Like Dan I have been troubled at the idea of inviting Ashcroft to speak. Yes,
we may be providing a platform and in a sense endorsing his views. In
addition, there are other questions to think about. THe first, for me, is why
we are considering this? That he has once been part of our profession and is
now a major public figure is not a good justification, or I should say, does
not make me want to do him the honor of this kind of invitation. Put another
way, what would he add to us professionally that would not be available from
many other speakers involved in government and politics? Also, does the
principle of free debate mean we must sponsor speakers of all persuasions?
Perhaps the answer would be yes if we as an organization were in the midst of
a controversy and he could contribute to that conversation. MOreover, if the
conference organizers want to invite him, I fully respect their right to do
so. Otherwise, I think not.
Finally, and here I speak only for myself, I am not all that impressed with
the man just because he is about to become attorney general in this
administration. He holds views on social, political and business issues that
are contrary to the deeply held views of many of our members, and so I would
vote no to the invitation.
Lucy

>I must admit that I find myself in a conundrum here.  I am so adamantly
opposed to most of the political beliefs espoused by Ashcroft; but at the same
time, feel compelled by my own sense of tolerance that we should not preclude
open debate.  I suppose the question I have in light of the last
>couple of emails is would Ashcroft's speaking (either her or him) at an ALSB
function really be perceived as the ALSB "providing a platform"?  Is providing
a platform tantamount to an endorsement?
>
>Dan
>
>>> [log in to unmask] 01/18/01 09:14AM >>>
>Very well said!
>
>Thomas W. Dunfee
>Vice Dean and Director
>Wharton Undergraduate Division
>University of Pennsylvania
>Philadelphia, PA 19104
>215-898-7691
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Thomas Cavenagh [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 7:21 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Ashcroft
>
>
>Like David, I was deeply troubled when I read the messages to which he
refers.
>If we cannot support, indeed assist in creating a marketplace of ideas, what
>business do we have calling ourselves educators?  Count me out of any
"majority
>of ALSB members" unable to interact with people and ideas with whom and which
I
>disagree.
>
>David Reitzel wrote:
>
>> I am saddened by the intolerance expressed by Profs Ginger, Hawker, and
>> Shaw re Mr. Ashcroft. I had thought that the ALSB membership could at
>> least listen to views contrary to their own, as I have over the years.
>> Whether or not Mr. Ashcroft is confirmed, is the ALSB membership really
>> so close-minded that it must reject all debate? If so, what does this
>> say about our professorial quality?
>>
>> Bill Shaw wrote:
>> >
>> > Nice going Laura.  I think that voices the position of a great majority
of
>> > ALSB members.
>> >
>> > >I feel compelled to say that I am opposed to inviting Ashcroft to speak
>> > >due to his reprehensible views on various issues.  I think it would be
an
>> > >affront to our black colleagues, not to mention women and GLB members of
>> > >our organization.  I would never attend any session at which he appeared
>> > >and would feel ashamed if our organization hosted him for anything.  I
>> > >have not seen this view expressed to date in this series of messages but
I
>> > >know that I am not the only person who is reacting this way to the idea.
>>
>> --
>> Yours,
>>
>> David Reitzel
>> Professor of Business Law
>> Sid Craig School of Business
>> California State University, Fresno
>
>--
>Thomas D. Cavenagh, JD
>Associate Professor of Business Law & Conflict Resolution
>Director, Dispute Resolution Center
>North Central College
>30 North Brainard Street
>Naperville, Illinois 60566-7063
>
>630-637-5157
>630-637-5121 (fax)
>[log in to unmask]

Lucy Katz
Fairfield University
Fairfield, CT 06430