We’ll see if the UNC Student Bar Association holds firm on its selection of former Bush-era Attorney General Michael Mukasey as the 2009 law school commencement speaker. According to The Daily Tar Heel (emphasis is mine):

Both law students and professors have spoken against the pick, saying his political views do not match those of many students.

“I am concerned that his refusal to investigate and prosecute the use of waterboarding was a failure to execute responsibilities of attorney general and resulted in the United States’ violation of domestic and international law,” said law professor Tamar Birckhead.

Let me get this straight. Students and professors at UNC Chapel Hill, an institution that loves to position itself as a home for the enlightened and tolerant, don’t think it’s valuable to hear a point of view with which they don’t agree? And these close-minded people are supposedly learning to think critically by analyzing arguments and understanding case law and dissenting opinions that come with them?

They don’t think there is value in hearing from a man who was the top law enforcement officer of this country during a time of fascinating legal issues tied to national security?

They don’t think there is value in hearing from a man whose tenure as a federal judge included presiding over the 1993 prosecution of Omar Abdel Rahman, the so-called “blind sheikh”?

They don’t think there is value in hearing from a man with knowledge of the Jose Padilla case? From NPR.org, September 17, 2007:

Mukasey is no stranger to the Padilla case. As district judge, he authorized Padilla’s arrest in 2002. He backed the White House’s view that Padilla could be held as an enemy combatant, although his decision was later overturned on appeal.

In a 2004 article, also in the Wall Street Journal, Mukasey defended the Patriot Act against charges that it eroded civil liberties. In particular, he defended “sneak-and-peek” warrants that allow agents, with court authorization, to enter premises, examine what is there and then leave.

“Here too, the logic seems obvious: If you leave behind a note saying ‘Good afternoon, Mr. bin Laden, we were here,’ that might betray the existence of an investigation and cause the subjects to flee or destroy evidence,” Mukasey wrote.

So much for critical thinking, enlightenment, tolerance, and the marketplace of ideas.