Suffolk University Law Professor Triggers Firestorm With Criticism of Care Packages To U.S. Troops

Michael Avery, a professor at Suffolk University Law School, has found himself at the center of a raging storm after he sent the four-paragraph email below to colleagues complaining about the “shameful” program at the school to send care packages to U.S. troops abroad. Avery, a constitutional law professor, objected to send such packages to people “who have gone overseas to kill other human beings.” As you might imagine, the response has superheated with even Senator Scott Brown (R., Mass.) attacking the professor.

Avery received the solicitation to contribute to the packages and objected to his colleagues:

I think it is shameful that it is perceived as legitimate to solicit in an academic institution for support for men and women who have gone overseas to kill other human beings. I understand that there is a residual sympathy for service members, perhaps engendered by support for troops in World War II, or perhaps from when there was a draft and people with few resources to resist were involuntarily sent to battle. That sympathy is not particularly rational in today’s world, however.

The World War II connection seems a bit a willful blindness. I have been a long and intense critic of both wars. I opposed our entry into Iraq and opposed anything by a brief operation in Afghanistan tied to capturing Bin Laden. From the outset I objected to the large scale deployments absent of declaration of war. However, I have great sympathy for our military personnel serving in these countries. They are carrying out their duties. As I have mentioned before, I have been filled with a mix of rage at that President and Congress in seeing our wounded in airports, but this emotion is mixed with deep respect and sympathy for those young soldiers. It is not due to World War II or the social inequities in the historical use of the draft.

Avery also criticizes the presence of a large American flag in the lobby of the school:

We need to be more mindful of what message we are sending as a school. Since Sept. 11 we have had perhaps the largest flag in New England hanging in our atrium. This is not a politically neutral act. Excessive patriotic zeal is a hallmark of national security states. It permits, indeed encourages, excesses in the name of national security, as we saw during the Bush administration, and which continue during the Obama administration.

Why do we continue to have this oversized flag in our lobby? Why are we sending support to the military instead of Americans who are losing their homes, malnourished, unable to get necessary medical care, and suffering from other consequences of poverty? As a university community, we should debate these questions, not remain on automatic pilot in support of the war agenda.

Once again, while I agree with Avery over the waste of money and lives in these wars, the focus of his criticism seems disconnected. When we have Americans fighting abroad, many (including myself) want to support them even if we do not support the continuation of the wars. The flag is not a symbol of militarism to many of us but a symbol of union of a pluralistic and free people. Having said that, I do believe that Avery’s proposal for a debate is a good one. There is no reason why such issues cannot be debated at a law school. There are many who likely oppose the wars at the school and should be heard in a civil and good-faith debate. I disagree with his position but I support his right to say it. Ironically, the flag for me is the symbol of that right of free speech.

I am concerned over the anger unleashed at Avery who has been called a commie and traitor. I do not think that it was wrong for him to raise his concerns with his colleagues involving both the packages and the flag. He is an educator who believes that the school is marginalizing the views of those who oppose the war and making a political statement on behalf of the entire faculty and student body. While I disagree with those views, I think a professor would be remiss not to speak up if he believed such wrongful positions were being taken by the administration. Professors have a duty to speak out if they believe that the academic mission is being compromised by political actions or programs. Moreover, professors (particularly senior or tenured professors) are able to speak where students or junior faculty or staff may feel threatened in coming forward.

What do you think?

Avery has a long association with the National Lawyer’s Guild and work in police abuse cases. Here is part of his bio:

Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law School; Partner, Perkins, Smith & Cohen (1996-1998); Law Offices of Michael Avery, (1989-1995); Partner, Avery & Friedman, (1984-1989); Law Offices of Michael Avery, (1977-1984); Partner, Williams, Avery & Wynn (formerly Roraback, Williams & Avery), (1971-1977); Special Staff Counsel, ACLU Foundation (1970-1971). Adjunct Professor, Boston College Law School, (1989-1991); Visiting Professor, Georgia State University Law School, (1988-1989); Adjunct Professor, Northeastern Law School; Political Justice Workshop, Yale Law School (1972-1975); Undergraduate Seminar, “Police and Police Conduct,” Yale College.

On May 15, 2010 Prof. Avery was on a panel at the Federalist Society’s rendition of Henry V

Degrees:
BA, LLB, Yale University; attended University of Moscow, U.S.S.R. 1968-1969.

