Law Schools
Law Dean’s E-Mail Shows Distaste for Clout-Heavy Admissions Decisions
Posted Jun 1, 2009 7:48 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
An e-mail dispatched by the former law dean at the University of Illinois is less than enthusiastic about a state senator’s recommendation for the admission of one applicant.
"She won't hurt us terribly, but she certainly won't help us," Dean Heidi Hurd wrote in reference to the applicant, in an e-mail to Chancellor Richard Herman. "She will almost certainly be denied admission if the process unfolds as we predict. But she can probably do the work. If you tell me we need to do this one, we will. We'll remember it though!"
"Please admit," Herman replied. "I understand no harm."
The Chicago Tribune obtained Hurd’s e-mail and hundreds others under a Freedom of Information Act request that showed “an ongoing power struggle between educators who want to protect the integrity of the state's most prestigious public university and administrators who also feel compelled to appease powerful lawmakers.” The article notes that lawmakers making requests on behalf of constituents oversee educational budgets, creating pressure to acquiesce.
Herman said not everyone who is recommended by clout-heavy officials wins admission to the university. The newspaper could not reach Hurd for comment.
The state senator making the request, Chris Lauzen, told the Tribune his request was part of delivering good service to constituents, and the student he recommended was highly qualified. He said the upsetting part of the e-mail exchange was the tone of Hurd’s e-mail. "If it were me, I'd fire her, maybe for insolence," Lauzen said. "If she doesn't believe the person is qualified, she should say no. Instead, she asks for a quid pro quo. Where are her ethics?"
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
B. McLeod
Jun 1, 2009 8:20 AM CST
It is hilarious that Lauzen askes, “Where are her ethics?” If he’d like to see some proper insolence, he can give me a call. I don’t think law deans should have to suffer little, tin-plated bastards with delusions of godhood.
Flag this comment
fed up
Jun 1, 2009 10:47 AM CST
Is this what passes for meritocracy now days?
Flag this comment
DITTO (JIM +++)
Jun 1, 2009 11:18 AM CST
Name says all.
B. McLeod 10:25 -0400 or Mon 01 Jun 2009
“It is hilarious that .... .... delusions of godhood.”
Flag this comment
Informed
Jun 1, 2009 2:25 PM CST
This is one of the disadvantages that affirmative action was supposed to help remedy-allowing minorities to truly be judged on the merits of their individual circumstances. We find out that the behind-the-scene manipulations benefit candidates who are able, through family or personal connections, to get influential people to push for their admission.
Flag this comment
Philip
Jun 1, 2009 7:06 PM CST
Informed,
I would love to see what evidence you have to show that. Especially since no AA program I know of—and certainly none in its inception—imposed any restriction on string-pulling by the connected. If anything, AA would seem to encourage this behavior, as marginal candidates not eligible for AA preferences will naturally try to use whatever other leverage they can get. Once again, please do post your evidence to the contrary.
Flag this comment
arthur
Jun 1, 2009 7:21 PM CST
It’s ironic, isn’t it, that some feel compelled to mention affirmative action in response to this story. I actually like this “revealation” to show folks just what goes on behind the scenes. I eagerly await the expose of “legacy” admissions (i.e, affirmative action for rich, white folks) at the Ivys.
Flag this comment
Leo
Jun 1, 2009 9:05 PM CST
Since we’re talking about affirmative action now, I know of a URM who was admitted to U of I four years ago with an LSAT score of 157. She was also offered a full scholarship. The median LSAT score was 166 at the time.
Back to the story- I think the headline for the story is misleading. Whatever “distaste” Hurd had for the policy, she said that she would not forget the favor. What do you think she meant by that? Doesn’t say much for UIUC Law- I’m assuming they teach a course in professional responsibility. If she thinks this is wrong, then she has a duty to push back and not play politics. Is is okay to do something wrong if you’re boss asks you to do so?
Flag this comment
Bob O'Connell
Jun 2, 2009 9:26 AM CST
While we can celebrate the fact that nobody is talking about paying money for admission, unlike other representatives of the people of Illinois, what will the University do to eliminate this kind of corruption?
Flag this comment
DD
Jun 2, 2009 9:28 AM CST
What you should also know is the Heidi Hurd was replaced as Dean of the Law School shortly after this incident and demoted. She was a classic West Coast outsider charged with turning the College of Law into “the Harvard of the Midwest.” She ran into Chicago/Illinois politics big-time.
