I like chamomile tea with a dollop of honey to soothe the body, mind, and spirit......

>>> [log in to unmask] 09/19/01 14:03 PM >>>
I agree with Frank on this one.  (Don't faint, Frank.)  Free speech includes
the freedom to yell at those with whom you disagree.  You put your view out
in a public forum (as on a public soapbox), you take the risk that someone
else will get on his/her soapbox and call you names.  Them's the breaks.
Free speech does not guarantee protection for one's sensibilities -- rather
the opposite, I should think, especially among academics.  I'm all for
civility, but civility should be a voluntary virtue, not a mandated rule.

My own original response to Mike's comment (to which no one (not even
Frank!) has responded in turn ... :(   ) was pretty mellow (amazing what
these herb teas will do for you...), and was designed merely to point out
that (a) the comment indicated a possible misreading of "freedom of speech",
and (b) that it suggested a possible misreading of ACLU policy.

As to the invisible elephant, my response to the Ashcroft debate (way back
when) was that we (the ALSB) were taking ourselves much too seriously -- as
though it mattered to anyone but us who comes to speak at our meetings!

Anyway, I say again, please try to relax about all this.  I recommend Lemon
Zinger.

Ken



-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Cross [ mailto:[log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]> ]
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 1:17 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Waving the flag


I must say, I don't understand the issue.  Free speech allows one to
denounce the ACLU but also to denounce the denouncer.  The immediate
reaction to Mike's comment was unfair and has been the subject of an
apolgy.  At this point, emotions are plainly raw.



