Comments on Law School Deanship Rescinded; Politics Blamed

• embryonic school shoots self
• Posted by Larry on September 13, 2007 at 7:30am EDT

• This has got to be the stupidest action the board could have taken. Not only did they alienate the guy who taught most American lawyers federal courts, but they branded themselves a bunch of ideologues that would christen their law school by discriminating against scholars on ideological grounds.

  Just a couple of notes for the uninitiated: all law schools claim that they want their graduates to work in the public interest. Most of the time this is an empty promise. Likewise, all law schools produce a bunch of lawyers that will pretend to cater to the “political right.” (In reality law is more complicated than the politics that takes place in public, so it often frustrates non-lawyers, sometimes causing them to cry out that lawyers are “liberals.”) Moreover, in picking his advisors, Chemerinsky was quick to select the “darlings” of the political right – e.g. Viet “lets detain people without trial” Dinh. So, this really was about Chemerinsky, and not what he would do to the law school.

  There probably are not that many extremely prominent constitutional law schools of Chemerinsky’s age that have become the darlings of the “political rights.” Even folks like Ken Starr, don’t have the publication record that Chemerinsky has. But, this didn’t stop him from getting a deanship.

• She's your man!
• Posted by Harriet Meyers to the Rescue! on September 13, 2007 at 8:20am EDT

• She can be there by the end of the week! And if that doesn't work, the Federalist Society has a pre-approved short list for you. Your head hunter, God, also suggests a Dean from Regent. Don't worry. You'll find your Dean: with predictable consequences for your institution!

• What about fund-raising?
• Posted by Buzz on September 13, 2007 at 8:40am EDT

• A brutal truth: deans have to raise money. Irvine is a regional Republican stronghold. One has to get operating at break-even before one can become a nationally-ranked school.

  Unless, of course, one of the tobacco settlement lawyers would like to donate $100,000,000.00 to Irvine Law.

• Posted by Rjmart01 on September 13, 2007 at 8:40am EDT

• My bet is that James Madison couldn't get hired for this job. Nor Thomas Jefferson. Maybe John Adams, but then he was a deist and you know you can't trust people like that. Alexander Hamilton? No, he was born outside our borders in a country that allows a Labour party to participate in government! Oh, well ...

  A lesser man than Chemerinsky would bring, and likely win, a First Amendment case against the law school. After all, he was clearly un-hired for the content of his speech, and it's clearly a case of state action.

  Maybe UC-Irvine should rethink this Law School idea, no matter how much donor money's on the table. Doesn't sound like they're ready to do the job right.

• Can't be a partner to a qualified dean?
• Posted by Jack Olson on September 13, 2007 at 8:50am EDT

• Drake's explanation of his decision sounds evasive. He said it does not reflect on Chereminsky's qualifications but that he doesn't think he can be an effective partner with him. Just why is that? If Drake concedes that this candidate is qualified for the job, why deny it to him?

  If Drake can't come up with a more specific justification for rejecting a candidate he himself admits is qualified, it's fair to presume his real objection is his liberal politics. That would be just as unfair and shortsighted as rejecting a candidate because of his race or because he is conservative, both of which we conservatives critics of academia are always complaining about. This time the shoe is on the other foot, on the left instead of the right, and if the shoe fits, one should wear it.

• Law School deans and politics
• Posted by feudi pandola on September 13, 2007 at 9:15am EDT

• There's something really strange going on with this one. I keep reading that this decision was caused by conservatives, but all I hear on conservative radio is support for Mr. Chemerinsky's appointment and outrage at the subsequent cancellation of his post at UC Irvine. Something stinks here and I'm not sure it has anything at all to do with politics. Stay tuned...

• Posted by stm60 at UCONN on September 13, 2007 at 9:15am EDT

• I am not familiar with this incident but I would suspect that in most cases what hurts a candidate is not being liberal or conservation so much as being a 'prominent' liberal or conservative. For several reasons, well, for one at least - fund raising, universities don't want controversy. And controversy comes not so much from your views as from the loudness of your views. The nail that sticks out gets hammered.

• Posted by Al on September 13, 2007 at 9:15am EDT

• >>Maybe UC-Irvine should rethink this Law School idea

  If there is one thing that California really needs, it's a new law school.

