Defending the Patriot Act 

The spring ’04 issue of Stanford Lawyer notes that the American Civil Liberties Union has “galvanized public opinion” and that “more than 240 cities have passed resolutions decrying [the Patriot Act].” Ominously, the magazine states that the Act makes it “easier for law enforcement to spy on citizens and detain noncitizen immigrants.” The tone of the article mirrors the negative tone of much of the reporting about the Patriot Act. 

There is compelling evidence that this perspective is wrong. For example, two liberal Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Joseph Biden and Senator Dianne Feinstein, have strongly defended the Act. As reported in the Washington Post [Oct. 22, 2003], Senator Biden referred to criticism of the Act as “ill-informed and overblown.” Senator Feinstein stated, “I have never had a single abuse of the Patriot Act reported to me” in spite of requests to the ACLU for examples. Yet nowhere in the article do we learn of liberal Democratic support for the Patriot Act. We do, however, learn that conservative Attorney General Ashcroft defends this legislation and that there was a discussion on campus titled “Ashcroft Is Not Darth Vader.” 

When I was at Stanford Law School, I learned from my professors that we needed to hear all sides of an issue in order to reach a conclusion. Unfortunately, the writer and editors of this article present a biased analysis of a complex issue. 

—PAUL ROTHSTEIN ’90 Washington, D.C.

ACLU—I Love You! 

Thank you for the article on Anthony Romero and the ACLU [Stanford Lawyer, spring 2004]. 

My first appointed criminal case in 1950 opened my eyes to the vital work of the ACLU. In those days, physical abuse of the poor and the friendless by law enforcement was routine. I witnessed physical abuse by law officers of many accused of petty crimes. One of the law enforcement favorites was the “Tin Mattress.” That was locking up the accused in a cell with only a bunk equipped with a box spring—no mattress, no blankets, no pillows. The accused slept there, or upon a filthy floor. Another favorite device of the semiliterate rural deputy sheriffs was a device known as the “Come-Along.” This is a hook, much like a hay hook, which, when applied to the arm of an accused and twisted, caused excruciating pain. It caused the accused to “come along” when the deputy wanted him to do so. 

Are we any better off today when the Attorney General has subpoenaed medical records of patients who had abortions in the second or third trimester of pregnancy? The excuse? To determine if an abortion has been done in violation of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. No crime was reported. No public demand for an investigation has been had. Nevertheless, the Attorney General has subpoenaed private hospital records to try to see if there has been a crime. These are police state tactics. 

Then, there is the misnamed Patriot Act, which lets the government snoop without the protections of the Fourth Amendment. 

American Civil Liberties Union— I love you! We need you! 

—JEROME F. DOWNS ’49 San Francisco

What about Political Diversity? 

I recently received my copy of the spring 2004 edition of Stanford Lawyer and discovered a section that appeared to have been written with the intent of showcasing the wonderful “diversity” of the student population. Of the 171 members of the first-year class, 68 undergraduate institutions were represented, and more than a third of the class was drawn from various minority groups. 

More telling, however, was the survey conducted in association with this article. One question asked students to identify their favorite member of the Supreme Court. More students voted for Ginsburg than for Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas combined! 

Another question sought job approval ratings for the two most recent attorney generals. Guess what: 78 percent of students disapproved of the job Ashcroft is doing, versus 18 percent for Reno.

Much of the remainder of the journal was devoted to class news, letters to the editor, reporting of recent class reunions, and the above-noted description of the first-year class. Of the remaining 19 pages, 14 were devoted to articles on ultraliberal San Francisco mayoral candidate Matt Gonzalez; an award program for “public interest” (code words) work; a fluff piece on that bastion of un-Americanism and intolerance, the ACLU (another Ginsburg tie-in); and the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. 

The listing of students broken down by gender and ethnicity featured the header “Reflecting the Nation’s Diversity.” Seems to me that the Law School’s efforts to ensure “diversity” have managed to exclude some 50 percent of the country. 

—MARK WILLIAMS, JD/MBA ’93 Menlo Park, Calif

Editor’s Note

I am thrilled to join Stanford Law School as Editor of Stanford Lawyer. One of the reasons I made my career in journalism was that it offered great opportunities to learn new things and meet new people. I have spent the last 20 years reporting from Silicon Valley, most recently at Fortune and Forbes. As Editor of Stanford Lawyer, I know that I will be able to learn just as much about the world of law as I have about the world of business and technology. 

I have already met many interesting alumni and faculty, and I look forward to meeting many more of you in the years to come. I welcome any comments and suggestions you might have about how to make what is already the best law school magazine even better. 

—-ERIC NEE Editor, Stanford Lawyer