Bar Admittance:
MA; CT; U.S.D.C. MA, CT; U.S. Court of Appeals 1st, 2nd, 4th, & 9th Circuits; U.S. Supreme Court

Subjects:
Constitutional Law, Individual Rights, Evidence, Scientific Evidence

Professional Activities:
President, National Lawyers Guild (NLG) (2003 – 2006); Former President, Board of Directors, National Police Accountability Project; Frequently invited to lecture on the topic of constitutional law and/or police misconduct at law schools nationwide. Lectures at conferences sponsored by Georgetown University Law Center, Chicago Kent Law School, Suffolk University School of Law, A.L.I. – A.B.A., American Civil Liberties Union affiliates, National Lawyers Guild, Clark Boardman, Ltd., International Association of Chiefs of Police, various law enforcement agencies. President, Board of Directors, National Police Accountability Project, NLG,(1999 – 2003); Cooperating Attorney, Center for Constitutional Rights, New York, 1980-present; Co-chair, Massachusetts Chapter, National Lawyers Guild, 1996 to 1998; Board Member, Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, 1983-1986; General Counsel, Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, 1978-1981; Chairperson, Civil Liberties Committee, National Lawyers Guild, 1977-1980; National Council Member, Emergency Civil Liberties Committee, 1976-1979.

He has spoken out against his view of bias on the Court and the need for people to be active in fighting for legal change, including the discussion below of his book We Dissent and his “Kleanex test” for federal judges. The Kleanex test is that, if a lawyer did not have to have a Kleanex box on his or her desk in practice to deal with crying clients, they should not be a federal judge. The point (made in jest) is that too many of the federal judges had career disconnected from the needs of suffering people:

Here is the full email as first made available by Michael Graham:

I think it is shameful that it is perceived as legitimate to solicit in an academic institution for support for men and women who have gone overseas to kill other human beings. I understand that there is a residual sympathy for service members, perhaps engendered by support for troops in World War II, or perhaps from when there was a draft and people with few resources to resist were involuntarily sent to battle. That sympathy is not particularly rational in today’s world, however.

The United States may well be the most war prone country in the history of civilization. We have been at war two years out of three since the Cold War ended. We have 700 overseas military bases. What other country has any? In the last ten years we have squandered hundreds of billions of dollars in unnecessary foreign invasions. Those are dollars that could have been used for people who are losing their homes due to the economic collapse, for education, to repair our infrastructure, or for any of a thousand better purposes than making war. And of course those hundreds of billions of dollars have gone for death and destruction.

Perhaps some of my colleagues will consider this to be an inappropriate political statement. But of course the solicitation email was a political statement, although cast as support for student activities. The politics of that solicitation are that war is legitimate, perhaps inevitable, and that patriotic Americans should get behind our troops.

We need to be more mindful of what message we are sending as a school. Since Sept. 11 we have had perhaps the largest flag in New England hanging in our atrium. This is not a politically neutral act. Excessive patriotic zeal is a hallmark of national security states. It permits, indeed encourages, excesses in the name of national security, as we saw during the Bush administration, and which continue during the Obama administration.

Why do we continue to have this oversized flag in our lobby? Why are we sending support to the military instead of Americans who are losing their homes, malnourished, unable to get necessary medical care, and suffering from other consequences of poverty? As a university community, we should debate these questions, not remain on automatic pilot in support of the war agenda. [all emphasis added]

Source: Suffolk Voice

71 thoughts on “Suffolk University Law Professor Triggers Firestorm With Criticism of Care Packages To U.S. Troops”

  1. Avery is correct to denounce this excess nationalism. Patriotism is love for one’s country. Nationalism is to blindly follow and support one’s government in its pursuit of geopolitical domination. US soldiers fight on behalf of the owners of the US government such as the banks and the military contractors, rather than provide protection services for the citizen-taxpayer. To support US soldiers who fight in wars for finance capital and death merchants is to support these illegal and immoral wars of aggression against innocent people who live thousands of miles away from the United States. I am against war and therefore I am against the savages-soldiers who choose to fight in these non-defensive wars on behalf of the criminals who own the US government, media, and banking sector.

    Chomsky’s insight on the “support the troops” nonsense is spot on:

    “The point of public relations slogans like “Support our troops” is that they don’t mean anything… That’s the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody’s going to be against, and everybody’s going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn’t mean anything. Its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something: Do you support our policy? That’s the one you’re not allowed to talk about.”

