Read on Twitter
THREAD: On @RunnymedeSoc and recent discussions on Twitter about the purpose and structure of our organization. As National Director, I have made it my mission to open the doors of Runnymede to people of all ideologies. The rub: we are all committed to free and open debate.
While I hesitate to do a thread on this topic, because I really don't want to be taken as attacking people I respect ( @avnishnanda and @JoshuaSealy), I do want to correct the record about our organization. We owe it to the many judges and others who have supported us.
1) The purpose of @RunnymedeSoc is to foster open debate related to RoL, constitutionalism, and individual liberty on campus. We invite speakers all of stripes to speak at schools, including "legally conservative" people and people that might be considered "left of centre."*
*To be sure, I hate using these labels. Because it is my belief that there should be at least *some* separation between law and politics as a formal matter, and sometimes these ideological labels do not track what we do at all. But I use them out of necessity.
The heart of @RunnymedeSoc is our students who, themselves, choose topics on which to have events. Events are our bread-and-butter, and we should be judged as an org on their quality. Here, I point to our event with Cass Sunstein as an ex: .
This puts us in an awkward position. People will say we aren't being "transparent." In today's sclerotic times, everyone must have a "side." But I have a hard time slotting RS, by design. We are interested in debate and free discussion, and creating such culture on campus.
2) @CCF: Runnymede is a project of the CCF. This is for logistical reasons (shared resources, charitable receipts for RS). CCF advocates for liberty, whereas we do not advocate particular views. But CCF believes in free exchange as a liberty matter. That's their interest in RS.
The CCF does not direct me, or RS generally. RS is run by students, with my cooperation and assistance. The ideas come from students. The events are put on by students. The CCF has different aims when it comes to its litigation agenda.
3) Funding: RS is funded through specific "restricted" funding that is earmarked for its mission. The funding does not flow through CCF. Our donors consist of major Canadian charitable foundations. But I think it sets a bad precedent for nfp groups to have to disclose donor names
in response to Twitter demands (esp when other groups are not asked to do so). I note that this tactic has been used, for ex, by oil companies seeking to attack the merit of environmental groups. I am happy to discuss our donors at any time with anyone who wants to have a talk.
Finally, it's unfortunate that this discussion has gotten away from the merits of RS and what we do. There is no conspiratorial "tangled web we weave" here. Our mission really should not be threatening to anyone who believes in ideas and intellectualism. It should be welcomed.
On that note, I'd like to bring us back to what started all of this: the future of legal education and curriculum. And in the spirit of open debate, I'd like to invite @Honickman and @JoshuaSealy to debate this topic, on terms to be discussed, at an RS event in the fall.