• Law more Political than the Public Knows
• Posted by William Sumner Scott, J.D. on September 13, 2007 at 9:35am EDT

• This move is at the root of the problems with the administration of the law in the United States. The definition of a good lawyer is speculative at best - more a test of having good cases or clients than service to the public.

  Quality cases and clients are measured in monetary terms. And, the control of too many law schools are in the hands of people who serve special interests rather than the public.

  Amazing that Dr. Drake, a person who had to fight the system to get where he is, failed to recognize the views that allowed him to be successful. Without Professor Chemerinsky and others who think like him, Dr. Drake would have not been admitted to grad school much less hold his current position.

  The good doctor has destroyed his image. Cal Irvine will be just fine - no one will remember this event in 90 days except those who evaluate Dr. Drake's performance.

  William Sumner Scott, J.D.
  Judicial Equality Foundation, Inc.
  wss@jefound.org

• Oops. Missing part of Subject!
• Posted by diogenes on September 13, 2007 at 9:35am EDT

• My "Harriet Meyer's to the Rescue" subject line disappeared. Sorry colleagues. Happy to supply the missing context to "She's Your Man." I bet most of thought I was referring to Ann Coulter!

• Do the Flip Test
• Posted by Chuck on September 13, 2007 at 10:15am EDT

• The leadership at UC/Irvine looks awfully foolish in its reasoning in this case, but they still have the right to change their mind about a hire, don't they?

  Back in 1996, Chemerinksy was one of the most rabid and wildly speculative opponents of Proposition 209, the California voter initiative that banned discrimination and preferences based on race, gender or ethnicity in university admissions, public contracts, and public employment.

  He predicted all sorts of calamities, none of which came to pass. So he was probably a better law professor than a psychic.

  Reading all the trembling rage here this morning over poor Chemerinsky's fall from grace, made me wonder if some or any of the folks here issued similarly harsh and ominous warnings when Harvard President Larry Summers was so crudely treated and forced to resign?

  I didn't think so.

• Posted by Larry on September 13, 2007 at 10:20am EDT

• diogenes, The thing about the Federalist Society references, is that most people would agree that if “Federalist Society” means “Republican” it represents an intellectual wing of the Republican party. Again, assuming that they are Republicans, they strive for some long-term changes in American government (which are far more complicated than anything that could possibly be discussed on TV). Miers and others are not of this ilk. They strive simply for electoral gains, and figure that anything intellectual will come later.

  STM, Chemerinsky is prominent, and some of his causes have been identified with being “liberal” but I don’t think that any lawyer considers him to be a political liberal that actively campaigns and supports liberal political candidates. On the other hand, since all the front-runners in this presidential election are “liberals” you can comfortably call, Hillary, Obama, Rudy, or Fred, “Political” liberals (or conservatives). Looking at the cases he has had before the Supreme Court, see that he frequently aligns with institutions that might be considered “conservative” in the political realm.

  Mr. Scott, As a practicing lawyer, I probably should inform you that law might be “political” but the fault lines are rarely along the lines that are spoken of in the news media that you so love. So, it is all well and good to scream “law is politics” that simply oversimplifies the matter and makes it look like we really care what uneducated forklift drivers are saying on talk radio. (Finally, it seems like there are no employees of the “Judicial Equality Foundation” and the only member is you.)

  Al, It is difficult to tell if California needs another law school. Are criminal defendants adequately represented in court? Is there justice?

  Buzz, Want to know another brutal truth? Law schools that go out of their way to call themselves “conservative” are laughed at. Want to know another? The fundraising needs of law schools are different than of other graduate institutions? Want to know a third? There is no indication that donors are really turned off by faculty or deans that have represented “liberal causes.” Do you really think that a donor cares whether a member of the faculty has represented someone in a first amendment matter? Are donors really that anti-free-speech? Heck, can you name a single donor that stopped contributing to Duke after it established a clinic solely to represent Gitmo Detainees?

• How's the foot now, UCI?
• Posted by Patrick Mattimore , teacher on September 13, 2007 at 10:45am EDT

• There are probably a handful of "names" in legal academia and Chemerinsky is certainly one of them. His appointment would have brought UCI immediate stature.
  Although it would make UCI look even more foolish in the short term, the school should do a mea culpa about face and crawl back to Professor Chemerinsky's door.

