Suffolk Law School Prof On US Military: They’re “Killers,” Sympathy For Them “Not Rational In Today’s World”

At least one Suffolk Law School prof is not a big fan

On Wednesday a member of the Suffolk Law School staff sent out an email soliciting “much needed supplies to put in care packages to be sent to deployed troops.”  You know, stuff like beef jerky, instant coffee, trail mix, etc? Scout troops do stuff like this all the time.  In fact, the email specifically mentioned that one Suffolk Law student deployed to Afghanistan would be a recipient.

Pretty basic, patriotic stuff, right?  Well, read this response from one of the Suffolk Law professors who received it, a (ahem) “gentleman” named Michael Avery:

I think it is shameful that it is perceived as legitimate to solicit in an academic institution for support for men and women who have gone overseas to kill other human beings.  I understand that there is a residual sympathy for service members, perhaps engendered by support for troops in World War II, or perhaps from when there was a draft and people with few resources to resist were involuntarily sent to battle. That sympathy is not particularly rational in today’s world, however.  

The United States may well be the most war prone country in the history of civilization.  We have been at war two years out of three since the Cold War ended.  We have 700 overseas military bases.  What other country has any?  In the last ten years we have squandered hundreds of billions of dollars in unnecessary foreign invasions.  Those are dollars that could have been used for people who are losing their homes due to the economic collapse, for education, to repair our infrastructure, or for any of a thousand better purposes than making war.  And of course those hundreds of billions of dollars have gone for death and destruction. 

Perhaps some of my colleagues will consider this to be an inappropriate political statement.  But of course the solicitation email was a political statement, although cast as support for student activities. The politics of that solicitation are that war is legitimate, perhaps inevitable, and that patriotic Americans should get behind our troops.

We need to be more mindful of what message we are sending as a school. Since Sept. 11 we have had perhaps the largest flag in New England hanging in our atrium.  This is not a politically neutral act. Excessive patriotic zeal is a hallmark of national security states.  It permits, indeed encourages, excesses in the name of national security, as we saw during the Bush administration, and which continue during the Obama administration.  

Why do we continue to have this oversized flag in our lobby?  Why are we sending support to the military instead of Americans who are losing their homes, malnourished, unable to get necessary medical care, and suffering from other consequences of poverty?  As a university community, we should debate these questions, not remain on automatic pilot in support of the war agenda.  [all emphasis added]

That’s Professor Avery’s verbatim response. I’d like to hear yours—particularly if you’ve got one of those “killers,” one of those merchants of “death and destruction” in your family.

Please post your response on my Facebook page, or send your email to

Michael Graham
Radio talk show host, columnist for the Boston Herald, stand-up comic and former GOP political consultant. Learn more about Michael here.

Natural Truth of the Day

For several months now, whenever the topic of enrollment in the Affordable Care Act came up, I've been saying that it was too soon to tell its ultimate effects. We don't know how many people have paid for their new insurance policies, or how many of those who bought policies were previously uninsured. For that, I said, we will have to wait for Census Bureau data, which offer the best assessment of the insurance status of the whole population... I stand corrected: These data won't be available at all. Ever.-- Megan McArdle, Bloomberg View.