Massachusetts Law Professor Calls Care Packages for U.S. Troops 'Shameful'
Shameful is right. Shameful that a professor - someone with a degree in higher education - cannot separate the acts of his country with the men and women tasked with carrying out those acts. Obviously, he does not support our troops. And that is his right, protected by our Constitution and sacrosanct in our society. The First Amendment is never so applicable as when it applies to speech with which we disagree most vociferously. "Puppies are fuzzy" is a lot easier to support than "our troops are shameful."A Massachusetts law professor has created a campus firestorm with an email to colleagues that declares it would be "shameful" to send care packages to U.S. troops "who have gone overseas to kill other human beings."
Michael Avery, a professor at Suffolk University Law School, sent a five-paragraph email to colleagues in response to a school-wide appeal for care packages for deployed soldiers, Fox affiliate WFXT-TV reports.
However... He chose to do this as a representative of Suffolk Law School. When he composed his e-mail on his university e-mail account, he did so as a Suffolk Law School professor. While he is absolutely protected from repercussion from the government for his words, he should not be immune from the consequences of these actions from his employer should they disagree with his actions.
And we are also free to voice our displeasure both with Professor Avery and also with Suffolk Law School for tolerating this sort of character. For alumni and parents of alumni of Suffolk University, make sure that when they call for donations, you express your displeasure of this sort of statement before you decline to donate to their annual fund, etc. Actions have consequences - make the university know, loud and clear, that the consequence of supporting someone like Avery means they will no longer receive donations.
Suffolk should face consequences for allowing folks like Professor Avery safe haven - make sure they feel it in their pocketbooks.
That is all.
UPDATE: DaddyBear has more on Professor Avery's background, and some choice words from a vet. Thank you, DaddyBear.
8 comments:
Absolutely. The university's milquetoast response was disgusting:
Suffolk University president and provost Barry Brown issued a statement saying the school supported the "free exchange of ideas and robust debate" and respected the "right of our faculty members to exercise academic freedom."
But, Brown said, "As a diverse community, no one opinion or perspective is representative of the views of the whole community."
(but of course, we will continue to pay him to say this crap.)
Daddy Bear fleshed out Avery's background:
http://daddybearden.blogspot.com/2011/11/constitutional-law-professor-at-suffolk.html
I support our troops, and I support our mission in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I don't think that the philosophical (as opposed to political) point the professor is making is 100% wrong.
If folks are getting drafted, then, yes, you support them no matter WHAT you think of the mission.
...but if folks are enlisting or going to OCS ** AFTER ** hostilities are ongoing, then they are choosing to support the hostilities.
Now, in almost all cases, this is entirely good and fine.
...but one can imagine a war (either foreign or domestic) that is so egregiously wrong that we do NOT want to support the people who volunteer to fight that war.
If US troops were acting as death squads in Mexico, or helping China implement forced abortions, or going door to door in the US confiscating firearms, then I think that it would be correct to say "a soldier who enlists while that operation is ongoing CHOOSES to support the mission, and thus it is impossible to support a soldier without - by doing so - supporting his mission.
And people scoff when you tell them our eduction system is controlled by a bunch of Soviet Drones. This prick brags about being just such a plant.
Gee, I wonder if he would tell the Mass. National Guard to get off his lawn if they showed up to help him, say, oh I don't know, during a Freak October Snow Storm, perhaps? Or would he be bitching to the VolksRepublik as soon as the lights flicker?
I pity this guys students.
Thanks Jay.
TJIC makes a good point. If the stated policy of our government is to suppress our people or commit crimes against humanity using our armed forces,and someone joins up fully knowing that they will be used as a tool in implementing that illegal policy, then they should be condemned and shunned.
"I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
From the oath of enlistment. Part of the UCMJ is that an order must be followed if is lawful, meaning that if an order is unlawful, including violating the Law of Land Warfare, then a servicemember is duty bound to not obey it. http://www.aschq.army.mil/gc/files/fm27-10.pdf
But what this professor has stated, and as Jay pointed out he has ever right to do so, is that people who join the military do it so that they can kill other human beings. Last I heard, killing the enemies of our country is still in the mission statement of the Armed Forces, but so is protecting the innocent and assisting the afflicted. This guy should be shunned and shamed by those closest to him for his bigotry against those of us who didn't make the same choices as he did.
Just my dva kopeka.
Sorry for the long comment, Jay.
Whatever happened to 'There is nothing more patriotic than dissent'?
You do not have to agree with the use of the US military. No one requires that. It is an easy argument to make that the use of the military has resulted in high civilian casualties for a dubious amount of gain (you can't fix the problems of other countries, they can only fix them themselves when they feel the need to change).
At least counter the professor's arguments, rather than disparaging his character. Otherwise bray with the sheep and believe that all your government does is for your own good and with your best intentions in mind.
The character of our fine military men and women is nearly beyond reproach, but the decisions of our leaders are not, and our use of military force in situations where the immediate survival of our country is not at stake is suspect at best.
Mark, with respect, the people who dictate policy are far removed from the soldiers who enforce it. If most people instinctively understand this, why does one of the elite see the need to suggest that protest of policy is best started on the opposite end from where it would be useful? I suppose that this could be explained by his exposure to Soviet military thinking, where generals who lost battles often shot the soldiers who had the misfortune not to die in them.
"We were only following orders." If you are to fight for a cause, you had best be sure that cause is just. You may also be wrong in your assumption.
Post a Comment