Mukasey Denied Founder's Medal
Mar 03, 2008 
4 Comments
By Jesse Stellato
March 4, 2008
NEWTON, MA — Attorney General Michael Mukasey will not receive the Founder’s Medal at Boston College Law School’s 2008 Commencement Ceremony.
The Founder’s Medal is the highest honor bestowed by the Law School and, according to one faculty member, has traditionally been awarded to all commencement speakers.
The Medal is named after the Reverend John B. Creedon, S.J. who was instrumental in founding the Law School in 1929 and whose dedication to academic excellence and professionalism was the inspiration for the Founder’s Medal.
According to Boston College Law School’s website, recipients of the Founder’s Medal embody the traditions of professionalism, scholarship and service which the Law School seeks to instill in its students.
Past honorees of the Founder’s Medal have included U.S. Congressman Edward Markey ‘72 (2007), President of the American Bar Association Michael S. Greco ‘72 (2006), and U.S. Senator Judd Gregg (2005).
Austin Evers ‘09, who currently serves as the President of the Boston College Law School chapter of the American Constitution Society (ACS), said, “This is good news. It is dangerous to conflate an invitation to speak with an endorsement of the speaker’s views by the institution. Attorney General Mukasey is still very controversial but I think this goes a long way to clarifying BC’s position on the matter.”
Evers is currently working with the administration to host an event on waterboarding and other issues surrounding the Attorney General’s invitations. He is also Managing Editor of Eagleionline.
In recent months, pressure had been mounting on Garvey to respond to an increasingly vocal number of students, faculty and alumni who oppose the invitation of Mukasey to speak at commencement.
However, it is far from clear how the Class of 2008, or the student body generally, feels about the Mukasey invitation. Some students at February’s LSA open forum rose in support of the invitation. Some argued that Attorney General Mukasey was undeserving of such harsh criticism while others said the Attorney General’s prestige and importance should outweigh any concerns. Many students highlighted the Attorney General’s long service as a federal judge as evidence that he is a fine role model for aspiring attorneys.
More recently on February 28, 14 alumni penned an Op/Ed on Eagleionline which presented “Alternative Alumni Views on Mukasey.” These alumni counseled tolerance:
Attorney General Mukasey’s invitation to speak at the Law School’s commencement, while it may be unpopular, is entirely compatible with a great university’s search for truth and expression of tolerance. Certainly, for those of us who disagree with him or challenge his good faith, this also becomes a teachable moment, an opportunity for reasoned discourse, thoughtful listening and analysis, and possibly attention to disagreeable words- such an exercise in tolerance represents an important skill for lawyers, students, faculty, deans, and alumni as we search collectively during this election year to find an elusive common vision for our country.
In addition, earlier today Guillaume Buell ‘09 wrote an Op/Ed entitled “Why I Support Attorney General Mukasey.” Buell conclude thus:
I am proud that Mr. Mukasey is coming to Boston College Law School. He has led a distinguished career and the Class of 2008 could not ask for a better speaker. But I am ashamed that some students and faculty are actively organizing against his appearance. I have no problem with, and in fact applaud, efforts to generate discourse on waterboarding. But for students and faculty to turn their backs on Mr. Mukasey at Commencement, skip Commencement, or otherwise disrupt the ceremonies, is a black mark on them and reflects poorly on Boston College Law School. One wonders whether Mr. Mukasey is being opposed not because of his Senate testimony, but like Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on main campus in 2006, and unlike Congressman Markey here in 2007, simply because Mr. Mukasey works for President Bush.
Who posted this article?
I think this is the best compromise solution that the administration has available – it doesn’t leave the 3Ls in the lurch for a graduation speaker, while at the same time expressing the BCLS Community’s ambivalence about the invitation. My only concern about the move (one I would hope the Administration anticipated) is Mukasey’s reaction to the move. Will he withdraw if he’s not getting the Founders’ Medal? And, if so, would that be such a bad thing? I hope that the Administration, LSA and ACS will still host the forum on waterboarding and the AG’s position on the subject, as it is a topic worth discussing at greater length. ~Caitlin Vaughn ‘09
Mr. Stellato,I object to your biased and misleading title of this article. More research should be done before such headlines are carelessly thrown out.Because that is not the truth, it’s a false implication. As expressed in the memo posted today (http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/meta-elements/pdf/LettertoCommunity_Mukasey.pdf ), there were talks about not giving the founders medal to commencement speakers before the invitation was sent out to Mukasey.I understand that one could say that he was denied because even though talks were had, the administration made their decision here, and that they should have come out earlier. I might even agree with that opinion, but the fact remains, the headline is implying something that is not true, because the offer of the medal was never extended to him in the first place, and just because the law school is breaking from tradiyion does not mean it is DENYING him such an honor.As a self-proclaimed news blog and representative of Boston College, we have a duty to report the news while still portraying BC in a true (which in my opinion also equals good) light. Any indication of rescindment is bad, especially if it was never rescinded.I do believe it could be construed that it is a statement that the administration chose this year to act, but still… implications based on nothing but circumstance is not news, it’s gossip. Sure, but that is what editorials and opinion articles are for… but it should not be paraded as headline news, in my humble opinion. I have no problem with politically charged articles – rather, I enjoy them – however, if it’s not news, don’t make it a headline on something considered to be a news blog.For example of a proper headline portraying the truthful and accurate news, see http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/03/bc_law_school_w.htmlPlease don’t take this as an attack upon yourself, as I know this has happened on this website previously in other articles. I just think that people who report in the news section on this website need to be more responsible if they are going to be portraying and representing my school, which I have great pride for, regardless of which speaker they invite.-CPPS – On a side note, I am very curious as to why the article name was changed from its original title in the first place – "Mukasey will not receive Founder’s Medal", when no statement had been released, and as far as I can see, other than seeking a confirmation, no research had been done.
In defense of the author, who has provided a phenomenal service to the BCLS community in the form of this blog, there is nothing inaccurate about the headline. A running back can be "denied" a touchdown, though he was never guaranteed the six points, an actress can be "denied" an Oscar for which she was nominated, though of course she was one of several nominees, etc. As Dean Garvey’s memo clearly states, and as everyone in the community knows, the Founder’s Medal has traditionally been awarded to the Commencement Speaker. Thus, whether or not Dean Garvey had previous conversations with the provost about changing this practice before the current controversy, it is entirely accurate under the circumstances to state that Mr. Mukasey was "denied" the award that everyone reasonably expected he would receive.The headline is not, as Mr. Pavz writes, "biased," "misleading," "false," "careless[]," or "not the truth," and attacking it (and the messenger) in this way detracts from an otherwise important debate.
If this was in op/ed, the headline would not be misleading, etc. However, this article is being presented as news. I don’t need to remind you that this is NOT a football game or the academy awards. It is a law school, where public representations of the school’s actions may have serious consequences.Not only that, but as future (and current) lawyers, we have a professional obligation to present the news in a manner that cannot be construed as biased. See http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/rule_3_6.html (One "shall not make a[]… statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a[]… proceeding in the matter"). The fact that the title was changed in the first place demonstrates that someone obviously thought the first headline wasn’t grabbing enough to stand, and it really worries me that the desire for publicity would overtake the importance of an unbiased title.As I alluded to above, we need to remember that we represent BC here, and while I agree that Mr. Stellato may have "provided a phenomenal service… in the form of this blog", I am strongly adverse to presenting such opinions as "news" when we have the world watching.