By Editorial Board
Tuesday, November 19, 2002

On Nov. 8, Law School Dean Kathleen M. Sullivan released a statement rescinding the Law School's offer of a visiting mentorship to New York criminal defense attorney Lynne Stewart. Sullivan's unacceptable decision undermines the academic value of free expression, and the way in which Stewart was notified about the decision was disrespectful as well. We urge Sullivan to apologize to Stewart and reinstate her as a David W. Mills Public Interest Mentor as soon as possible.

According to Sullivan, she revoked the position because Stewart "has expressed sympathy for and tacit endorsement of the use of directed violence to achieve social change." For Sullivan to deny a mentorship solely because she disagrees with Stewart's political views sets a dangerous precedent. Even more unfortunate is that Sullivan's statement was based on a quote Stewart made in the New York Times seven years ago, a quote Stewart says was taken out of context.

Stanford's professors have a range of political views, and the University rightfully allows them to express their views. Stanford even has professors who support the possible war in Iraq, which can be argued endorses the "use of directed violence to achieve social change." Would Sullivan deny those professors from teaching because of their political beliefs?

Furthermore, Stewart wasn't even invited to Stanford because of her political views; she was going to mentor students in her capacity as a lawyer who has defended some unpopular clients, like Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, who was convicted for plotting the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Sullivan's decision disregarded the wishes of many law students in the public interest program who were eagerly anticipating Stewart's arrival. Many students were extremely pleased with the informal mentoring sessions that Stewart held when she visited the campus two weeks ago.

The manner in which Sullivan rescinded the mentorship was inappropriate as well. The Law School offered Stewart the position in July, three months after Stewart was indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice on charges that she illegally helped Rahman communicate with an Egyptian militant organization, charges which Stewart denies. Considering Stewart's case had already received national media attention when she was hired by the Law School this summer, it seems odd that Sullivan would wait until the week Stewart arrived on campus to rescind Stewart's position.

Some students claim that Sullivan buckled to outside pressure. Or perhaps a petition signed by 64 Law School students ? none of whom were part of the public interest program ? opposing Stewart's mentorship might have influenced the last-minute decision. Either way, Sullivan should have stood by her initial offer instead of sending Stewart a fax to her hotel room revoking the position the day she arrived to Stanford.

Sullivan's legal and academic work indicate that she is a staunch supporter of freedom of speech. If that's true, she should allow Stewart to mentor at the Law School.

Treatment of Stewart was 'hurtful and shameful'

I write in response to your article on the heated controversy last week at the Law School surrounding attorney Lynne Stewart's invitation to serve law students as a David M. Mills Public Interest Mentor ("Law dean rescinds offer to attorney," Nov. 15). It seems to me that there are actually two issues to be addressed here, not one.

The first concerns whether the Law School should have invited someone to serve as a public interest mentor who, to borrow from Dean Kathleen M. Sullivan's words, "has expressed sympathy for and tacit endorsement of the use of directed violence to achieve social change." The second issue, and one that has unfortunately not received as much attention, concerns whether the Law School acted properly in rescinding Ms. Stewart's title and the honorarium that came with it after Ms. Stewart had already arrived on campus.

Conservative students at the Law School argue that it would be unfitting for a law school to confer an official title upon an attorney who advocates circumventing the rule of law to achieve social change. As a liberal student, I agree that this is an issue that deserves debate, and the position we take on as a community is an important one. But it is the second issue that concerns me here. Whether or not Stanford should have rescinded Stewart's title after she arrived on campus seems to me to be a question with more of a clear answer, and I would hope that this latter issue is not one that needs to be debated. Simply put, the way in which Stewart was treated by our administration once she arrived at Stanford was hurtful and shameful. Rather than notifying Stewart of Stanford's decision personally, the dean of the Law School sent a fax to Stewart's hotel room informing her that her title of David M. Mills Public Interest Mentor, and the monetary honorarium that comes with it, would be rescinded.

Whether someone should be invited to Stanford in the first place is a separate issue from whether that person deserves to be treated with decency and respect by our administrators once they have arrived on campus.

I hope that students on both ends of the political spectrum will agree that the method by which Stewart's title was rescinded reflects poorly on the Law School and on Stanford University as an educational institution.

It was simply wrong for the Law School to take away Stewart's title and honorarium "after the fact." In the future, the burden should fall on those who believe that controversial figures should not be officially recognized by the Law School to do their research on these people's views before, and not after, inviting them to campus.

EUGENE D. MAZO
Graduate student, Stanford Law School