'THE MOST CORRUPT MAN IN CALIFORNIA [National Enquirer headline.]

How do you get hired and fired from a prestigious position in the same week?

That is what happened to my friend Erwin Chemerinsky. He signed a contract to become the first dean of the new law school at the University of California, Irvine (UCI) last week. Then, days later, he was fired because the UCI chancellor decided his liberal opinions made Erwin, one of the most respected, quoted, cited and beloved constitutional law scholars in the country, "too politically controversial" for the job. [Who's the author of the "too politically controversial" quotation? Estrich doesn't make it clear.]

Hogwash.

This column isn't about Erwin. [Um, so far it is.] In the world of law professors, everyone who knows Erwin — liberal and conservative — respects him. [It's still about him.] The outpouring of support [Cliche.] for him and the disgust at what was done to him have been overwhelming. It's about the cowardly fool who is leading his university down the tubes, the one who should be fired by the Board of Regents when it meets next week. [Cowardly fool is over the top. Estrich is preening. She means us to admire her hogwash and cowardly fool no bullshit approach. But it's over the top, so it feels like preening. Attention-getting. Tabloid stuff.]

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

So wrote Professor Lord Acton, who was the Regius Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, even though he had not been allowed to attend Cambridge as a student because he was Roman Catholic. In the same year, 1877, in a famous lecture on "The History of Freedom in Antiquity," Acton defined liberty as "the assurance that every man shall be protected in doing what he believes his duty, against the influence of authority and majorities, custom and opinion." [In classical music, they call them warhorses. In writing, the absolute power quotation is the equivalent of forty warhorses. It's an insult to your reader to drag this dead, pretentious, much-satirized statement out as if you're sharing some shiny wisdom-gem. And "So wrote"! She's simply convinced you're a fool, someone not worth any real thinking on her part ... And what's the relevance of the shit about Acton being a Catholic, etc? That supremo law prof/tv pundit Chemerinsky is a similar sort of martyr?]

By Lord Acton's standard, Dr. Michael Drake, Chancellor of the University of California at Irvine, is the most corrupt man in California. [An absurd statement. Same sort of crap hacks like Bill O'Reilly say.] His job is, or should be, to protect the "liberty" of both students and faculty, the academic freedom that is the cornerstone of great universities [Cliche.].

But Dr. Drake has a twisted view of academic freedom, one that allows Muslim students to engage in open anti-Semitism, to hold rallies on campus attacking Zionist control of the media, equating Jewish support for Israel with Hitler's Nazis, even (according to campus Republicans) displacing previously scheduled Young Republicans meetings with rallies denouncing Israel's right to exist. But there's no room for a liberal, Jewish law professor who is routinely the object of bidding wars between top-rated law schools vying for his services. [Since she has made no effort to introduce the relevance of this paragraph, its connection to the Chemerinsky/Drake situation is unclear. It comes across as more steam-blowing.]

Last February, Hillel of Orange County formed a task force to investigate what it viewed as a troubling number of anti-Semitic speeches and incidents on the UCI campus, including complaints by Jewish students that they were being followed and harassed by their Muslim classmates. That was before UCI's Intifada week this past spring, which included speakers supporting the terrorist group Hamas and a speech entitled "Zio-Nazis." That was before the infamous Ward Churchill, defender of the 9/11 attacks, was invited to speak on campus. [Yeah, hey, why don't I throw Churchill in too... I mean, what's she on about? Chemerinsky is Jewish... Is Estrich hinting that Drake's decision was another instance of what she believes to be his anti-Semitism?]

This past June, at a meeting attended by hundreds of concerned members of the Jewish community in Irvine, Dr. Drake told one parent, whose children don't want to attend UC Irvine because of the virulent expressions of hatred, not to worry because these incidents "are not every other day. It's a couple times a year." Asked why he didn't exercise his own right to free speech to "speak directly to statements made on campus" (as former Harvard President Lawrence Summers did when he opposed calls for divestment from Israel by terming such actions "anti-Semitic in their effect, if not their intent"), Dr. Drake ducked. [Does she mean this to be funny? Drake - duck? It's not clear.] "We have 1,000 guest speakers on campus every year. Could I evaluate them and say this one is anti-Semitic? I could not. What I could say is that as a person and a campus, we abhor hate speech, period."

On the other hand, we have no room for a liberal law professor — whose views were well known before he was hired, who is squarely in the mainstream of modern constitutional thought — because we're afraid to take the heat that may be coming from some of Drake's biggest donors. [On the other hand...? What the hell's she talking about? There's no discernable logic.] While Drake told Erwin it was the Regents he was worried about, that was an out-and-out lie. He later admitted he didn't consult a one of them, and instead pointed to an op-ed Erwin wrote back in mid-August about death penalty procedure — even though he signed a contract with Chemerinsky three weeks after the op-ed was published.

No, this was Drake's call, and it will doom his law school, if it doesn't doom him first.'

Labels: SOS