This is a good dialogue but let's expand it beyond Ashcroft personally and
consider what general rules should be.  I would set forth the following
propositions:

1.  People should not be subject to discrimination because of their views,
no matter how reprehensible.
2.  An organization has no responsibility to sponsor views that its members
oppose, certainly that they find reprehensible
3.  An organization should not, however, close its mind to hearing from
people with whom its members simply disagree.

I suspect that everyone agrees with this and the debate comes down to just
how reprehensible the views are.  I suspect that no one would support us
having, say, David Duke speak to our group.  If Mr. Ashcroft were a racist,
he shouldn't be invited, but it seems unlikely that he actually is a
racist.  He has been charged, perhaps fairly, with a lack of sensitivity in
this regard.  While his opposition to the Hormel appointment is troubling,
he declared in his confirmation hearings that he would not discriminate on
sexual preference.

My question to you, my beloved constituents, is:  "What positions (of
Ashcroft particularly or more generally) are so reprehensible that they
should preclude an invitation to our conference?





Frank Cross
Herbert D. Kelleher Centennial Professor of Business Law
CBA 5.202
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712