• Have you ever been to Irvine?
• Posted by Buzz on September 13, 2007 at 10:45am EDT

• " .. Do you really think that a donor cares whether a member of the faculty has represented someone in a first amendment matter?"

  Lar -- have you ever been to Irvine, Orange County, Calif.? I have.

  Parts of it make Ronald Reagan appear like a Democrat. It was a strong-hold for the John Birch Society. A congressman's nickname was "B-1 Bomber."

  Yeah -- I think it would be hard to raise money in that world. That's life outside the Beltway, pal.

• donors don't care who sues the government
• Posted by Larry on September 13, 2007 at 11:05am EDT

• Buzz, Law schools usually fundraise on a national level. Since Reagan was a Democrat (at one point), and is revered by many Democrats to this day, I don’t really see your point.

  Of the “real” donors I know to law schools (i.e. 5 million plus), none of them have ever indicated displeasure with a civil-rights stance taken by a dean or member of a faculty. (Since vindicating a constitutional right usually involves a suit against (or by) the government, few people really feel like someone else’s civil right hurts them.) Every now and again I hear some grumbling about “tort” suits from donors, but because the tort landscape is much more fractured then it appears on TV, and much more complicated than non-lawyers understand, most of that rhetoric goes nowhere.

• I agree with Larry,
• Posted by Bob on September 13, 2007 at 11:35am EDT

• Buzz,

  I would be amazed if the law school has any problem raising money, inside or outside the beltway.

  You miss the mark with your comment about tobacco settlement lawyers. If republicans wanted to raise money for the law school, it would be the (most likely republican) tobacco company executives that would be falling over themselves to donate.

  Why, I bet they would even give a lung...

• Posted by Al on September 13, 2007 at 11:40am EDT

• >>Al, It is difficult to tell if California needs another law school. Are criminal defendants adequately represented in court? Is there justice?

  Larry, obviously, I was being facetious. However, you raise an interesting issue. Do you believe that another California law school (particularly a UC law school) will result in better representation for criminal defendants in California or that it will lead to "justice" (whatever you mean by that term)? Do you have any evidence that simply having a couple hundred more law school graduates a year in California will lead to better representation or to "justice"? It seems to me that there might be more efficient methods to address the particular issues that you raise.

• (in)dependence
• Posted by David Ayers , assistant professor on September 13, 2007 at 12:10pm EDT

• Buzz,

  This is an excellent example as to why the courts should be independent (from capital). The same idea applies to higher education. Scholarly appointments should be based on talent, not one's connection to capital. Indeed, the state should fund higher education adequately so that fund-raising (dependence on capital) is subordinate to academic ability, not the other way around.

• Posted by Larry on September 13, 2007 at 12:55pm EDT

• Al, “Justice” is like “beauty.” It is in the eye of the beholder. So, when I asked “Is there justice” I was also being somewhat sarcastic. There are people out there who think that it is just to pick random people off the street and beat them in the name of “justice.” This is quite efficient, as it makes people “respect” the law, and it lets others think that the defendants are being punished.

  I think the dominant view in the US, is that justice is achieved via procedural means. So, a criminal defendant receives “justice” when he receives a fair trial, completely with good legal counsel and every other protection of the Sixth Amendment. (This model doesn’t really capture the nature of criminal practice, in which guesses taken about the proper resolution of legal questions are what generally resolves cases, but no matter.)

  That said, if there were more lawyers, perhaps more of them would represent criminal defendants. Who knows? Whatever the case, many people say that it is a shame and a travesty that someone can be sentenced to months or years in jail and only be represented by one lawyers at trial, when a team of six is probably needed. I should note that a school needs to be very careful about hitching its wagon to a particular “commercial” cause of the day. Unlike criminal and civil rights matters, “commercial” matters come and go, and the players realign every few years. For a simple example, plaintiffs and the manufacturers are often aligned against insurers, especially following a bankruptcy. Legal strategy shifts happen far faster than a law school can reinvent itself.

  Anyway, no law school can go wrong by saying it cares about the following groups:
  1) People detained in any way by the government;
  2) Poor people that want money from the government (the law school doesn’t need to say whether this is Veterans or welfare mothers); and/or
  3) People that want to express themselves (the law school should not say whether they are referring to “religious” expression or “pornographic” expression).

