Exchanging Ideas: Professor Delahunty Edition

On 11-18-05 I posted a piece about Professor John Yoo’s presentation to my War & National Security Law class. For those who don’t remember, Yoo was one of the lawyers in the Justice Department who developed the administration’s controversial legal position that the Geneva Convention did/does not apply to Al Qaeda or Taliban prisoners. Yoo also penned the infamous “Torture Memo.”

But while Professor Yoo has gained some infamay and name recognition, his intellectual ally and frequent co-author Robert Delahunty has been able to fly under the radar… until now. The Univeristy of Minnesota Law School has hired Delhaunty to teach Constitutional Law next semester. Professor Delahunty is currently teaching Torts, Constitutional Law, and Public International Law at the University of St. Thomas Law School. Before that he was an attorney in the Office of Legal Council. He, like Yoo, took the position that the Geneva Convention did not apply to “enemy combatants.”

This isn’t a permanent hire, mind you. The professor who normally teaches Con Law at the U of MN is taking a leave of absence. It is my understanding that law schools in the area will “lend” their professors to fill a need at another area law school. Basically, the University of St. Thomas is “doing the U of MN a solid” by filling a need.

But some at Mondale Hall don’t see it that way. Nine U of MN law school profs have signed a letter asking the Co-interm deans to reconsider the decision to have Delahunty teach Con Law for a semester. Not surprizingly, the Delahunty “hire” has split the faculty down the middle along political ideologies. Those opposing Delahunty couch their argument in a debate about “legal ethics.” They claim that Delahunty’s positions were so far from what they believe the law is, that it demonstrats poor and/or unethical professional judgment. And therefore, Delahunty shouldn’t be allowed to teach at the U of MN.

While I do not endorse Delahunty’s position on Geneva Convention applicability, I do not oppose his right to teach Con Law. Conservaties and Liberals are both frequently guilty of employing ideologicial double standards based on context, this is just another example. A true liberal would understand that this kind of ideological warfare should occur in classrooms, not at the front door of a institution of higher learning. Here some left-left leaning professors are looking to censor a distasteful opinion, when true liberals loath censorships in any form.

During my three years at the U of MN I had law professors on each side of the political spectrum. I know I’m better for it. It was always fairly clear when professors were streaching the limits of a legal argument, and I took whatever they were saying with a grain of salt. If law has a fault, its that there are very few absolutes. Therefore, legal education will be full of debateable propositions. It is the nature of the beast.

But law students are not lemmings, hanging on every word their professors spout. If Delahunty’s opposition is successful, and they keep him out of the U of MN, they are ultimately doing a disservice to the students. Sheilding students from some points of view is paternalistic and cuts against academic idealism.

Was Delahunty an adminstration lap-dog? Yes. Was Delahunty’s legal position morally ambiguous? Absolutely. Should Delahunty be allowed to teach Constitutional Law at the Unviersity of Minnesota? Definitely. Last time I checked, this isn’t Russia.

Here is the Minnesota Daily article about the controversy: New Hire Controversial