Russell L. Weaver

In a recent commentary, one of my colleagues attempted to portray the law school’s decision to embrace “social justice” and “compassion” as benign, and having nothing to do with a “liberal agenda.” He viewed these concepts as essential in a modern society.

I agree with the idea that compassion is a worthwhile and understandable objective. Indeed, it is an essential part of life. If the movement toward a “compassionate organization” were nothing more than that, who could object? However, to suggest that the law school has not adopted a partisan social agenda, and that it has not labeled non-liberals “outsiders,” is (at the very least) wrong and misleading.

MORE ON UofL LAW SCHOOL DEBATE

There is ample evidence that the law school has veered to a partisan agenda. In a prior commentary, I discussed the diversity training conducted by the law school in collaboration with the Vice President for Diversity. At those events, faculty, staff and students were instructed to identify their religious beliefs, sexual orientation and disabilities, and attendees were ordered to clap enthusiastically (it was made quite clear that silence or even polite clapping was simply not acceptable).

Even more troubling, Professor Milligan is absolutely correct about the fact that a leftist agenda affects the classroom environment at the Brandeis School of Law. Deeply troubled by the liberal branding of the law school, and the adoption of the “social justice” mandate, a colleague had the temerity to make the following statement to his students on the final day of class last semester:

“Don't let people here—students or faculty—pressure you to compromise your political, legal, social, or religious views. Many of our graduates look back and regret having been sheepish in expressing and developing their political views when they were at this law school. Conservative views have an equal place alongside liberal views at the Brandeis School of Law. I don't care what the Dean says. I don't care what your Con Law professors say. And on this point, neither should you. This is your education—not the Dean's, not the faculty's. Develop your political and legal views freely while you're here. Take care. Good luck on the exam.”

What extraordinary ideas! Students should be encouraged to think for themselves. Not everyone need blindly adhere to the faculty’s (or the dean’s) liberal values.

Given the current repressive climate at the law school, perhaps the colleague should have anticipated a negative reaction to his statement. However, I doubt that he could have remotely imagined what actually happened. When the interim dean found out about the statement, she did not adopt a strong pro-free speech stance, or emphasize the importance of free speech and the exploration of ideas in a university environment. Nor did she, as one might also have expected, speak to the faculty member in order to ascertain the facts.

Heaven forbid that she follow Justice Brandeis’ admonition that “knowledge is essential to understanding and understanding should precede judging!” Instead, that very day, she marched over to complaint with university officials regarding the statement, and she then sent the faculty member an e-mail ordering him to schedule an appointment with the officials.

Commentary | UofL law school is no longer neutral

Justice Brandeis once stated that in “frank expression of conflicting opinion lies the greatest promise of wisdom in governmental action; and in suppression lies ordinarily the greatest peril.” Not for the interim dean, who obviously thinks that it is appropriate to file charges against a colleague merely for telling students to think for themselves, and for telling students that they are not required to adhere to her liberal ideology and social agenda! However, in a mindless vacuum, where administrators think that they can order faculty, staff and students to enthusiastically clap in robotic fashion in diversity sessions, and faculty believe that they can treat taxpayer-funded institutions as vehicles for promoting their own personal social agendas, perhaps the interim dean’s actions should not have come as a surprise.

Professor Marcosson emphasizes that Brandeis’ name is attached to the law school. If Brandeis were alive today, one can only imagine how appalled and embarrassed he would be regarding his namesake institution. Rather than treating the Brandeis legacy as some caricature, that can be twisted to suit one’s social agenda, the law school’s honoring of Brandeis should reflect the depth of his values, principles and vision.

Brandeis is known for far more than his views on social justice. In point of fact, he is best known for his views on privacy (which the interim dean ignored during diversity training), and is famous for his remarks on freedom of speech and tolerance for dissenting views.

During World War I, when the U.S. government criminally prosecuted those who dissented from U.S. involvement in the war, he argued strenuously for the need to protect freedom of expression. For example, in a concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, he stated that “the constitutional right of free expression is...designed and intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us, in the hope that use of such freedom will ultimately produce a more capable citizenry and more perfect polity and in the belief that no other approach would comport with the premise of individual dignity and choice upon which our political system rests.”

Many things have veered badly off course at U of L, particularly at the law school named for the legendary Justice Louis D. Brandeis. It is time for change.

Russell L. Weaver is a Professor of Law and Distinguished University Scholarat the Louis D. Brandeis School of Law at the University of Louisville.