I recently returned from a seminar sponsored by the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE), and cosponsored by Montana State University. Since these programs have been much maligned by the media, Congress, and interest groups, I’d like to encourage a more balanced discussion by offering my experiences and impressions.

FREE hosts a series of seminars on environmental policy, science, and risk analysis for judges, law professors, and businessmen. A vigorous campaign has recently been mounted to restrict or prohibit judges from attending such privately funded seminars. The critics charge the programs are ideological and indoctrinating, unethical, and indulgent. Not surprisingly, judges, lawyer groups, and law schools all oppose such restrictions.

Over two decades ago the U.S. Judicial Conference’s Codes of Conduct Committee issued an official advisory opinion detailing guidelines for judges attending privately funded educational programs. The opinion makes it clear that the education of judges serves the public interest, and the fact that a curriculum may emphasize a particular viewpoint does not preclude attendance. In fact, exposing judges to various viewpoints is a good thing, as it often forces them to think outside their comfort zone. The opinion states that impropriety would arise if the sponsor or source of funding were involved in litigation or likely to be so.

FREE’s seminar was an intellectual boot camp at which differing viewpoints were expressed on a range of issues. The group included seven judges (four GOP appointees, three Democratic appointees), law professors across the ideological spectrum (including a former member of the Natural Resources Defense Council), a Harvard toxicologist, a law professor/geneticist, a law professor/medical doctor, and an environmental law professor. The political mix ranged from a “Friend of Bill” Arkansas judge to a senior member of Ken Starr’s independent prosecutor team.

The topics ranged from genetics and the law to definitions of toxicity to risk assessment of potential harms. Although several speakers certainly had a viewpoint, they were thoroughly presented and hashed out. Federal judges are hardly sheep, docilely led into a particular philosophical paddock. By experience and training we tend to be hardy skeptics of almost anything anyone is peddling.

A recent Court of Appeals decision found no impropriety or appearance of impropriety in a judge attending FREE’s seminars. FREE is a nonprofit foundation that uses no corporate or private donations to cover judges’ expenses. In fact, FREE’s judicial seminars are supported solely by foundations whose founders are deceased.

So, what’s the problem with FREE seminars? Apparently, it’s the particular viewpoint presented. The groups singled out for the greatest scrutiny and harshest calumny are those considered conservative. Perceived liberal groups sponsoring such seminars receive nary a mention. In fact, the judge most critical of privately funded seminars in general, and FREE in particular, admits to attending, and being reimbursed for, seminars sponsored by the Aspen Institute. Aspen, generally considered liberal, uses corporate contributions to support its programs. This is not intended as a criticism of either the judge or Aspen -- in fact, I hope to attend an Aspen seminar someday -- but only to point out that it’s the alleged viewpoint that seems to animate FREE’s critics.

With respect to charges that these are luxurious junkets, FREE seminars are held in quite modest surroundings. Perhaps the best observation about the creature comforts was made by the Arkansas judge in our wrap-up session: “It’s a good thing y’all have federal judges here and not federal prisoners, else y’all would have a civil rights lawsuit for deprivation.”

Our days started at 8:30 am sharp and we had about 18 hours of discussion over four days (with a fair amount of assigned reading in preparation). It was a lot of challenging and thought-provoking work in a no-frills environment.

Although I don’t know if this will make me a better judge, there were many benefits, from just escaping the tensions of the job to stimulating discussion of new and challenging ideas with smart people of widely differing perspectives. And there was an important side benefit: Both in the formal sessions and informal get-togethers, we all aired and discussed our differences collegially and with good will. In our current polarized political life, this is a positive reminder that we can disagree without being disagreeable.