Thanks to:

Sally for an amazing speaker. Until his talk, I kept feeling--and saying to others--that something was missing from the conference, that somehow the world seems to be in crisis and we weren't really talking about it. I can't imagine anything more important to address than America's place in world....that IS the legal, social, ethical environment in which business flourishes or not. No apologies of any kind are needed.

Carolyn, for a thoughtful and respectful response to Marianne--and for sharing it with us.

Marsha, for sharing Marianne's article (Would that Marianne had done so herself).

Dan, for always trying to do what he thinks is the right thing to do--even when some disagree with him.
No one cares more about our organization than he does.

The discussants--some thoughtful and restrained, some passionate, but isn't there a place for both?

My take on this: Of course we need and want every thoughtful, provocative, imaginative business law prof to be part of our organization.....but, I remain befuddled at the idea of one person splitting herself in half, to distance herself from us while trying to sit in the center of our organization. If there is something we can do to be more welcoming we should do it. If we can re-consider our human rights commitments to highlight free speech, freedom of religion, etc. we should do so. But I am having trouble figuring out how an organization is supposed to resolve a personal, ethical dilemma--Marianne has to do that for herself.

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk on behalf of James Bryant
        Sent: Fri 9/3/2004 2:21 PM
        To: [log in to unmask]
        Cc:
        Subject: Re: speaker



        I thihink Heinbecker raised some serious issues. If you are in a global
        environment how and when to use force in international relations is a
        serious issue. I also think we need to discuss these issues.

        James A. Bryant

        >>> [log in to unmask] 9/3/2004 11:47:55 AM >>>
        While I was somewhat put off by Heinbecker's tongue lashing, I chose
        to
        stay and pose a question at the end.

        As a scientist, I am trained to look for plausible alternative
        hypotheses.
         In law school, I learned to acknowledge that there might be valid
        oppositional arguments, and even to be able to argue the other side.

        My question to Amb. Heinbecker invited him to at least identify
        plausible
        arguments from the other side, even if he found them unpersuasive.

        I found his response wholly unsatisfying.  Essentially, he was right
        and
        anyone else who thought otherwise was clearly unenlightened.  Funny
        ...
        that seemed to be his description of America (or at least the "bad
        son").

        Posing the same question to my Canadian cousins over the weekend, I
        found
        that they were able to see the plausibility of either side in the
        debate,
        irrespective of what position they personally maintained.

        Perhaps because they too are academics and scientists, and not
        politicians, they were honestly intererested in inquiry rather than
        advancing an agenda.

        I did not mind, however, Heinbecker's correction of the misperception
        that
        the 9/11 hijackers had come across the border from Canada, as I had
        held
        that misconception myself.

        --
        Dr. Gavin Clarkson
        Assistant Professor
        University of Michigan
             School of Information
             School of Law
             Native American Studies
        303C West Hall
        Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1092
        734-763-2284
        [log in to unmask]
        http://www.si.umich.edu/~gsmc

        > 3.   I was perhaps hyper-sensitive about not wanting to upset the
        > audience. I viewed you as my guests in my country. I believe whole
        > heartedly in free speech and academic freedom.  I do not, however,
        > typically (or intentionally) wish to be  discourteous.
        >
        > 4.   Undoubtedly because of 3., I was particularly aware of people's
        > reactions to the speech. Overwhelmingly, I was assured that whether
        or
        > not they agreed with what was said (and I have no doubt there were
        both
        > Canadians and Americans present who did not agree with all that was
        > said), the content was entirely appropriate, and if a speech such as
        > this cannot be given to an academic community, we should seriously
        > consider our commitment to the free exchange of ideas.
        >
        > As someone from outside of the US, talking to many of you at the
        meeting
        > reinforced what I had been reading in the press about just how
        polarised
        > the electorate is this year. I would remind all of you, however,
        that,
        > while the US policies are taking a good deal of heat these days
        outside
        > of the country, there are so many things about America that stand as
        > something of a beacon to the rest of us. One in particular, is your
        > unfaltering defence of free speech.
        >
        > Sally