Law School Graduation

First, I want to send out congratulations to my boys Chris and Josh who just graduated from Wayne State Law yesterday! I'm proud of them and know they will both make terrific attorneys. So, get on with the Bar Exam study!

Their graduation ceremony, however, has turned into a bit of a spectacle. The law school gave an Honorary degree to Justice Corrigan of the Michigan Supreme Court, which turned out to be a very controversial decision amongst the faculty. One faculty member in particular. Full disclosure: Justice Corrigan is the mother of one of my great friends from law school. I was an usher in her son's wedding and she held a special session of the Michigan Supreme Court to swear me in as an attorney last November. She is an extraordinarily bright, sociable, very kind, genuine person. She is a good person and a good judge. That being said- I don't agree with her "views" or reasoning in a lot of her opinions at all, but that is fine. The law, if anything, gives room to maneuver and rationally disagree. That is why I was sad to see emails from faculty, protesting her Honorary degree.

I never had a class with Professor Hammer, who wrote the following email. But he sounds bitter and a little self-obsessed. What about his students? What about honoring them? You're not going to show up to graduation because they are giving an Honorary degree to a Justice who recently voted against you in a legal decision? She didn't even WRITE the opinion, she just agreed with it. Again, I don't agree with the Court's holding in the case at all, but I accept that this is sometimes the way things go in the law. Certainly a professor ought to have that understanding and avail himself of that perspective and certainly he ought to be able to find another way to protest the school's decision, rather than not supporting his students that are graduating. In any case- I am off my soapbox. Here is what the professor wrote:

Dear Members of the Graduating Class of 2008,

As many of you know, I was a plaintiff in National Pride at Work v. Granholm, decided last week by the Michigan Supreme Court. At issue was whether individuals had the right to enter private contracts with state employers to ensure health care benefits for their domestic partners. These are important rights that affect the lives of real people.

A majority of the Supreme Court held that the “plain meaning” of the 2004 marriage amendment, limiting marriage to a man and a woman, forbade state employers from contracting with employees to provide private benefits. This conclusion, driven by serial citations to the Random House Dictionary, was so obviously dictated by the plain meaning, the court felt, that no recourse could be made to the electoral context to ascertain voter intent.

As those in my contracts classes know, one of my favorite aphorisms is that “all text is context.” My instincts as a lawyer always tell me that a rote assertion of plain meaning is usually a sign that someone is trying to hide something from me. Indeed, the majority opinion is a good illustration of how language can be plainly made to mean almost anything an advocate wants. Ironically, the majority opinion shows substantial judicial ingenuity in demonstrating how many conflicting inferences are possible when analyzing statements made during the referendum campaign. These are fair points. But it is puzzling why the majority chooses to carefully parse campaign statements (also words), but does not apply the same, careful legal methods to the text of the amendment.

At the graduation ceremony, Justice Maura D. Corrigan will be given an honorary degree. I cannot attend a ceremony where my robed presence on stage would constitute an implicit endorsement of such an important honor.

We live in a diverse community and need to be tolerant of differing views on contested public issues. Justice Corrigan’s private views on the issue of marriage are well known, and I am respectful of them. Justice Corrigan is a member of the Institute for American Values’ Council on Family Law. This group has released Reports like “The Future of Family Law: Law and the Marriage Crisis in North America” (2005). Among other things, the Report advocates for a five-year moratorium on any changes to laws that would further erode traditional understandings of marriage. Justice Corrigan also authored a contribution, “Judging Marriage: An Experiment in Morals and Conduct,” as part of a Special Issue of the Ave Maria Law Review devoted to “Perspectives on Natural Marriage” (Vol. 4:2, 2006). These documents speak for themselves.

I have no objection to providing an honorary degree to someone with views that differ from mine. A core value of the academy is to engage ideas in good faith and in an open manner. I have no objection in providing an honorary degree to someone whose judicial temperament is more textualist and formalist than is my inclination. These are both fine traditions in American jurisprudence. Moreover, any good lawyer must have the skills to operate effectively within these traditions.

The decision in National Pride, however, illustrates a deeper and more troubling trend in the Michigan Courts. In many areas of law, not just marriage, textualism is invoked as a judicial conclusion intended to end debate, not as a method of legal analysis that can be openly engaged in a good faith manner. Outcomes are increasingly driven by politics and ideology, not legal discourse. It is my personal belief that the type of analysis illustrated in National Pride is not the type of judicial reasoning that this Law School should celebrate. At this point in history, I individually decline to participate in a ceremony extending such an honorary degree.

I make this decision with regret. Graduation is ultimately about celebrating the accomplishments of our students. My decision not to attend and further to communicate the rationale for my decision outside the context of the ceremony is made so that the events on Monday night can rightly focus where they should – on the tremendous accomplishments and bright futures of each member of the graduating class.

In absentia, you all have my best wishes and finest regards.

Sincerely,

Peter Hammer