This is an archived page. Images and links on this page may not work. Please visit the main page for the latest updates.

 
 
 
Read my book, TEACHING BEAUTY IN DeLILLO, WOOLF, AND MERRILL (Palgrave Macmillan; forthcoming), co-authored with Jennifer Green-Lewis. VISIT MY BRANCH CAMPUS AT INSIDE HIGHER ED





UD is...
"Salty." (Scott McLemee)
"Unvarnished." (Phi Beta Cons)
"Splendidly splenetic." (Culture Industry)
"Except for University Diaries, most academic blogs are tedious."
(Rate Your Students)
"I think of Soltan as the Maureen Dowd of the blogosphere,
except that Maureen Dowd is kind of a wrecking ball of a writer,
and Soltan isn't. For the life of me, I can't figure out her
politics, but she's pretty fabulous, so who gives a damn?"
(Tenured Radical)

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Yesterday Bonzo,
and Today James...


...sent UD articles about the developing Chemerinsky situation (and this is an opportune time to thank my readers once again for the generous way they so often alert me to university-related news, forwarding this and that of interest), in which a high-profile law professor was offered the deanship of a new law school at UC Irvine and then suddenly not offered it after all...

It's the sort of thing that happens... universities get second thoughts... What's unusual here is Chemerinsky's decision to talk to the press about it. I guess he's pissed.

So... let's see... I mean, the reason UD didn't post on this thing yesterday, when Bonzo sent her an early article about it, is that she couldn't quite make out what the story was about. Political correctness? Administrative bungling? Bigtime donor pressure? Whatever it may look like, UD (who attended Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism) tries to exercise on this her blog some rough journalistic judgement... And her judgement yesterday was that things were too vague.



But with the Los Angeles Times piece James sent, where they've managed interviews with the, er, principals, things are now pretty clear.

Chemerinsky is majorly pissed. He even poses his attractive family in a heart-wrenching photo which accompanies the article. The paper titles the photo Packing Up , and in it Chemerinsky seems to be comforting his young daughter as they stand in a disordered kitchen.

"You always prefer a story to reality," Mr. UD has said - quite peevishly - over many years to UD. Absolutely -- and in the LA Times piece, you can not only see people stage-managing a story, as Chemerinsky is doing. You can also see people hardening - wonderfully - into storybook characters.



In a showdown over academic freedom [This is how this paper's playing it -- it's an ideological clash between a liberal law professor and a conservative donor.], a prominent legal scholar said Wednesday that the University of California, Irvine's chancellor had succumbed to conservative political pressure in rescinding his contract to head the university's new law school, a charge the chancellor vehemently denied. [UD's wondering about the legal implications, if any, here. Chemerinsky's not going quietly, to be sure -- but is he also laying the foundation for a lawsuit? What's his motive in going nastily public? Wounded ego? Money? Scoring political points?]

Erwin Chemerinsky, a well-known liberal expert on constitutional law, said he had signed a contract Sept. 4, only to be told Tuesday by Chancellor Michael V. Drake that he was voiding their deal because Chemerinsky was too liberal and the university had underestimated "conservatives out to get me." [With all her sympathy for rebels, UD's wondering if Chemerinsky's thing might not backfire. Sure, the chancellor looks like a fool and will be damaged -- and the new law school will be damaged -- but Chemerinsky's vindictiveness won't necessarily be a good thing for him, either.]

Later Wednesday, however, Drake said there had been no outside pressure and that he had decided to reject Chemerinsky, now of Duke University and formerly of the University of Southern California, because he felt the law professor's commentaries were "polarizing" and would not serve the interests of California's first new public law school in 40 years. [Drake tries desperately at the last minute to assert that he's been in control. Too late.]

News of Drake's decision quickly came made its way through academic and legal circles nationally where it came under criticism from liberals and conservatives scholars who said Chemerinsky was being unfairly penalized.

"It seems late in the day to notice to Erwin Chemerinsky is a prominent liberal," said John Jeffries, University of Virginia Law School dean. "That's been true for as long as I've known him. It's rather like discovering that Wilt Chamberlain was tall. How could you not know?"

Drake said he worried that the controversy had the potential to harm the university's reputation. "It was the most difficult decision of my career," he said in an emotional interview, his voice at times quivering. [Human, all too human. Was he faking the quiver for sympathy? Who cares. Anyway, Chemerinsky's Bob Cratchit routine wins hands-down.]

Legal academics said Chemerinsky's sacking could make it difficult for UCI to attract a top-flight dean, students and faculty.

Douglas Kmiec, a prominent conservative constitutional law professor at Pepperdine Law School in Malibu, called the development "a tremendous setback for UC Irvine. It is a profound mistake in my judgment to have obtained the services of one of the most respected, most talented teachers of the Constitution in the United States and to turn him away on the specious ground that he is too liberal or too progressive. That is a betrayal of everything a law school should stand for."

[Fine words, fine words. But recall this piece in the New York Times, which points out that with a teeny number of exceptions, virtually all law faculties are politically clubby: "'Academics tend to be more to the left side of the continuum,' said David E. Van Zandt, dean of Northwestern's law school, where the contribution rate to Democrats was 71 percent. 'It's a little worse in law school. In other disciplines, there are more objective standards for quality of work. Law schools are sort of organized in a club structure, where current members of the club pick future members of the club.']

Chemerinsky and Drake agreed the new dean's dismissal was motivated in part by an Aug. 16 opinion article in the Los Angeles Times, the same day the job offer was made. In it, Chemerinsky asserted that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was "about to adopt an unnecessary and mean-spirited regulation that will make it harder for those on death row to have their cases reviewed in federal court."

But Drake and Chemerinsky split sharply on what role the article played in the decision to fire the incoming dean and whether academic freedom was at stake.

"Shouldn't we as academics be able to stand up for people on death row?" Chemerinsky said.

Drake said "we had talked to him in June about writing op-ed pieces and that he would have to focus on things like legal education in this new role, and then here comes another political piece. It wasn't the subject, it was its existence. What he said doesn't matter." [Of course, this is what's happening to academic leaders generally these days. Instead of universities wanting them to be the public intellectuals they should be, you've got a trend toward wanting them to shut up and generate big gifts.]

Chemerinsky, one of the nation's best known constitutional scholars[,] will remain a professor at Duke University in Durham, N.C. He said he had lined up a board of advisers for the new school, including the deans of the UC Berkeley and University of Virginia law schools and three federal judges, including Andrew Guilford, a Bush appointee from Orange County. [Again, what's the money angle here? Chemerinsky's already done some work for Irvine. What sort of settlement - if any - are we talking about?]

Chemerinsky said Drake told him during a meeting Tuesday at the Sheraton Hotel near the Raleigh-Durham airport that "concerns" had emerged from the University of California Regents, which would have had to approve the appointment. The professor said Drake told him that he thought there would have been a "bloody battle" over the appointment.

Drake disagreed with the account. "No one said we can't hire him," he said. "No one said don't take this to the regents. I consulted with no regents about this. I told a couple people that I was worried and that this might be controversial, but no one called me and said I should do anything." [Again Drake tries to sound like the leader he has failed to be. It was his obligation to vet Chemerinsky, and he failed to do so. Now it's backtrack city.]