Friday, February 15, 2008

Trustee Heals World With Capitalism, Not Bureaucracy?

Somebody at ABC has realized that good things can come out of the free market - something that T. J. Rodgers has known all along.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

And a genuinely free market depends on the rule of law, which is the personal crusade of former trustee William Neukom.

Anonymous said...

And a genuinely free market depends on the rule of law, which is the personal crusade of former trustee William Neukom.

Really? Last I checked, Neukom was the head of the ABA, which is a smarmy liberal advocacy organization dedicated to smearing judges, mandating affirmative action in the law schools, and convincing the public that it's some kind of neutral voice for the legal profession. The rule of lawyers isn't the same thing as the rule of law, and the country would be better off without the ABA.

If you were referring to something else that Neukom's done to further the rule of law, then please forgive my mistake and let me know what it is.

Anonymous said...

It is truly unfortunate that Dartmouth alumni involved in debate cannot speak respectfully when they have have differences on issues. These postings are an embarrassment and beneath the dignity of the College and of the individuals. If you want to be anonymous, as I am, then at least have the courtesy to contribute as if your identity was public. For example, you may not agree with the ABA, but,as anonymous 10:23pm said, to call them a "smarmy liberal advocacy organization..." brands the sender as an immature coward. I am not a lawyer and have no need to defend the ABA, but that thread is pure trash.

Anonymous said...

I have given the same opinion of the ABA to people in face-to-face conversations, and I told the person on the phone as much (though in much more polite terms, since he's not responsible for the ABA as a whole) when I called to ask them why they'd signed me up as a member without my permission and demand that they cancel my membership.

I find many of their actions taken during the past ten years to be offensive, and I find it difficult to let it pass without comment when someone says that the president of the ABA is on a personal crusade to further the rule of law.

I think that Neukom has been unfairly maligned in the comments threads of some of these posts, and that some expressions disagreement with his views has taken the unfortunate form of personal attacks. The organization he leads, however, is not a human being, and deserves no such respect. There's nothing wrong with being a liberal advocacy organization, but it crosses the line into smarmy when it lies about its purpose, pretends to be the voice of the legal profession as a whole, and unfairly engages in personal attacks against upstanding people.

I respect Neukom as a human being, as a fellow Dartmouth alum, and as someone who has probably been trying to do what he thinks is best for Dartmouth, though others may disagree. I just find it curious that one would associate him with a personal crusade to further the rule of law, as I'm familiar with nothing in his professional past that would correspond to that.

Anonymous said...

anon@12:14

That was a pretty winded sidestep of his rather polite question.

Anonymous said...

The only think Neukom's done as ABA president is further the rule of law. press release. Just search neukom and "rule of law" and you come up with pages of examples. another press release.

The ABA doesn't smear judges, by the way. It rates them. It doesn't take much on your part to point out that any large organization is imperfect and takes stands that don't mesh with your personal (and possibly minority) views. It is the voice of the legal profession -- unless you can find a bigger and more authoritative one.

anon. 3:24 said...

Anon 12:14 did not ask the question.

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that saying the ABA represents lawyers is as fallacious as saying the NADs represent native americans.

Anonymous said...

Or that the Association of Alumni represents alumni.

Anonymous said...

Who elected the ABA leadershiip or the NAD leadership???

And who elected the AoA leadership. Ooops, it was the alumni in open, all-media voting!

Anonymous said...

The ABA doesn't smear judges, by the way. It rates them.

It "rates" judicial nominees, not judges. Its ratings are nominally about qualifications, but in practice they're about political vulnerability and political cover for filibusters and for organizations like PFAW. What could possibly be more objective than the self-proclaimed voice of the legal profession stating that a nominee is "not qualified"? Its most recent victims are Brett Kavanaugh and Michael Wallace.

The ABA does some good work in some areas, and it puts on some decent conferences, but its work on judicial nominees and its pretension to being the voice of the American legal profession are both dishonest and shameful.

I hope that the ABA's "rule of law" ratings are more trustworthy than its ratings of judicial nominees.

Anonymous said...

Again, if the ABA does not represent lawyers, what larger and more representative organization, in your mind, fills that role? I've never heard of one. Just because some number of lawyers is not in the group does not mean it is not representative.

Anonymous said...

Just because some number of lawyers is not in the group does not mean it is not representative.

What? You must be one of the people who claims the Alumni Council is more representative than the Association.

Anonymous said...

The Association told the Alumni Council to represent alumni to the board. If that's not a mandate, I don't know what is. Since when have abstract measures of "representativeness" necessarily entitled private groups to do anything? Are you one of those "democracy" fetishists? Regarding an exclusive club only open to alumni of one Ivy League school? Why?