Superb letter in which Robin Effron explains that she signed the letter about Kavanaugh.
I am one of the professors who signed the letter regarding Judge Kavanaugh. While I am proud to have lent my voice to this effort, I also wanted to share the following letter that I sent to my students today:
twitter.com/binsky18/status/1047879159693889536
The letter is dignified and is testament to the right to dissent and to be heard:
As some of you have already seen, I was one of the law professor signatories to this letter addressed to the U.S. Senate arguing that Judge Kavanaugh “did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.”
Several of you have reached out to me to express solidarity and support, and I am thankful for those sentiments.
However, I wanted to write you all to make it clear that I do not operate under the assumption that all of my students can or should share these views on such a sensitive subject in such a unique political moment. My presumption is that many of you have any number of views on this topic, ranging from substantive disagreement with the contents of the letter, to a discomfort with the act of signing and delivering such a public missive to the Senate. I also assume that we all have differing views on the many underlying issues in the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing that this letter does not address.
I want you to know that I value open discourse both in and outside of the classroom. While no one is obligated to disclose their political views on this or other matters, you should feel comfortable doing so with me. Please know that my support for this letter does not mean that I am unable or unwilling to listen to and talk with anyone who feels otherwise.
My commitment to an open classroom was at the forefront of my mind when I decided to sign this letter. I knew that in doing so, it might make some of you feel uncomfortable or even excluded. In the end, I concluded that I wanted my voice to join those who feel strongly about judicial impartiality and temperament. My hope is that it could persuade individual senators to adopt this viewpoint in considering the qualifications for a Supreme Court justice. I believe, however, that question of partisan and temperamental fitness for judicial appointment will remain a live and open debate for quite some time, and I look forward to discussing it with anyone who cares to share an opinion with in support or against these positions.