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
First, some info.
I’m a contractor. I returned this fall from a short deployment over in the Middle East. It was my first overseas deployment and my first into what is technically a combat zone. And it was here that I finally got to see what gets sent in the famous “care package.”
First: A lot of people use these “care packages” as a method of cleaning out their closets or their garages. You can tell. Not cool. Parting with your 17 year old copy of “Def Comedy Jam” on VHS is not supporting your country or the troops.
Secondly: Those who aren’t cleaning out their garages and shipping the contents overseas on the government’s dime frequently send troops stuff that is very helpful. Like soap. Pens. Shampoo. Decent deodorant. That sort of thing. Imagine what you could have used at a year-long summer camp. That’s the kind of items that those men and women need, and it’s the stuff that the troops always like to get.
Don’t forget the women, they’re at least 40 percent of the military and they, like any other woman, like nice stuff, especially toiletries.
These folks aren’t overpaid. Sending them this stuff is truly helpful. The duty is tedious and boring, and leaving base and trying to find some local fun is not a good idea. The environment is brutally, insanely, unimaginably hot and hostile. The armed forces do a yeoman’s job of taking care of their people and trying to maintain a high morale, but every little bit helps.
As to the professor, well, he’s pissed at the wrong people. I understand why, but he’s wrong. Nobody goes into the armed forces and thinks “oh goody, I get to shoot some people!” Not to say those people don’t exist, but frankly they do their best to keep them out. Why? The people such folks usually end up shooting are other soldiers.
OS , I am so sorry for your loss.
(I would hope that he would have the decency not to make that argument toe to toe with you but if it is a sincerely held belief I would hope that he continued to hold it, and speak it if necessary, regardless of the other person’s position or personal stake in the debate. Positions contrary to the majority are worth less then spit if they are not held no matter the opposition.)
I do not think you can analogize this man’s position with say Jimmy the Greek’s, JTG’s was pure racist and said on national TV. This was in an email, it represented a political position. Had JTG not said this in public he would probably not have suffered the consequences. Why this email has become public fodder I am not sure. And I am not sure this is a bad debate to have because it might bring us to have the debate that has been missing: why we are in Iraq and Afghanistan, what is the intention, under what situatiuons will we/can we leave?
( JTG statement – the black athlete is “bred to be the better athlete because, this goes all the way to the Civil War when the slave owner would breed his big woman so that he would have a big black kid
OS,
“Otteray Scribe
1, November 15, 2011 at 11:05 am
Thanks, raff. Time numbs one, but it never gets easier. When people open their pie hole and speak of things they know nothing about, it sets me off.”
There is every bit of truth in what you have said….I am just trying to figure out when the numbness will cease….The pain I realize will never go…maybe I am just more unaccepting of targeted stupidity….
Thanks, raff. Time numbs one, but it never gets easier. When people open their pie hole and speak of things they know nothing about, it sets me off.
Carol, he can speak whatever he wants. However, when one speaks, one must also consider there might be consequences for that speech. People from Jimmy the Greek to any number of politicians have found that out the hard way.
The issue is not whether he had the right to speak his mind. He does, but he should aim his verbal arrows at the politicians that start these wars and rarely partake in the pain they cause.
OS,
Your memorial for your son was excellent. He was a true hero.
I think he was correct to raise concerns over the extreme militarism in US society. What is so strange though is that he seems to put the blame on soldiers instead of the politicians who order them to war. He is also dead wrong about enlistment from a class point of view. Many people who join the military do so because they don’t have another way to make a living. This is an economic draft, make no mistake about it. It is also true that some people who enlist don’t mind killing. Not every one who is a soldier is a good person and there is no need to believe such a thing.
He is not wrong in raising these issues. He is correct about the extreme militarism and phony worship of soldiers engaged in by the US. The giant flag means exactly what he thinks it means–it is a completely debased symbol of “patriotism”. I’m glad he spoke up. But he does have his own flaws of reasoning that he should examine. It is not soldiers who choose wars, it is political leaders and those they serve who make that decision.
The fact that he spoke out against care packages seems mean spirited to me. He should be going for the real perpetrators in all this–the powerful, evil people who make the sending of care packages a reality.
(Add: As many write on this blog/comments about our eroding civil rights the right to free speech is not inviolate in that context. The more people who cry “Fire!” in a movie theater each time they hear someone say something with which they disagree, even vehemently so, the closer to the slippery slope we get.)
Maybe I should not post because unless I am misreading much of what is written here, the prevailing opinion seems to be that this professor does not have the right to say what he did. As ‘Vet” said, go to the taliban you want to say these things. No, In America we have freedom of speech, agree with it, even find it abhorrent, it is still a right guaranteed to us (at least so far). (BTW I personally disagree with him about the care packages.) The flag; I think he is referring more to the outlandish size, rather then having one there.
