Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk |
Date: | Mon, 22 Jan 2001 11:35:47 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Good points, Peter......I see your prespective here, especially when using KimCampbell as an illustration.
Dan
>>> [log in to unmask] 01/22/01 11:21 AM >>>
>>You*missed my point, Peter, you* rabble-rouser you!; mthe operative
phrase in my comment is "as a keynoter."* I think we should have such
speakers in; but I question if they should be our "keynote"
speakers......that's all.>>
Thanks Dan. No intention to rouse rabble on my part, which I assume
applies to the other commentators' motives too. I did not appreciate such
a distinction in the invitation (although some others did also mention it)
because I thought the AG would be pretty much effectively a keynote in
whatever manner he was scheduled (see Ken Schneyer's point). C'mon, he's
not going to be doing a paper on the latest case from the 5th Circuit on
the ADA, as fifth speaker on Saturday afternoon.
I suppose I would still question whether the views or actions of such a
high office holder are good enough for the country, but not for our diverse
little group (and then if he's good enough, we say "yes" to a panel or
session paper, but "definitely not" to after a meal). I don't know enough
about Ashcroft in particular, so I'll stop there, but I don't think he will
be analyzing these distinctions.
Also, have we put all our keynoters through the same scrutiny? Does anyone
know what Kim Campbell stood for and the actions/mistakes she made? She
got the invitation because she was a former Prime Minister and we all
thought that was neat. I hope opposition to Ashcroft is not mere
suppression of opinions that some people don't share in the Academy,
dressed up as something more noble.
Cheers,
Peter Bowal
University of Calgary
|
|
|