Flag this comment
Greg Knapp
Jun 2, 2009 9:59 AM CST
All over the place these days people observe that choices have consequences. For decades the U of I law school has enjoyed, and well deserved, a very good reputation among public university law schools. What a shame if the cesspool of Illinois politics drags the law school, and ultimately the university which is my alma mater, down to its own level.
Flag this comment
Publicus
Jun 2, 2009 10:16 AM CST
Getting “clouted in” to the U of I. law school is nothing new. In the fall of 1970 EVERY law student who was enrolled in ROTC and would be commissioned the following June miracullously achieved “Distinguished Military Student” status. Of course these gentlemen chose all of the branches that put them as far from the front lines as possible. The negative effect of this was several ROTC students who were thinking of becoming career officers did NOT get the designation - and got cheated out of a Regular Army commision. And what was the quid pro quo? The Professor of Miltary Science and Tactics - Colonel X - had a son who wanted to go to law school. Guess what? He got admitted to the U of I. law school. The admission process at U. of I. has been suspect for four decades.
Flag this comment
Tom
Jun 2, 2009 12:58 PM CST
This Illinois State Senator abuses the system, cheats taxpayers and prevents a qualifed student from gaining admission, then questions the ethics of a Law Dean who gave him heat for it? Where are the polls, when do they open, I can’t get their quick enough.
Flag this comment
EDith
Jun 2, 2009 8:19 PM CST
Affirmative Action at U of I
I always chuckle when these abuses are uncovered. Often I hear the same people decrying afffirmative action for those who have a history of lack of opportunity. I always know what they really want is for us to return to old fashioned affirmative action called CLOUT.
Flag this comment
Tom
Jun 3, 2009 6:44 AM CST
Edith,
Why do you think that AA replaced clout? And is there any chance that the person decrying AA might simply be a qualified candidate deserving admission on the merits, who hates both clout and AA?
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Jun 4, 2009 12:34 AM CST
It is not that I lack sympathy for people with the clout. I just don’t think that it excuses churlish behavior. I mean, see a doctor, and get rid of it. A little common sense and a course of penicillin should do the trick.
Flag this comment
silencedogood
Jun 5, 2009 6:43 AM CST
Let’s look at the scope here. Clout stinks, but by definition few people have it. AA is based on race which is much broader.
As someone who had neither during the admissions process I guess I had to rely on merit. Sucks to be me.
Flag this comment
Harvard of the Midwest?
Jun 5, 2009 7:07 AM CST
@ #9: The “Harvard of the Midwest” will never be U of I…and we all know that Harvard is the Michigan of the East!!!!
GO BLUE!!!!!
Flag this comment
DL
Jun 5, 2009 9:02 AM CST
While I find Hurd’s email incredibly distasteful (to put it mildly), is it possible that she had a different reference point for the pronoun “it?” Maybe she didn’t want to deal with all of the potential “problems” this applicant represented, and thus the reference is to all the “work” she envisioned her school would go through as a result of the applicant’s admittance?
Again, any way you look at it, the email stinks (and I’m glad she is no longer the dean), but there could be an alternate reading of the missive.
Flag this comment
samiam
Jun 5, 2009 9:07 AM CST
This situation does not surprise me, nor am I disappointed that it occurred. Clout has always played a role in education. Any administrator who doesn’t know this, and isn’t willing to play to a certain degree, shouldn’t be an administrator. For the few students admitted on the basis of clout, the vast, vast majority of students are admitted on merit. Do you really think that positions in the real world (e.g., BIGLAW) aren’t obtained through connections? The practice of law, and indeed any industry for that matter, is based primarily on who you know. The “best” candidate is a relative judgment. The connections that a clout-admitted candidate may bring to the table are probably worth far more than a merit-admitted candidate who doesn’t bring anything to the table. Sorry to burst the idealist bubble, but these are the facts. Do you really think that Judge Sotomayor would be a Supreme Court nominee if she didn’t have political connections?
Flag this comment
Sven Henstrom
Jun 5, 2009 9:40 AM CST
It’s tough for the public universities, b/c the legislature can control funding. But really, law school admissions shouldn’t give a state senator’s recommendation extra weight.