I wonder if the good professor would have the same courage of his convictions to make that speech to my face, nose to nose? Or to any other parent situated similarly?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/08/07/561003/-In-Memoriam:-One-year-ago-today?via=blog_665928
I kind of doubt it. He may be socially tone deaf, but I doubt he is that much of a risk-taker.
BTW, re “The myth is that America is a peaceful Chtistian nation that only engages in appropriate force when absolutely necessary[,]”
Only when educators are held in and treated with the same esteem (albeit, mythical at present) as warriors will the myth be come reality.
Denis Corder,
When was the last time YOU helped our homeless on the street? Since you appear to be a man of God, have you ever given an American homeless person refuge in you home? Check out the bible, God says you are supposed to do so. Have you ever taken an American homeless person out to dinner with your family? Probably not.
As an American Veteran of two wars, I find your comment sickening. By the way what “Oversized Flag” are you refering to? Our American Flag? American Vets and Active troops overseas faught and are fighting for your constitutional right for freedom of speach. So I guess it’s ok for you voice your opion regardless of how ignorant it is. Therefore, maybe you should thank a Vet or an Active Troop for their service. If that idea disturbs you, then leave this country and move to the middle east an preach your words to the Taliban, and bring an American Troop with you. See if this troop will engage the enemy who WILL be trying to kill you. My best guess; the troop will try to protect you, even to the death. You should be ashamed just as much as Michael Avery.
Another thing — and this has been on my mind quite a bit as of late — Avery’s attack seems to be directed more against an American myth and not reality. That’s usually its own declaration of war.
The myth is that America is a peaceful Chtistian nation that only engages in force when absolutely necessary and only with appropriate force, and any transgressions of such precepts are committed with good intentions but limited information or by a few zealous but misguided patriots. (I believe almost every reader of this blog recognizes the utter nonsense of the previous statement).
“We love our soldiers!” — really? Consider the number of their deployments and the effect on their families, their inadequate pay, their cut benefits, the delays in the care of their dependents, the inadequacy of their equipment or their housing or their medical facilities, their ostracization for PTS , their inadequate treatment of brain injury, their suicides, their homelessness, their unemployment.
For all those who would criticize Avery, what have you’ve done to help a warrior or a family? Who have you housed? Who have you hired? Which family have you reached out to? How have you made a difference in any of their lives for the better?
A care package?!? That’s it? No wonder you’re so bent out of shape.
How about this – invite a family for Thanksgiving dinner. Tell them you are thankful for their sacrifices on you behalf. And then prove it for the rest of the year.
Dennis Corder:
Thank you , Dennis, for the theological non-sequitur. Since you’re interested in righteousness, take a read through 1 Samuel 15 and get back to us on how the all-knowing, compassionate One authorized the mass killing of another primitive group of warriors along with all their women and children who weren’t sold into slavery. You get the whole book, not just the parts you like.
“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.”
James 2: 1-26 (KJV)
1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?
8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Matthew 6: 19-34 (KJV)
19Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
20But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
21For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
22The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
23But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
24No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
25Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
26Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
27Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
28And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
29And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
30Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
31Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
32(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
33But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
34Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
OS says “This is tone deafness of epic proportions.” I’m not so sure ’cause I don’t think he’s trying to win people to his point of view. I think he trying to point out that there is another point of view. Well, he succeeded.
I think he has the same disconnect between opposition to the wars and support for the warriors as did Cheney and his neo-cons: “If you are against the war, you are against the troops.” With Avery, it’s if you support the troops you also support the wars. Both wrong.
I certainly oppose the Iraq War (not at first, Powell’s UN presentation fooled me –probably fooled Powell, too) and limited operations in Afghahistan, mostly because of my support for the warriors — way too many of the decision makers are not worthy of their charges. Bring ’em all home — NOW!
I also agree about the flag — there is a difference between respect for the flag and using it as a political tool. Those who object to the latter may have more respect for the flag “and for which it stands” than those who can’t see the difference.
But, as always, stupid is as stupid does. It doesn’t mean you’re wrong, though.
Is he Quaker?…..You know we have had one of them as president….
OS is correct. This guy deserves the criticism he is getting. In stead of going after the soldiers who are dying or him, maybe he should go after the politicians who re sending these here’s into harms way!
This is tone deafness of epic proportions. If he is trying to win people to his point of view, this is not the way to do it. For a smart guy, he really stepped in it.
This pisses me off because this guy will become the poster boy for those of us who were against the war before it even started – you know, the ones who were right about Iraq. By the time the rightwing noise machine is done with there will be mythical spitting on returning troops again.
To say that he is tone deaf or misguided is a huge understatement. It is hard to imagine someone educated & presumably well read that is unable to separate the grunts from the people and politics that sent them to kill people.