• WTF? (3)
• Posted by Buzz on September 13, 2007 at 1:45pm EDT

• " .. Law schools usually fundraise on a national level .."

  All I know is, I spent five years, working in a fourth-tier law school (est. 1891) and never saw one national fund-raising campaign. However, they did fund-raise from alums in other states.

  " .. Since Reagan was a Democrat (at one point), and is revered by many Democrats to this day .."

  I've yet to meet a Democrat that said she revered Reagan. Most say he's the Anti-Christ.

  " .. You miss the mark with your comment about tobacco settlement lawyers .."

  WTF? It is the tobacco lawyers with the $100,000,000.00! Why else, is the trial lawyers group, one of the biggest donors to, in your words, "liberal" groups? The tobacco executives are pikers, by comparison.

  " .. the state should fund higher education adequately .."

  Approximately 50% of freshman do not graduate within six years. A lot of people think higher-ed's a fiscal and organizational
  mess, and won't give it another dime until it is fixed. That's higher-ed's problem.

  BTW: It has been posited that if all the law schools closed for five years, the U.S. would still have more lawyers per capita than any other major industrial country.

  The Irvine area already has one law school -- it doesn't need another one. But law school are cheap to open (just Lexis Online and textbooks) and generate good revenue. Who cares what happens to the students after graduation?

  http://temporaryattorney.blogspot.com/

• UCI Will Not Help Criminal Def.
• Posted by Paul on September 13, 2007 at 2:15pm EDT

• Larry, your assertion that another law school, especially a UC LS, will help criminal defendants is a joke. The majroity of these law students get a discounted legal education from top a LS. UCI, when arguing for a LS, said it was going to enroll "law students that do pblic interest work", yet how exclusive use of an LSAT score and a GPA can determine that remains open to speculation. I will bet one million dollars UCI will make NO attempt to bring in law students on any factor outside of the LSAT and GPA that every other law school uses exclusivily to admit students.

  Medical schools, all of them, require detaied and extensive personal interviews to be adimitted-law schools should too-especially LS's being funded 80% by the public.

  If you want PUBLIC law school students, earning a top flight leagl education on the publics dime, to work for public nterest you make it a requriement. 2 year internships AFTER law school in public interest-wherever there is a need.

  CA does NOT need another law school to go with the 30 we already have. When law grads with 150K+ in education loans make less than an entry level 1st year, HS educated cop or FF, then I think it is safe to say we have enough law schools in CA.

• Buzz Worked at MSU-DCL????
• Posted by Paul on September 13, 2007 at 2:25pm EDT

• Buzz, Michigan State-Detroit College of Law does do national fundraising.

  And I would not broadcats this is the school you came form, they have had many of their own problems with Con Law Professors.....

• Posted by Larry on September 13, 2007 at 2:25pm EDT

• Buzz, I think you have a very narrow band of people that you interact with. Even fourth-tier law schools with half-decent fundraising departments venture out of state for cash. I don’t think that a law school in a small state (wealth-wise) could survive with just local contributions. In the words of one fundraiser, “That would be malpractice.” (I wouldn’t go so far.) As to Reagan, as the years go by, I think we will all think more fondly of him, perhaps just because we will forget what the 80s were really like. Already it is a bit of a blur to me.

  Your comments about “tobacco” lawyers and “trial lawyers” are sort of naive. I am not quite sure you really understand who has litigated the successful tobacco suits (and on behalf of whom), and you seem to have no understanding of their payment arrangements. Representing individual injured people is a very risky business. While it can provide some rewards, it usually involves risking one’s own cash. Likewise, working for a firm that represents manufacturers will provide rewards based on the amount they are willing to pay per hour for the firm’s services, and how that money is allotted to associates and partners. Decisions as to where to make contributions of money are based on careful decision-making, rather than vague notions about what is “best” for one’s own career. Whatever the case, perhaps it is better for you to have such a simplified view, because reality is pretty scary and complex.

  The US probably has more lawyers “per capita” than other countries, because 1) our definition of “lawyer” is somewhat different than in other countries; 2) functions that are preformed by non-legal specialists in other countries are performed by lawyers in the US. Whatever the case, the market supports are legal culture, and any families with pride require that their children attend law school.

