JOHN MANNING: And now it is with great pleasure
that I introduce my dear friend and former boss, whom
I've known for many years, who's been a dear, dear
friend and a mentor to me.
He is a spectacular lawyer and a modest and careful judge.
He is Harvard Law School class of 1979,
the Chief Justice of the United States, John G. Roberts Jr.
[APPLAUSE]
JOHN G. ROBERTS: Thank you, President Faust,
and Dean Manning, and Professor Lazarus
for welcoming and extending a great, gracious welcome
to the Supreme Court of the United States.
A minority of my colleagues send their regrets.
[LAUGHTER]
We have come a long way since the Sesquicentennial
Celebration of the founding of the Harvard Law School.
At the gathering to commemorate that 150th anniversary,
one of the jewels in the school's crown,
Judge Henry J. Friendly, introduced another jewel,
Justice William Brennan.
Justice Brennan was at the time the only Harvard
graduate on the Supreme Court.
Judge Friendly pointed out that fact, noting,
quote, "While the Harvard Law School has furnished
many graduates to the court, it has rarely had many incumbents
at any one time."
He added, "Unlike another school,
which today shall be nameless, Harvard
does not need numbers to make her influence felt."
Now I am sure that that remains true today.
But why take a chance?
[LAUGHTER]
[APPLAUSE]
The Harvard justices who preceded those on this stage--
from Joseph Story to Antonin Scalia--
have had an oversized influence on the law.
Consider the great 20th century Harvard jurists--
Holmes, Brandeis, Frankfurter, Learned Hand.
I include Hand, even though he did not serve on the Supreme
Court, because he should have.
These great jurists were different in many ways.
But when you examine their judicial and extrajudicial
writings, two common related themes come to the fore--
the central importance of the free exchange
of ideas to both democracy and law,
and the need for intellectual humility to ensure the exchange
is meaningful.
First, the free exchange of ideas.
It was Holmes who said, we should be eternally vigilant
against attempts to check the expression of opinions
that we loathe.
Brandeis, that public discussion is a political duty.
Frankfurter, that truth cannot be pursued in an atmosphere
hostile to the endeavor.
And Hand, that the mutual confidence on which all else
depends can be maintained only by an open mind and a brave
reliance on discussion.
You could jumble up the quotes and the speakers.
Few listeners would be the wiser and none meaningfully misled.
Second, humility.
That is perhaps not the first word
you think about when you're talking
about the Harvard Law School.
But as for intellectual humility,
it was Holmes who said that to have
doubted one's own first principles
is the mark of a civilized man.
Brandeis, that one bows to the lessons of experience
and the force of better reasoning
in the judicial function.
Frankfurter, that the indispensable judicial
requisite is intellectual humility.
And Hand, famously, that the spirit of liberty
is the spirit which is not too sure it is right.
It is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds
of other men and women.
Debate and doubts, not doctrine, are what our school at its best
teaches.
It is also how it teaches--
again, at least at its best.
What is the Socratic method, after all,
but discussion designed to sow doubt in order to develop
insight and understanding.
It is hard not to believe that the shared
educational experience of Holmes, Brandeis, Frankfurter,
and Hand, just nearby, contributed significantly
to their shared belief in the value of free debate
and intellectual humility.
I am happy to report that these values characterize the work
of the current Supreme Court.
We go about our business with a full reservoir
of mutual respect, a uniform commitment
to discussing the cases in conference
in a spirit of collegiality, and sufficient doubt
about our own infallibility to make
those discussions pertinent to the decision process.
It takes restraint to listen rather than speak,
to consider rather than dismiss, to follow new wisdom rather
than familiar doctrine.
But we know from the words presidents of Harvard use
in conferring law degrees, that wise restraints
can make men free.
It is reasonable to expect that the Harvard Law School will
be around in another 100 years.
That will be cause for celebration,
if the school remains faithful to its core
values of debate and doubt.
Thank you very much.
[APPLAUSE]