Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review May 1, 2003 / 29 Nissan, 5763

Jonathan Turley

JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

CUNY Law gives grads a cynical parting gift | Last week, the law school of the City University of New York decided to give its graduating seniors a final lesson to take with them into practice: It is better to be popular than principled in your professional lives. This lesson was drilled home when the school revoked a graduation award because the students selected someone who might displease some of the school's financial backers.

The controversy began when more than half of the graduating class picked Lynne F. Stewart as their choice for Public Interest Lawyer of the Year. Stewart is a lawyer who gained fame in representing some of New York's most hated criminal defendants. Stewart is also currently under criminal indictment by the Justice Department for allegedly facilitating communications between one such client, Omar Abdel Rahman, and his terrorist-linked followers. Rahman is a blind and rabid cleric, who is serving a life sentence for a terrorist conspiracy.

Stewart has pleaded not guilty and many lawyers have denounced the charges as retaliation by the Justice Department against a woman who has been a thorn in its side for years. More importantly, the case deals with unresolved issues of an attorney's role as an advocate and her First Amendment rights of free speech. A motion to dismiss all charges against Stewart is pending.

Apparently, it was not the merits of the still unproven allegations that motivated the school's action, but rather the fear of a backlash from politicians who control part of the school's revenues. Dean Kristin Booth Glen explained that, because of Stewart's controversial status, "we will not be able to escape the consequences that come from sources unwilling to listen or who might seize this opportunity to malign the law school, its graduates or its mission."

Glen and others were reportedly afraid that the school's funding could be adversely affected, particularly at a time when CUNY is being criticized for the low passage rate of its graduates on the bar. (Of course, the low passage rate may be due to the way the school teaches subjects like the presumption of innocence.)

Ultimately, the principle here is not about Rahman or even Stewart. It is about the duty of the school to defend the choice of its students and to resist pressures to censor their exercise of free speech. As happens in many legal controversies, the law school was asked to support not the choice but the process itself. The ethical relativism shown by the school is the historical scourge of the law, the notion that one should support principle only at a manageable cost. But we shouldn't abandon positions merely because there are people who are "unwilling to listen." To the contrary, we teach that it is the unpopular decisions that are often the very test of principle.

Of course, none of this means that Stewart is innocent of the charges or that she is the most worthy recipient of the award. Frankly, Stewart would not have been my choice. Throughout her career, Stewart has dangerously blurred the roles of lawyer and advocate. At a minimum, Stewart seems guilty of terrible judgment and a lack of professional objectivity. This case, however, raised fundamental questions of advocacy that could rage unresolved for years - issues that made her a natural choice for students who want to challenge a growing sense of forced conformity in society today.

The students selected an unpopular defense attorney for a reason. They clearly wanted to send a message about the importance of dissenting voices in a legal system at a time of national unrest. Their law school responded by sending precisely the opposite message of ethical relativism and self-censorship.

Now that the law school has acted, the next decision rests with the students and their graduation speaker, Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. A graduation ceremony is about symbolism, and the school is now asking students to begin their legal careers with an act of ethical acquiescence. They and Henderson should decline such an invitation. There would be no greater answer to the lack of principle shown by the law school than the scene of a faculty facing a sea of empty chairs on May 23.

This is not an easy choice for students who have worked long and sacrificed much to attend graduation. But regardless of how one feels about Stewart, the association of these graduates with the law will only be strengthened by their disassociation with this saddest of ceremonies.

Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

JWR contributor Jonathan Turley is a professor at the George Washington University Law School. . Comment by clicking here.

04/22/03: Congress Must Send Spammers a Message
04/16/03: End Apartheid in the State Prisons
04/07/03: NBC's sacking of Peter Arnett over a critical analysis plays well in Baghdad
03/07/03: Rights on the Rack: Alleged torture in terror war imperils U.S. standards of humanity
02/25/03: How democracy could clear our snowy streets
02/11/03: Sanity and Justice Slipping Away
01/28/03: Quit horsing around, senator
01/14/03: Public Payroll: a Family Affair; Nepotism in Washington poses a threat to institutional integrity
01/09/03: DARPA and democracy
12/24/02: The 13th juror
12/19/02: Back to the admissions morass
12/10/02: Pro-Choice at Expense of Free Speech; NOW case against abortion protester may backfire
12/02/02: A cruel bait and switch for vets
11/15/02: Junk justice
11/07/02: OUR second-class soldiers
10/30/02: 'Quirin' revisited: The dark history of a military tribunal
10/22/02: Un-American Arrests: Mass detainments of the innocent may be the ultimate form of crowd control, but the tactic is unconstitutional
10/16/02: Reverse pawn shops? Broke state officials across the country have been looking for businesses to buy their assets at a fraction of their worth to pay for budget shortfalls
10/08/02: A legal tattoo hullabaloo
10/02/02: Gagged justice sets dangerous precedent
09/25/02: The Great Salmon Rose Caper
09/17/02: Reparations: A Scam Cloaked in Racial Pain
09/12/02: This country's hidden strength
09/04/02: 1st Amendment protects even the ugliest among us
08/28/02: A secret court goes public
08/20/02: I defended Ashcroft during his nomination; he's become a constitutional menace
08/07/02: San Francisco embracing states-rights
07/31/02: Who needs Jenny Craig when you can have Johnnie Cochran?
07/22/02: The meaning of justice and the madness of Zacarias Moussauoi
07/16/02: The President vs. the Presidency
07/08/02: How one woman's whims dictates the rights of millions
07/02/02: Just say 'no' to extracurricular activities
06/24/02: Missing Ted Bundy
06/10/02: A comedy of eros06/14/02: 05/31/02: Beyond the 'reformed FBI' hype
05/23/02: Do we really need a Federal Marriage Amendment?
05/19/02: No "battlefield detainee" should leave home without a U.S. birth certificate
05/10/02: The perfect constitutional storm
04/26/02: 'Slave of Allah' wounds justice
04/12/02: The importance of being nameless
04/05/02: The adjusted value of justice
03/18/02: How Clinton got off: A law professor's take
03/11/02: Profiling and the terrorist lottery
03/05/02: Yes, Sharpton, there was a failure of justice
02/28/02: The Lay of the land
02/14/02: Living in constitutional denial
02/05/02: Legal Lesson for Afghanistan: War's Not a Slip-and-Fall Case
01/25/02: Sever "Jihad Johnny"'s ties to his homeland
01/21/02: "Out of sight, out of mind," but they're still prisoners
01/14/02: Your papers, please!
01/07/02: Prescription for disaster
12/18/01: Madison and the Mujahedeen
12/07/01: In the U.S., espionage crime is easy to understand but difficult to prove
11/19/01: What type of 'creature' would defend bin Laden?
11/19/01: Could bin Laden be acquitted in a trial?
10/28/01: The ultimate sign of the different times in which we are living
10/25/01: Al-Qaida produces killers, not thinkers
09/28/01: The Boxer rebellion and the war against terrorism
08/31/01: Bring back the silent Condit
08/27/01: Working out the body politic

© 2002, Jonathan Turley