  Your comments about undergraduate graduation rates do not appear to be in response to any statement. The “Temporary Attorney” blog is written by people who, while they went to law school, did not take it seriously, and are being punished by being relegated to the lowest rung of the legal profession. While serious students do not have to endure such humiliation, I do agree that law school should be more open about what percent of their students are punished in this way for their misdeeds.

  Whether California (or Irvine) has enough law schools is probably quite a subjective matter. My guess is what a new school would try and attract students from around the country, anyway.

• agreement w/ Paul
• Posted by Larry on September 13, 2007 at 3:05pm EDT

• Paul, You said “your assertion that another law school, especially a UC LS, will help criminal defendants is a joke.” To some extent you are correct. However, was trying to illustrate that it is difficult, if not impossible to tell the “ideal” number of lawyers in a population. While many would say “it is what the market will sustain” many lawyers work in areas that are simply not sustained by the free market. So, yes, improving the quality of criminal justice takes more than just numbers.

  Your other point about whether UCI will make “attempts” to bring in students on criteria other than GPA and LSAT. In general, I agree. However, when it starts, it will have to make compromises as to initial student quality (heck, I wouldn’t let a family member go to any new school), and they can justify such compromises by saying that the students will do “public interest” work.

  Students in California are free to move outside the state. Likewise, that want to take “public interest” seriously should offer loan repayment programs. But, these are topics for another day.

• WTF?
• Posted by Bob on September 13, 2007 at 3:25pm EDT

• "Why else, is the trial lawyers group, one of the biggest donors to, in your words, “liberal” groups? The tobacco executives are pikers, by comparison.

  Your "Pikers" have profited from the illness that the tobacco companies have vended to the american people since the beginning of the smoke. It is ludicrous to think that any monetary "settlement" will cover that legacy. The settlement should have been high enough to put the tobacco companies out of business.

  The proof is in the pudding; tobacco companies stay the course to profits in spite of all else.

  Talk about a product with no redeeming value of any kind. If your "pikers" did not give the attorney's so much easy work we would not be having this discussion.

  "Approximately 50% of freshman do not graduate within six years."

  Don't fudge facts to support your argument, we were talking about law schools and hiring practices, not freshmen.

  "A lot of people think higher-ed’s a fiscal and organizational mess, and won’t give it another dime until it is fixed."

  A lot of people think higher ed is not a mess and some will and some won't give it any money. Many think it is a mess, but will continue to give it money anyway. But since you are purporting to be the spokesman for "alot"...please give us some numbers.

  I have no problem, as you appear to, with lawyers as such. I don't feel the need to defend them or castigate them. They are like every other occupation, a few can spoil it for everyone.

  "Who cares what happens to the students after graduation?"

  The question is whether the students at this new law school will be better off with the current decision.

  I feel your pain for the tobacco settlement attorneys...spare some for the victims of tobacco!

  BTW, I have worked with a second tier law school and basing a decision to hire on ability to fund raise, if that is the real reason here, makes no sense for many reasons stated previously in this post.

• Not Supported
• Posted by UCI staff at UC Irvine on September 13, 2007 at 3:25pm EDT

• One interesting thing to note is that the law school continues to lack the necessary support, and yet we are pushing forward with the development of it and an aggressive timetable for commencement of the program. This email was sent out around May from the office of the chancellor:

  Dear Colleagues:

  As expected, CPEC voted yesterday to accept its staff's recommendation to "not concur" at this time with our plan for a law school. We would have preferred concurrence; fortunately the Commission's concurrence is not necessary. CPEC is advisory to the legislature and Governor. Their support can be helpful, particularly when we are requesting new budget augmentations, but in this case we are not. CPEC relies heavily on statewide supply and demand projections, and California will always have an ample supply of lawyers, as long as graduates of unaccredited law schools are allowed to take the bar exam. We of course focus on quality and scholarly contributions.

  The Regents voted to establish the law school last November. At the time of The Regents' vote, we were working with CPEC to address their concerns. The Regents asked that we report back to them this spring if any issues remained outstanding. We will do that at the May Regents meeting. We were pleased that The Regents' representative to CPEC reiterated her very strong support for the law school during the hearing. University of California Provost Rory Hume also made a very supportive and compelling presentation to CPEC regarding the approved law school at Irvine, and former Senator Joe Dunn strongly reiterated the need for another UC law school in Southern California.

