Law Revue's position on this matter is perhaps the most sensible one:

WHEREAS I really could care less about 1Ls,

AFFIRMING that such lack of concern includes who teaches them Con Law,

ACKNOWLEDGING the crunch of exam time makes me even less concerned about such things generally,

RECOGNIZING I myself was taught by a right-winger conservative who is now a Dean,

I resent any attempt to posture over this issue.

That being said, I don't mind posturing a bit. If Jay Bybee and John Yoo gave birth to the August 1, 2002 torture memo, Delahunty was the midwife. And that's enough for me to not want him to be associated with my school in any way. The memo is questionable on legal and factual grounds at best and legal sophistry at worst and it facilitated violations of international law.

Read it yourself. Then ask yourself: what possible changes in U.S. policy and tactics could result from the conclusion that neither the Geneva Conventions nor customary international law in any way bind the actions of the executive in the conduct of military operations against al-Qaeda and Afghanistan? The only purpose these conclusions could possibly serve is to subject battlefield detainees to treatment that would otherwise be criminal under U.S. law. (Note that the argument offers no defense to war crimes charges brought by other Geneva Conventions signatories, each of whom are obliged to: "search for persons alleged to have committed or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts.")

I agree that the Delhunty/Yoo memo does NOT say that torture is legal; it merely says that it isn't illegal as a matter of U.S. law in certain situations. This is a distinction that does not sit well with me. The Delahunty memo treats the issue of detainee treatment as an interesting intellectual exercise instead of an important policy decision with real and concrete effects on real living human beings.

Am I guilty of "viewpoint discrimination"? Maybe, but viewpoints aren't irrelevant. Would a holocaust denier ever get a job offer to teach at the law school? If not, would the federalist society protest on grounds of viewpoint discrimination? Somehow I doubt it. Couching support for a man whose opinions facilitated violations of international law in the language of free-speech does not sway me. Society holds people accountable for their deeds in different ways; if it were my decision, I would have no problem denying him a job at the law school based solely on the January 9, 2002 memo.

Remember: it's only because of the carelessness of Deans Charles and Morrison that this man ever received a teaching offer here in the first place! He's an unfortunate accident, and while I recognize the value in having a career OLC attorney teaching at the law school, I don't know if I'd sleep well at night if I didn't oppose him coming here.