I noted two days ago that one possible explanation for the actions of at least some of those who apparently pressured* Michael Drake to rescind the offer to Erwin Chemerinsky was a desire to derail the new law school. As the LA Times article quoted below notes (Hat tip to Brian Leiter), a delay in the opening of the law school is now a very real possibility. I can't get inside the heads of those who made the decision, but if they wanted to do maximum damage to their law school, they couldn't have done a much better job. From the LA Times article:
Officials said the turnaround on Chemerinsky could delay the opening of the law school — scheduled for 2009 — and so tarnish the institution that it would be difficult to assemble the scholars and staff needed to establish the school as one of the nation's best — UCI's long-cherished goal....
[O]fficials leading the launch of the law school said the decision makes it likely the school will not be ready to accept its first class as scheduled in 2009.
In order to meet the target, plans called for a dean to be in place this fall and for six to eight senior faculty members to then be hired this academic year. The search for Chemerinsky took nine months before a formal agreement was reached, and search committee members said they would now probably start again from scratch.
"We had three other finalists, and one of them would have definitely done it a week ago," said psychology professor Elizabeth F. Loftus, a member of the committee. "If you asked them today, I don't know. I don't think the law school will be derailed, but who knows what's going to happen next?"
*On the subject of external pressure, the same article in the LA Times says:
Loftus said Thursday that the chancellor told the committee during an emergency meeting Wednesday night that he was forced to make the decision by outside forces whom he did not name. A second member of the committee confirmed Loftus' account to The Times but asked to remain anonymous.
"I asked whether it was one or two voices or an avalanche, and the answer is that it was an avalanche."
Related Posts (on one page):
- If This Isn't Sabotage, Then What Is?
- Incompetence, Cowardice, or Willful Self-Destruction?
Last night, on Which Way LA, 89.9 in Los Angeles, Chemerinsky indicated he still would have made the statements in his Op Ed piece were he the dean at UCI. To me, this is an indication of Chemerinsky's naivete as a future administrator and indicates that lack of administrative skill was, contrary to the statement above, a factor considered in the Irvine reversal.
As a lead administrator of an academic institution, one owes a duty to the institution to do what is best for the institution. Part of that duty includes engaging all factions and constituents of the institution, regardless of their politics. It does not mean that you forsake expressing your own political views period, but that you, as Dean Eastman of Chapman Law School stated on Which Way LA, walk a fine line between expressing your own personal views and expressing the official views of the institution.
If Chemerinsky conveyed to UCI law school that as dean, he would still have made the statements in his Op Ed piece, it would risk too much controversy for a school still trying to attract donors of all political persuasions. Would his statements be construed as the views of the institution or would he need to tack on a disclaimer stating it was not the official view of the institution?
Making such statements as the Op Ed piece after becoming dean would put at risk the process of establishing law school identity and core values. It would indicate, to me, a lack of political skill and administrative know-how that is required to develop strong relationships with all constituents of an institution.
The selection of a more politically astute candidate and one with more experience as an administrator, then, might be more suitable for a new law school in the making. The founding dean of any academic institution would have to be one, INHO (in my humble opinion), that had years if not decades of experience as an administrator.
This does not excuse the ridiculous manner in which UCI handled the situation or diminish my respect for Erwin Chemerinsky as a legal scholar. UCI should have developed a more solid set of criteria in selecting a candidate and not renegged on an offer after having the candidate sign on the dotted line.
Potentially, lots of things, but that’s not the point. The question is, "If this isn't sabotage, what else could it logically be?" Again, the answer is, "lots of things."
The sabotage you described turns on the purpose of scuttling the law school project entirely. You inferred this purpose partly from the risk to the school’s survival many are suggesting resulted from the mishandling of the Deanship appointment, and partly from the ideological consistency of such purpose with what we assume to be the alleged saboteurs’ conservative political philosophy. That’s a pretty attenuated inference on the evidence.
Just one alternative that’s equally plausible and consistent with the political objectives of the alleged saboteurs is that they would be amenable to a school with a Dean to their liking and willing to kill it off otherwise. In fact, Occam’s Razor would make this the more plausible choice.
Also, he told Chemerinsky that there would be opposition from the Regents, but he now says that is false and several Regents confirm their would be no problem with the confirmation and they were not consulted.
Now that it is clear that Drake has been lying, why has the greater call not been made for him to step down from the powers that be in the UCOP and Academic Senate?
Whether or not you agree with the Chemerinsky appointment, it's hard to agree with the decision to recind a contract. However, it is impossible to accept lying about it, not when so many eyes are looking so closely at Drake and the school.
But law profs have not forgotten. And this time, it's their views that matter.
If you do you are clearly a racist, and you can no longer be permitted in polite society.
Methinks that this means there are a lot of conservative scholars who are saying something different about this controversy in public than they actually acted in private.
Also, the Ron George - Chemerinsky exchange reported by the LA Times today, putting in question the accuracy of Chemerinski's depiction of California Supreme Court practices, is something that may be just dandy for a professor, but something a dean should stay away from like poison. There may be great issues touching legal education or law school governance that may require a dean to take a position that is contrary to that taken by his state's supreme court justices, but getting into a gratuitous pissing contest with the state Chief Justice on an inssue central to the operation of the Supreme Court but in no way implicating legal education is not something a dean should be doing. That was just a case of poor judgment.
Personally, I am pretty outspoken and occasionally controversial in my field of law, and I mean to stay that way, so I dig what he is doing. But I would no more consider becoming a law school dean than I would consider jumping out of a high-rise office window. You just have to make choices in life, or, to put it another way, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Finally, someone has to say this, so here goes. If Chemerinsky were a conservative rather than a liberal ideologue, there would be no kerfuffle -- the LA Times would praise the University for taking a courageoys stand in the cause of guarding the minds of students from corruption by right-wing ideologues. Anybody disagree with that?
There really isn't any "question" about the accuracy of the facts asserted in Chemerinsky's article. His claim that California does not provide state habeas counsel in capital cases is a flat-out falsehood. If he continues to "stand by" it even after being on notice it has been challenged, by the Chief Justice of the state, no less, that is worse than the original article.
If UC Irvine seeks to serve California's needs for professional education, open a nursing school instead. After all, the Philippines is eventually going to run out of nurses California can import.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.