  We will continue to update you on our progress in recruiting our founding dean, who we hope to have on board this fall. We will begin recruiting faculty shortly thereafter. Our first students will arrive in 2009. We appreciate your support.

  Fiat Lux!

  Michael V. Drake, M.D.
  Chancellor

  http://www.chancellor.uci.edu/

• Show us the fund-raising
• Posted by Buzz on September 13, 2007 at 4:00pm EDT

• Larry: any URLs that establish your statement? Well -- try this:

  http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=law+school+fundraising+national&btnG=Search

  Only reference to third-tier/lower-tier law schools fund-raising nationally are for practice centers attempting to be national in scope.

  Law schools that consider themselves nationally-ranked (e.g., Wake Forest) are higher-tier.

  UCI faces an uphill battle to be a national powerhouse, facing off against Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, and U-Washington. Plus, 75% of the U.S. lives in the East.

  And UC-Merced is bleeding cash.

  http://www.modbee.com/local/story/45995.html

• Posted by Alan Charles Kors , Professor of History at University of Pennsylvania on September 13, 2007 at 4:10pm EDT

• This is yet another tragedy for higher education, betraying its values, chilling its debates and differences of opinion, discouraging sharp exchange, and intruding politics into what should be issues of scholarship, teaching, and, in this case, administrative abilities. The use of political litmus tests in hiring, from the right or from the left, is categorically appalling. I hope that readers will move from the issue of whose ox is being gored to the deeper issue of the toxic nature of all political litmus tests in academic life. I hope that those outraged by this appalling and contemptible political firing will apply the principles underlying their outrage consistently and in good faith.

• Posted by Larry on September 13, 2007 at 5:10pm EDT

• Buzz, Sorry, I don’t really use Google, and it is sort of strange to demand “URLs.” Anyway, it seems that anyone with any involvement in law schools knows that their fund raise nationally. Even someone with experience at the law school you claimed to have been involved with says that they fund raise nationally. Now, of course, some school might have a dud for a fund-raiser for a couple of years, but this problem is self-correcting.

  Secondly, all law schools consider themselves “national.” The word “local” is more of a slur that students lob at each other. For example, many students at New York City law schools are convinced that everyone else is learning the CPLR rather than the FRCP. This just isn’t true. All schools teach the FRCP, and all schools have an optional course in the CPLR, but the false perception exists. The truth is, however, that no dean of a law school wants to prevent his students from getting jobs outside the school’s local area. Schools are forever trying to increase their ranking. But, as you have some idea: the higher you go, the harder it gets to move up.

  Mr. Kors, What happened was terrible. However, it could have been far worse. If it had been done quietly to a less famous person, it would have been worse.

• Honor Thy Commitments
• Posted by Quizzical on September 13, 2007 at 6:10pm EDT

• No one has commented on the supervision of a law school that fails to honor its commitments. One did say UC Irvine Law could change its mind. Not so in my book. an offer of employement that has been accepted can be withdrawn only for cause.

  No cause in this case. The Prof/Dean was the same person who was offered the job - the people who were opposed to allowing these people to have a law school were right, although perhaps for different reasons.

  One of the above comments is right, the only person who will remember this after 90 days is Dr. Drake when he is interviewed for his next assignment.

  But everyone should be upset, not merely with the politics but with the lack of character.

• Reality are hard
• Posted by Buzz on September 13, 2007 at 11:00pm EDT

• " .. all law schools consider themselves “national.” The word “local” is more of a slur that students lob at each other .."

  I'm reminded of a niece who was offered a full-ride to U-Chicago Law. Who got MD-daddy to pay for Harvard Law. Which just reinforces the concept that it is only East Coast law schools that matter (plus Stanford and Boalt Hall).

  Yes, every law school can TRY to market nationally. From what I've seen, the success rate is about 3%-7% (profitable, not greatly so).

• Posted by Larry on September 13, 2007 at 11:00pm EDT

• Quizzical, From the news stories in the paper, I could not tell exactly what sort of offer was made, or contract, so I don’t know if he has any legal recourse. But, the school has done more damage to itself in a day or so than most lawsuits could ever do in years.