An Open Letter to the MSL Community:

They told us that the mission is all about us. They stood in front of us, looked straight at us and said: “Do the work.” “If you do the work, we’ll give you the tools to succeed.”

I believed them. We all did. They said it at the open house and that drew me in. They said it at orientation and that kept me in. They’re still saying it, but I’ve stopped believing it.

Now we know better.

When they wanted to sell it to us they knew better than to tell us that the Dean would use us for his personal mission. They kept that to themselves. They didn’t tell us about his blog. They didn’t tell us about his conferences. And they definitely didn’t tell us that he’d “market” the school, in Larry Flynt’s Hustler Magazine.

They didn’t’ tell us that. If they had, how many of us would have chosen to be here today? But we are here. They sold it to us, and some of us think they’ve breached a responsibility to us.

“Know your audience,” they preach in the writing classes. “Know your audience.”

I want to know who Velvel’s “audience” is ? They told us it’s us. They sold us on the claim that he’s all about fighting for us; all about giving us the opportunity to succeed.

That mission is what brought me here. I remember being at an open house and thinking “these people really go after it.” I thought “they’re talking directly to me. They’re talking directly about me.” I remember thinking “Here’s the way to improve my life and my family’s life.”

When they sold MSLaw to me they bragged about Velvel’s fight for human rights. How do I square any of that with his choice to interview in Hustler. One of the rudest magazines on the planet Earth. One of the most dehumanizing magazines I’ve ever seen.

I can’t. I can’t square that.

I heard that he was asked to apologize to the entire MSLaw community. I’ve also heard that instead of doing that, he’s defending his choice.

I can’t square that either. Seems to me that his choices say it all. He's actually defending instead of apologizing. Seems it’s not about us at all. Seems it’s entirely about him. Our money, and our commitment are his to squander. He seems to think that’s why we’re here. To promote him.

Let’s be clear. This isn’t about the interview itself. It’s not at all about the interview itself. Some of us agree with him on that score. Some of us don’t. We can disagree on that. We can definitely disagree on that.

He’s got the right to say what he thinks. They’ve already lined up his defense that he’s got a 1st Amendment right to say what he believes. They’ve already begun to argue that curbing him is an “affront to academic freedom.”

That’s absurd. It’s an absurd way to deflect the real question and make it out to be something different than it really is. That’s an argument that would earn us a failing grade in a writing class. This isn’t about academic freedom or Velvel’s right to say what he thinks.

He’s definitely got the right to say what he chooses to say. He’s absolutely got the right to climb up on to whatever soap-box he chooses. But he’s got a responsibility too. He’s got a responsibility to all of us.

He’s got a responsibility to build the bridges that they promised us. To give us the tools that they promised us. He has a responsibility to build credibility for the school and for us as we take the tools they promised us out into the professional world.

But instead of building he manages, single-handedly, to destroy the credibility that we work to build.

In his “personal” blog and his “personal” radio show, and his “personal” TV shows, and his “personal” conferences he always makes sure to mention that he’s the Dean of the Massachusetts School of Law.

Does he have that right? Of course he does. But what about his responsibility to all of us?

In all of his personal rants and his personal runs at his personal fame he always makes sure to include words about the school’s mission; never misses the opportunity to make the claim that he represents us.

Does he have that right? Of course he does. But what about his responsibility to all of us?

So here are the questions: Who does he represent, and who is his audience? It’s not me. Definitely not me. They told me it would be us. They promised us that the school was all about our success.

And here’s another thing to consider: neither the administration nor the full time faculty are stepping up. The most we can squeeze out of the Administration is either “I didn’t know about it” or “There’s nothing I can do.”

The faculty is keeping entirely silent. Why is that? The rumor is that more than a few of them are outraged, but not one is speaking out. Why is that? Is there another law school in the country where the faculty would have nothing to say when the Dean of the school embarrasses them all?

And what of the adjuncts. How many of the adjuncts will bail. How many of them might have to disassociate with the place because of the embarrassment of marketing MSLaw in Hustler magazine?

Remember – the school is built on its adjunct professors, but they live and work in the community. They build their reputations on credibility. Can they risk the taint created by this Hustler connection? I’m betting that some of them cannot.

What about his responsibility to them and, by extension, to all of us.

I’m not sure what I’ll do. Of course I’m thinking “transfer” but that’s probably not realistic. I've spoken with some others who are considering the same thing. But they have us caught between that proverbial rock and a hard place. I’ve got too much invested, and where could I go? My family has too much invested.

What about his responsibility to them?

By now you may be thinking that this editorial is “over-the-top.” Hyperbole ? Maybe it is. The truth is that when someone first told me about the interview it didn’t really register. “What’s the big deal,” I thought. Then someone showed me the magazine.

That’s when the enormity of this foolishness hit me. Find a copy. Take a look at the page before the interview. It’s a photo essay of a day in the life of a “dedicated porn star.” Or look at the page after. That one’s about “Long Island Lolita going XXX.” Glance at any of the so called features. Read any paragraph anywhere in the magazine. See if you agree with me.

What about his responsibility to all of us?

Credibility. That’s what they teach us. Reputation. That’s what they teach us. Know your audience. That’s what they preach.

I bought the line. We all did.

I don’t know what we can do about any of this. We know that the administration won't do a thing. They told us that already. Maybe the Trustees will do something. We’re told that they don’t care, but whether they care or not they all have a duty to the school. Maybe if we push them – if enough of us push them, they’ll remember that duty.

What about his responsibility to all of us?