At 12:29 PM 9/19/2001 -0400, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>Rick and all,Thanks for your thoughtful analysis. I'll certainly take the
>question you raise to the executive committee. ""? Also, we need to recall
>that people have individual e-mail addresses."". You guys are family, in an
>odd sort of way, and this really should not be necessary.Ginny
>""<>
>""<>
>09/19/2001 10:41 AM
>""
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> cc:
> bcc:
> Subject: Re: Waving the flag
>
>
>Dear ALSB Colleagues,
>
> There.
>
>I write first not only to defend, but to commend, Mike Katz for his
> Thank you,
>Mike, for tipping me off to the emerging reaction to the terrorist attacks.
>Your note helped me to get my antennae up for such occurrences, whether on
>the side of patriotic expressions, or protection of rights for Muslims and
> Sure enough, within days a nurse in Mankato, Minnesota was told she
> She thought it was so outrageous
>and resigned, and has refused to return to her job despite an apology and
> "", other ALSB
>colleagues have reported similar incidents in these pages in the past week.
>
> I am hoping this large
>network of business law professors will identify the new emerging issues
>"" so I can have them in class that morning before
> Of course, I prefer if an ALSB member will
>take the time and effort to fully document stories with Web links to the
>stories, but if they are unconfirmed rumors, this gives me a heads up and I
> Or better still, ALSBTALK can serve one of its
>functions - to alert all of the subscribers to the emerging issues so we
can
> If this activity is
>curtailed or discouraged, we all will suffer.
>
>It turns out that we are discussing freedom of speech in my Legal
>Environment class this week and the Mankato case will be a perfect starting
>point for discussions of free speech and state action and private action.
>  Next time you
>hear a stupid rumor, send it to me privately so yo won't have to suffer
> I'll be very grateful,
>even if they might not.
>
>Now another deep breath. . . .
>
>All week at my campus the consistent theme at our campus has been
tolerance.
>Many writers in this space have advocated tolerance toward Arab and Muslim
> However at times I find the degree of intolerance that we show
>our members, our fellow colleagues, in this space to be absolutely
>breathtaking.
>
>I think there is an elephant in this room in cyberspace that has been
>lurking since the discussions about whether to invite Attorney General
>Ashcroft to speak at our annual conference.
>
>The issue is whether the ALSB and its membership are committed to open
> I invite my ALSB
>colleagues to join in a debate about whether the organization is committed
>to tolerance regarding the full range of opinion from the radically liberal
>to the radically conservative, and that all views expressed in this space
>will be treated with tolerance and respect.
>
>When Mike made is submission, he was attempting to confirm whether he had
> If he had omitted that last sentence from
>his query, regarding the ACLU, I believe his message would have passed with
>little notice.
>
>But he made that remark about the ACLU and opened himself up for
> Maybe it was intemperate, maybe it was a pot shot, but we
> President Bush, Justice
> But Mike's comments were not
> The curtailing of speech rights and rights of assembly , and
>the government's push for expanded surveillance authority make this
> I suspect that if a university were restricting free
>speech rights of Muslim students that the ACLU would have been in federal
> Isn't it a fair topic for debate whether the ACLU
> Isn't
> And isn't this a relevant topic in light of
>events, and isn't this an appropriate space for its discussion?
>
>If the ACLU stands for anything, it stands for tolerance of views with
which
> It Mike's comment was unfair, why not respond with more free
>speech explaining the countless times the ACLU has defendd skinheads and
> The
>ACLU itself, would vigorously defend Mike's right to raise the issue he
did,
> It seems that in defending the ACLU its most
>fundamental tenets were abandoned.
>
>  How
>committed is our organization, and we as members, to not just tolerating,
>but welcoming, a range of views from our diverse membership?
>
>"stupid
>""" It turns out that his comment was not a
> One
>"""" and
>has asked forgiveness.
>
> Was that so inappropriate as to not
>  The message seems to be that if
>you espouse a view that provokes another because it doesn't conform to a
> acceptable range of opinion you may be denounced
>"" You can also expect
>to have your professional competence questioned if you don't back up your
>thoughts with constitutional analysis (I don't believe Mike even knew
>whether the university or college was public or private, so the state
action
>issue).
>
>I call upon our National Executive Board to declare the policy of the ALSB
>  Please draft a statement that freedom
>of expression will be welcomed here as elsewhere in this country, and even
>though we are a private organization, we commit ourselves to the values of
>the First Amendment applying with full force within this space, and within
> Please commit our organization to the values
>of free debate, tolerance and respect for all views, and declare that we
>will demonstrate these values even to the extent of inviting, and yes,
> speakers with whom we disagree to our meetings and conferences
>in order to ensure a free and open dialogue on the issues of the day.
>
>Of course, if the ALSB has an implicit policy of prior restraint on speech
>or ideas or if there is ALSB policy that places limits on our freedom to
>speak, or our obligation to respect our colleagues, or to show tolerance
for
>a range of views, I call upon the Executive Board to declare these policies
> At least we
>can self-censor and avoid public castigation and humiliation in ALSBTALK by
>posting our thoughts in other fee forums that hold these values.
>
> What do we stand for?
>
>I invite you to join an uncensored, candid and respectful debate on these
>issues that will inform and enlighten our Executive Board as they prepare a
>statement of the ALSB's official policy.
>
>Collegially
>
>Rick Kunkel
>University of St. Thomas
>St. Paul Minnesota
>
>
>
>> ----------
>>     [log in to unmask]
>>   Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
>>     Tuesday, September 18, 2001 10:36 PM
>>  [log in to unmask]
>>   Re: Waving the flag
>>
>> Can we take a time out and all take a deep breath?
>>
>> Ginny
>>
>>
>>""<>
>>""
>><>
>> 09/18/2001 09:59 PM
>>""
>>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> cc:
>> bcc:
>> Subject: Re: Waving the flag
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Joan, Jordan, and everyone:
>>
>> Joan is a more loyal ALSB person than many of our colleagues and has
>> I also found the dig at
>> ACLU really inappropriate as well as irrelevant, especially since of
>> course
>> the First Amendment does not apply to the acts of private entities--which
>> I would suggest that the message
>> that
>>"" especially in view of current events.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Leibman, Jordan H.
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Sent: 9/18/2001 7:13 PM
>> Subject: Re: Waving the flag
>>
>> Dear ALSB Members,
>> I want you to know that I, Joan Leibman, wife of Jordan, was responsible
>> for
>> Jordan, being
>> a
>> Being devasted (as is
>> everyone) by the events of the past week, I was made even more uneasy
>> and
>> angry by the spreading of divisive rumors (true or not) to such a large
>> group of people at a time when we should be looking at the big picture,
>> and
>> I was also
>> angered by the not so implicit attack on the ACLU brought in for no
>> lawyerly
>> So forgive me for implusiveness in distress, and I won't
>> (Thank goodness Jordan is retired or I
>> might
>> have ruined his career.)
>> Joan Leibman
>>
>> -----Originl Message-----
>> From: deb ballam [ mailto:[log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]> ]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 8:54 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Waving the flag
>>
>>
>>  He sent the
>> message
>> I would hope that
>> Mike, who I believe many of us know and consider a friend, could ask
>> this
>> question of us.
>>
>> Deb Ballam
>>
>> At 06:41 PM 09/17/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>>>Jordan, well put!!
>>>
>>>Bruce Zucker
>>>
>>>"" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nobody's banned the flag and you should think twice before passing
>> stupid
>>>> rumors around
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: DANIEL HERRON [ mailto:[log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]> ]
>>>> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 9:25 AM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Waving the flag
>>>>
>>>> Mike sent this out on alsbnews and I am redirecting it to ALSBTALK
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>> ______________________________
>>>>
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>   I heard, very fleetingly, on the news this morning that an
>> insurance
>>>> company in Boca Raton, FL has banned the display of flags on their
>> premises
>>>> and even suspended a woman who refused to remove a small flag from
>> her
>>>> Similarly, I think that I heard that a small college or
>> university
>>>> Did I hear this
>> correctly?
>>>> If so, I truly hope that the ACLU defends the display of our flag
>> with
>> the
>>>> same fervor that they show when defending someone who burns the
>> flag.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> Michael A. Katz
>>>> Delaware State University
>>>> Department of Accounting and Finance
>>>> Dover, DE 19901
>>>> (302) 857-6918
>>>> (302) 857-6924 (fax)
>>
>>
Frank Cross
Herbert D. Kelleher Centennial Professor of Business Law
CBA 5.202
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712