  2. LK, Markos sandpapers a lot of people. Maybe it is some kind of residual from the former Republican in him. You just have to separate the proprietor of the site from the hundreds of earnest progressives who write there. 😉

  3. US soldiers are murderers and terrorists! No decent person can defend their criminal actions on behalf of the US government.

  4. OS, thank you for the patient and gentle reminder regarding DK. I didn’t even connect that the IGTNT blog being on the DK site was in any way a connection to liberals. I mentally block the DK site.

    I don’t visit DK unless sent there by a link from someone here. Admittedly the Netroots Nation gatherings was genius on MM’s part but I grew unhappy with Markos. Unhappy to the point that after he delivered an emotional and angry speech on a TV show (which I took personally) I was moved to talk back to my TV with “Markos, you $%#@((&, you’re dead to me!” Yea, I’m sure my admonition cut him deeply. LOL, politics and its practitioners will make you crazy if you dwell too long on them.

  5. Woosty’s wrote: “If Michael Avery is a professor at Suffolk University Law School, do you think he mayt have an obligation to show his students an appropriate way to exercise free-speech? Did he dress down the political forces that put our armed forces at risk? or was it just easier to attack those who hold the least power regarding the decision to commit to war…”
    .That is the question, does exercising his free specch mean only in ways (words) that you (or others) would liked to have him phrase it as opposed to the way he did?

    As a nurse there are places in my mind that I can not go if I am to do my job appropriately and in a fashion that actually benefits a pt. If a soldier put himself into a mindset where s/he did not implicitly trust what s/he was being asked to do, they could nevr do what we need of them. As civilians we have the freedom and ability to differentiate in our thoughts and come to conclusions of logic or compassion or industry….soldiers, if they thought in that fashion would so dull thier neccessary instincts as to become sitting ducks. That is 1 reason why sending them to wars under false flags is such a breach of integrity.

    (you didn’t call names, another poster callie him a ‘commie”.) I don’t like that word ‘shameful’ either and wish he had chosen his words more carefully. Then maybe the debate would be where it should on the wars and not on his words.
    —————
    you also said “In an all voluntary army you do make a conscious decision, am I willing and able to kill in the name of my country, right or wrong. Does that make a soldier a good guy or a bad guy? I’m just posing the question.”

    “Maybe they should always question the words from those that order them to these foreign places? In case they need to say, at the last minute, “no thank you”…”
    As a soldier once you sign on the dotted line my understanding is you answer to orders, questioning can get you into serious trouble.

    Do you think that it is wise, now that we’ve been all over the world raiding and raping for oil and shiny goodies all the while screaming “Terrorists!’ at the top of our lungs, pointing fingers and dropping bombs, pulling down statues and blowing up countries, to divest ourselves of the protections that a well apportioned and trusted armed force affords?

    I never said we should. We need a well trained militia. I am not sure that a draft is the worst idea and then we would however have the national discussion rather then a lot of jingoism that tries to pass itself off as discussion and rationality.

  6. LK, that mistake is understandable if you only visit the links for the troops (there are many). The founder of Daily Kos is Markos Moulitsas and the web site name is from his Army nickname, ‘Kos.’ He is a law school graduate and former Republican who became totally outdone with the Republican party.

    They are the key sponsor every year for Netroots Nation, which has become one of those things aspiring Democratic candidates feel is important to come to and argue their case. Next summer NN2011 is going to be in Providence, RI. One of the big efforts they sponsor is “Netroots for the Troops” in which volunteers pack and send hundreds of CARE type packages to troops in harm’s way.

    Here is the Wiki entry. Elaine often uses Daily Kos as a source–there are over a quarter million registered users who have more contacts to news sources than CNN and MSNBC. Daily Kos gets anywhere from a half-million to a million unique hits a day, more than the top ten conservative blogs combined.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Kos

  7. I visited that site when you (OS) originally posted the link some time ago- I thought it was entirely non-partisan, man, I must have missed something when I visited and your (OS/Raff) comment confused me. I’ll visit again though admittedly I didn’t follow the links when I visited the first time, just read the testimonials.

    I had to get up about 45 minutes after I went to bed last evening and tend to a household situation. Then, hours later I could only get to sleep for about 3 hours so I’m not at my sharpest today; having some trouble concentrating. I’ll ask fewer dense questions tomorrow after some good sleep tonight. That’s the plan anyway.

  8. OS, Raff, “raff, so much for liberal, progressive Democrats not caring about the troops. / Amen brother!

    ———-

    What does that mean?

Comments are closed.