An open letter to Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law Laurence H. Tribe '62.

Dear Professor Tribe:

Greetings from New Orleans. Things down here could be better.

As you know, the Supreme Court's recent decision on flag-burning has touched off quite a reaction across the nation. Here in Louisiana, where the Supreme Court has never been particularly well-liked, folks have been down-right offensive.

I'm sure you can imagine my dismay as I listened to a radio talk show the day after the decision was announced. Zealous callers denounced the Court's lack of patriotism. One young man--president of a local white supremacist group--said he thought the first amendment ought to be repealed.

I longed for the friendly confines of Harvard Square. There, I knew, openminded people would understand that we must tolerate all expression, no matter how offensive we find it.

I knew my peers at Harvard would realize that patriotism means little when it is compulsory. And, above all, I knew Laurence Tribe would stand up for what was right.

Surely you are not surprised that I would look to you for leadership. After all, as the nation's most-quoted expert on constitutional law, who would better understand why protecting flag-burning is so essential to basic civil liberties? And as a heralded liberal (whom many say will have his own seat on the Court someday), who could better weather the political storm and take the unpopular but moral stand?

I thought you were the obvious choice.

I guess I was wrong.

YOUR solution to the flag-burning controversy--the one you presented to Congress this week--is both puzzling and disappointing. Frankly, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, especially coming from you.

Now I realize that I'm no constitutional scholar, and my half-B.A. doesn't match your summa J.D.'s and L.L.B.'s. Still, it seems to me that your proposal--to pass a statute making the flag a national icon like the Statue of Liberty--would easily be contested as a blatant violation of the Court's latest decision.

In addition, I would imagine that the courts would look at such a law as an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, something you yourself have fought against. I must admit I am surprised that someone with your credentials could concoct a proposal that seems so flawed constitutionally.

But I am more concerned by your tone than your words. I'm glad you don't advocate amending the Constitution as many extremists have. Yet, I'm shocked that you--in good conscience--could condone any kind of ban on flagburning.

I know that its been almost 20 years since you studied political philosophy as an undergraduate. But I can't believe that you have forgotten the basic principle--as put forth by Mill and his contemporaries--that the unshackled expression of ideas is essential to the survival of a free society.

I hope you will consider how much your words mean and rethink your position. Respectfully yours,

P.S.--In case you don't change your mind, do you think Professor Dershowitz would be interested in a spot on the Supreme Court?