Flag this comment
Susan
Jun 5, 2009 9:55 AM CST
Does anyone really think that this is unique to the U of I? I am impressed that the Dean actually made it somewhat painful to ask so as to discourage future requests (maybe her reluctance to cooperate actually lost her the job - IDK).
Flag this comment
barbara res
Jun 5, 2009 10:01 AM CST
If we didn’t put such an emphasis on these schools, then the clout factor would not be as valuable.
Flag this comment
R
Jun 5, 2009 11:37 AM CST
“Where are her ethics?” ranks right up there with:
Capt. Reynaud: “I’m shocked - SHOCKED! to find out that gambling is going on in here.”
Croupier (handing Capt. Reynaud a pile of chips): “Your winnings, sir.”
Capt. Reynaud (sotto vote): “Oh… thank you very much.”
I agree that the university official’s email showed poor judgment, but the protest by the elected official was a bit much…
Flag this comment
DADZRITES
Jun 5, 2009 5:01 PM CST
Amazing. Someone who is qualified and will probably turn out to be a better lawyer than most is denied because of admissions issues, and has to use her political clout. That’s not a bad idea for qualified people, who can’t pass the B.S. admissions process to law schools, since the LSATs are anti-thetical to what goes on in the real world of law. If she couldn’t get in on the power of her elected representative, she could have always sued the law school for discrimination, and then every jokester could then get into law school at a later time.
Flag this comment
DADZRITES
Jun 5, 2009 5:03 PM CST
Besides, who said lawyers are qualified to “practice” law. If the public knew that lawyers are not really “licensed” like other professionals, the pitchforks would come out.
Flag this comment
Bill
Jun 5, 2009 5:37 PM CST
George H.W. didn’t have quite enough clout with UT Law back in the day for poor George W. Had to go up north instead.
Flag this comment
Jesse
Jun 5, 2009 6:02 PM CST
Why is there such controversy over this recommendation? I know lots of people who did the extra leg work to obtain a legislator’s letter of recommendation. We all tried to get rec’s from the most important people we could convince to back us. I started networking Sophomore year in undergrad to meet legislators and get a job interning in the House just so I could have a representative’s recommendation to law school. It helped a lot and I’m not only unashamed of his backing, I’m proud of it.
Flag this comment
Bozo
Jun 5, 2009 6:48 PM CST
Why do so many people use email to communicate about sensitive topics? Go talk to the person face to face so there’s no written record. I can’t believe we’re dealing with lawyers who don’t think twice about creating a paper trail.
Flag this comment
Bozo
Jun 5, 2009 6:51 PM CST
Bill at 26, you’re an idiot. W never went to law school, he got an MBA from Harvard.
Flag this comment
gea
Jun 6, 2009 7:38 AM CST
This is terrible and confusing. What does the dean mean when she says it won’t hurt us or help us. And what does the Chancellor mean, when he/she says it won’t hurt us. Do they mean ratings. But now, I understand how George Bush, Jr. got into both Yale and Harvard.
Flag this comment
none@please.com
Jun 6, 2009 7:47 AM CST
Welcome to Chicago and Illinois politics.
Our Nat’l Shame. . . .
Flag this comment
gea
Jun 6, 2009 7:52 AM CST
Regarding #27, I agree that there is nothing with getting a senator or rep’s recommendation, but I do draw the line at calling the dean or having the chancellor do it. By the way I interned for one U.S. senator and handled the recommendation requests and these people were not doing any extra work. They just sent in their requests, grades and academic activities, which for about 10 percent were absolutely impressive. These kids did more during their 4 years of high school , than most people have done 10 years after graduating college or law school. Only, the top got recommendations, from what I could see.
I agree with #28, why are private emails a part of right to know and secondly, people should bring their laptops to work, perhaps this will cut down on private emails being made public.
Flag this comment
Tom
Jun 8, 2009 10:44 AM CST
Let’s clear the air with a few definitions:
Clout=insisting on admission for a nonqualified candidate using veiled threat
Recommendation, connection=requesting consideration of an academically qualified candidate.
Flag this comment
rich
Jun 9, 2009 6:31 PM CST
Question 1: Did Sen Lauzen write directly to the law school, or was his letter of recommendation submitted by the applicant? If he wrote directly to the law school, how is he qualified to know who meets the law school’s requirements?
Question 2. Did Sen Lauzen pay all his taxes on time? If he didn’t, how is he qualified to know who meets the law school’s requirements?
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.