• Home
  • News
  • Will Law School Reverse Chemerinsky Decision?

Law Schools

Will Law School Reverse Chemerinsky Decision?

Posted Sep 17, 2007 9:45 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Updated: Speculation now centers on the possibility that the University of California at Irvine will reverse its decision and seek to rehire Erwin Chemerinsky to be its dean.

The school’s chancellor, Michael Drake, told Chemerinsky last week that he was withdrawing the job offer because the Duke professor’s liberal views were too controversial. Since then, hundreds of university students and professors signed a letter urging Drake to change his mind, Adam Liptak writes in a column for the New York Times (sub. req.).

Liptak writes that the controversy has damaged the university. “A week ago, the new law school, … set to open in 2009, had a bright future,” Liptak writes. “Now it looks as promising as a Civil War leg wound.”

That assessment is echoed by Marquette law professor Scott Moss, who contends in an opinion column for Law.com that the university may have violated the state and federal constitutions and ABA standards for law school accreditation.

Moss writes that Chemerinsky may have a claim under the First Amendment and a California constitutional provision that requires the university to be free of political influence.

He also cites ABA standards requiring law schools to support academic freedom and to maintain conditions adequate to attract and retain a competent faculty.

ABAJournal.com previously noted the flap has led to calls for Drake’s resignation.

Originally posted 09-17-2007 at 10:24 a.m.

Comments

1.

Jeffrey Renz
Sep 17, 2007 12:38 PM CST

Prof. Moss is right.  Prof. Chemerinsky has a claim under state and federal law.  Don’t expect to see him suing California any time soon, however.  That’s the kind of guy he is.  Decent.

Jeffrey T. Renz
School of Law
The University of Montana

Flag this comment

2.

Scott E. Rodgers
Sep 17, 2007 1:10 PM CST

The question now is whether Drake has irreversibly destroyed the opportunity.  Irvine has two options to pursue a law school.  1) Offer the job to someone else, who will certainly have her every move scrutinized, as being a potential “second-best” selection, or worse, a person who is palatable to those who would have him carry forward the political agenda that found Chemerinsky too liberal.  Not a way to start a high-profile job.  2) The only other option is to “reoffer” the position to Chemerinsky.  But that option is tainted now.  Drake has irreversibly destroyed some of the opportunity Irvine once enjoyed.  Would Chemerinsky even accept the job at this point?  Now that the cards are tipped, Chemerinsky knows he will face political pressures and scrutiny by the regents, and will not enjoy the liberties he must have assumed at the time he said, “Yes.”  Moreover, his appointment would now be tainted, if not by actual political scandal, the suspicions and rumors of political scandal.  Would any of his actions be free from scrutiny or suspicion of political influence—real or imagined? 
    Drake has indeed destroyed a position that Irvine might not be able to recover.  He very well could have violated laws, but as I’m sure Chemerinsky might himself point out, the losers are the university, the people of California, and prospective law students.  Any action or recourse should be theirs.

Flag this comment

3.

Scott E. Rodgers
Sep 17, 2007 1:46 PM CST

Redacting the previous post . . . 
And that is why you should always check the pocket part!
www.abajournal.com/news/chemerinsky_to_be_rehired_as_irvine_dean/

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.