Law school bans award to terrorist case lawyer

CNN.com ^ | April 26, 2003

[Sweet_Sunflower29]

Dean Kristin Booth Glenn told members of the graduating class Tuesday that attorney Lynne Stewart could not receive the award for public interest lawyer of the year during graduation ceremonies.

Stewart, 63, was charged along with two others last year with helping deliver messages from her jailed client, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, to the Islamic Group, an Egyptian-based terrorist group. All three have pleaded innocent and are scheduled to go to trial Oct. 7.

[xm177e2]

But if you call these people a "fifth column," they get upset.

[thegreatbeast]

This is the feel good story of the day. Usually its the faculty drawing the students into radicalism. This more resembles the way it used to be. How is it that Stewart is not in jail yet? What is the holdup? Let's get this party started!

[Numbers Guy]

"What message does this send to us?" Kathryn Hudson, who organized the petition drive, told The New York Times on Saturday. "If you can't have free speech at a law school, where can you have it?" The criminal law society instead plans to give Stewart the award on its own behalf Thursday.

How was there any violation of free speech. The group can give its award, it's just that the school chose not to be associated with it. It's no more a violation of free speech than is my decision not to buy a Dixie Chicks record.

[Michael.SF.]

"What message does this send to us?" Kathryn Hudson, who organized the petition drive, told The New York Times on Saturday. "If you can't have free speech at a law school, where can you have it?"

Well, Kathryn, the message it should send to you is that we do not honor people who aid and abet terrorists. Your an attorney, or soon will be, I would think that you would be smart enough to have figured that out on your own.

Radical Attorney Lynne Stewart

nice hair do Lynne!

[secret garden]

And Sally Jessee wants her glasses back!

[Pyrion]

They don't want bad publicity?

Oooooops! Too late! :D

[JoeFromCA]

The article excerpt doesn't name the law school, but the full article reports it's the "City University of New York".

This is a 3rd tier law school, not a school of any standing.

[nightdriver]

This is City University of New York, huh? I guess I won't be recommending any of their law school graduates to any firms that I know.

[Michael.SF.]

"If you can't have free speech at a law school, where can you have it?"

Good question. Maybe we should ask some experts on Free Speech:

[only1percent]

That she attends CUNY Law School is not good evidence she'll soon be a lawyer. It is among the very worst law schools in the country by any measure ... and among those measures are its abysmal Bar pass rate -- more than half of CUNY law grads fail the Bar first time out and many can never pass it.

[Michael.SF.]

and among those measures are its abysmal Bar pass rate -- more than half of CUNY law grads fail the Bar first time out and many can never pass it.

Which reminds me of the old joke:

Why did it take John Kennedy Jr. three attempts to pass the Bar?

Because the Kennedy's have a history of not being able to pass a bar.

[CatoRenasci]

The "City University of New York"... is a 3rd tier law school, not a school of any standing.

When did CUNY's law school come up to third tier status? I would never have rated it above fifth tier.

[kate2ny]

<> I should think that as a proud American that no doubt prides himself on living by the Constitution you would recognize that at least for the time being, one is considered innocent in this country until proven guilty in a court of law. I guess this is the new McCarthyism, the Black List tag word now is "terrorist," regardless of the facts or context one is "guilty." By the way....I am Kathryn Hudson.

[kate2ny]

The City University of New York School of Law is listed in the top five Law Schools in US News and World Reports for clinical programs. It also has produced more judges than any New York City law school (there are 9 law schools). It is the only Public Interest law school in the country, people don't go there because they want to be corporate lawyers, so the tier system is meangingless. The school has been sued numerous times by right-wing groups like the Heritage Foundation because of its liberal mission. So, your post is just more of the same ignorance and loathing for anything not of the far right. How dare we go out and defend the homeless, the elderly, the disenfranchised.

[Michael.SF.]

I should think that as a proud American that no doubt prides himself on living by the Constitution you would recognize that at least for the time being, one is considered innocent in this country until proven guilty in a court of law. I guess this is the new McCarthyism, the Black List tag word now is "terrorist," regardless of the facts or context one is "guilty." By the way....I am Kathryn Hudson.

Interesting. Thank you for the response.

But a comment, back in response to yours. Just because someone is entitled to a legal defense, does that preclude an attorney from electing to defend or to not defend, a certain ilk of client?

Would there be a crime that a person would commit, that you would find so heinous as to choose not to defend him or her?

There is a difference between defending a person and someone who actively seeks out clients whose overall ideology seems to be in line with their own.

The sarcasm of your comment, specifically: "at least for the time being", seems to imply that you are in fear of the steps taken by the current administration, as potentially being more dangerous then those whom you choose to defend.

"Choose" is the operative word in that sentence. It seems that there are several reasons why an attorney would take such a case, as an accused terrorist:

a) A need/desire for money
b) A desire for publicity
c) A basic alignment with the cause or philosophy of the accused.
d) A sincere heartfelt desire that any criminal, no matter how vile, is deserving of the best defense that can be mustered on his/her behalf.

If D is the category you proclaim to apply to your situation, then I would revert back to my second question.

The simple fact that an accused is entitled to a defense, is no reason why an attorney would agree to defend a specific client. There exists many attorneys who may choose to defend a specific client, my comment is not a denial of a right to a defense. But, rather it is a reflection on the motives of the person who chooses to defend such a person.

I look forward to your response.

[Michael.SF.]

By the way....I am Kathryn Hudson.

As long as we are having a dialogue, I would be interested on your comments to my post above where I gave some specific examples of people who suffered career and/or monetary damage, simply for expresing their right to free speech.

Pick any one of the several.

But please, John Rocker? That one is too easy to pick. Try one more challenging.

[PatrioticAmerican]

SUNY defends communism, nothing more.

[PatrioticAmerican]

SUNY=CUNY

[PatrioticAmerican]

"How dare we go out and defend the homeless, the elderly, the disenfranchised."

Yeah, sure you do. You only take actions if they can be against your REAL enemy: Corporations, the so-called rich, property owners, etc. That isn't supporting the needy, that is anti-American. Your only need for the Constitution is such that it gives you the ability to beat up on it and abuse its privileges.

Liberals are an angry and immature crowd.