about the “choice” of law. I probably would feel differently if this guy was practicing before a court where a detainee’s case was pending and participated in some scheme to deprive the detainee of a lawyer. But this isn’t the case here.