Liberal UC Irvine Dean Hired, Then Fired

Law Schools

Posted Sep 12, 2007, 01:57 pm CDT

By Martha Neil

Erwin Chemerinsky courtesy of Duke Law

Updated: Erwin Chemerinsky, a renowned constitutional law scholar at Duke University, reportedly agreed to be dean of the new University of California law school slated to open at Irvine next year—but was then fired a week later due to his controversial political views.

So says a University of Texas law professor on his Brian Leiter's Law School Reports blog, and the Wall Street Journal Law Blog has since confirmed the news by talking with Chemerinsky himself.

Chemerinsky, who was to start work at Irvine's Donald Bren School of Law next summer, said he was told yesterday by UC Irvine Chancellor Michael V. Drake that he “hadn’t expected that I would be such a target for conservatives, a lightning rod," the WSJ Law Blog reports.

Further details were provided later in the day by the Los Angeles Times, which reports that Chemerinsky said Drake told him the "difficult" decision resulted from "concerns" of UC regents who would have created a "bloody battle" over approving Chemerinsky's appointment.

“I’ve been a liberal law professor for 28 years,” Chemerinsky tells the WSJ Law Blog. “I write lots of op-eds and articles, I argue high-profile cases, and I expected there would be some concern about me. My hope was that I’d address it by making the law school open to all viewpoints.”

He said he had begun to put together an advisory board that was to have included conservatives such as Georgetown University law professor Viet Dinh and Deanell Reece Tacha, a judge on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the blog. Andrew Guilford, a Bush appointee to the federal bench from Orange County, Calif., would also have been on the board, reports the Times.

Among those Chemerinsky approached about teaching at Irvine was Laurie Levenson, a television commentator who teaches at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "For a new law school to start infringing on academic freedom even before it opens its door does not bode well for this institution," she told the Times.

Noting that conservative constitutional scholars serve as the deans of Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu and Chapman University School of Law in Orange, she added: "If there's room for Ken Starr and John Eastman to be the dean of a law school, there's room for Erwin Chemerinsky."

Eastman, the dean of Chapman, agreed, calling Chemerinsky's dismissal "a serious misstep."

More coverage is here.

(Updated at 6:23 p.m., CDT.)

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by Jack Rush Hicks - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 16 hours, 18 minutes ago

I’m a conservative and I’ve taught at a state university in an undergraduate program. There was a clear bias against me for my conservative views. It’s been my experience the academic world is to the left of U.S. society. We need more conservative professors to teach young people, not more liberal ones.
Posted by David - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 16 hours, 9 minutes ago

Academic freedom is a term thrown around too lightly, but the acts of the Board of Regents, as well as Mr. Hicks’ comment above are exactly why we need academic freedom. Ideological litmus tests are inappropriate and detrimental to learning.
Posted by Norman Gregory Fernandez, Esq. - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 16 hours, 5 minutes ago

What a big loss for this school. Chermerinsky is a genius and would have made the school more attractive to students.
Posted by Zach Allen - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 16 hours, 4 minutes ago

Laurie Levenson’s comments ring hollow. Her examples of conservative deans are exceptional at best. As anyone paying attention well knows, conservatives in academia are commonly marginalized and demonized, and I suspect one wouldn’t have to look hard for examples of conservatives receiving similar treatment as Chemerinsky. No one should be surprised when objections are voiced over the appointment of a self-proclaimed “liberal law professor” to such an influential post for a newly-founded law school. The last thing a new law school needs is the appointment of an ideologue as its first dean.
Posted by Christopher Patry - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 15 hours, 54 minutes ago

The issue is not that we need more conservative professors “to teach young people.” The issue raised here is that there is no room for a renowned constitutional law scholar, who is a liberal, to head a new law school at a public university.

It has been my experience that law school provides balance in teaching young lawyers to argue both sides of policy issues - this is entirely the point of law school, to teach advocacy. I have found this to be true of good law professors no matter what personal political philosophy they have.

It is a shame that the radicalism of the right on the political spectrum is able to so easily block someone of Prof. Chemerinsky’s intellect and accomplishment.

UC Irvine will undoubtedly find a conservative dean to who will probably be less open minded about hiring a balanced faculty.
Posted by Ken MacIver - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 15 hours, 50 minutes ago

That a new law school such as UC Irvine to have moral cowardice as its signature brand will surely hurt its ability to recruit good students for years to come. I instruct my new lawyers that it’s not about liberal or conservative, it’s about ethics and a sense of responsibility for one’s commitments.
Posted by Dan Stants - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 15 hours, 49 minutes ago

I am glad to see the professor Chemerinsky won’t be the dean of a law school. This is a man that thinks his opinion on Constitutional issues are binding precedent, and his positions are frequently found by the Supreme Court to be wrong (FAIR v. Rumsfeld for example, 9-0 decision). Additionally, I was particularly bothered by the review lecture he did during my BarBri bar review course. Some of his statements regarding constitutional issues were just plain wrong, and I recall him making a sexually oriented joke about Bill Clinton that I am sure at least a few women in the class found offensive. At the very least it was not proper for a bar review course where the students are paying huge fees to prepare for the bar exam, not listen to stupid jokes. He is not the kind of person that the legal community wants to have directing the education of new lawyers.
Posted by Doug Frazey - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 15 hours, 19 minutes ago

I sat through BarBRI myself. Chemerinsky wans’t there, but many of the presenters had equally off-color jokes about other topics. The assumption that BarBRI presenters seem to have is that all law school grads are adults and are accustomed to dealing with sensitive subjects. I tend to agree. As far as UC Irvine, it’s their loss; Chemerinski is a far more esteemed scholar than their fledgling law school should expect to employ. If UC wants to squelch liberals, might I suggest they consider simply merging with Liberty University?
Posted by Nina Ricci - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 15 hours, 13 minutes ago

Professor Chemerinski was the best part of the BarBri lecture series. The comment above is ridiculous. Chemerinski is thoughtful, intelligent, and funny. No one was offended by his humor -except possibly boring conservatives (such as the one above) who probably didn’t “get” the jokes. Chemerinski undoubtedly would have attracted students who are excited about the law. What a loss.
Posted by Philip Johnson - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 15 hours, 11 minutes ago

Chemerinsky in ultra-conservative Orange County? I’m surprised the appointment lasted as long as it did. He’ll surface somewhere else and be appreciated for his brilliance.
Posted by Daniel Lauber - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 15 hours, 11 minutes ago

It’s funny how the politics in the legal community reflect those in society. Political conservatives consistently tend to be intolerant of anybody with viewpoints other than their own—and if you don’t agree with them, then you shouldn’t be teaching anybody. They have a nasty tendency to be quite exclusionary and oppressive to those who hold a different viewpoint. Liberals tend to be a lot more tolerant of people who opposing viewpoints—and even encourage the expression of opposing viewpoints—while they may express their disagreement with those viewpoints. The discussion here seems to reflect these differences. If our society is to remain free, this nation cannot afford to stiffle the free expression of opposing viewpoints and cannot afford to have our teaching community limited to a single viewpoint. The founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves these days as friendly fascism raises its ugly head in America.
Posted by STEPHEN THOMAS - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 15 hours, 6 minutes ago

Chemerinsky is a brilliant and decent man. He was my ethics professor at USC law school some 25 years ago and I still remember him as a shining star in the world of legal scholars. Since then, I have watched, with pleasure, Professor Chemerisky distinguish himself in everything he has undertaken. If he was released from Irvine because he is liberal, this is a truly shameful testament to the degradation of the political climate in this country and should be an embarassment to UC Irvine. John Wayne would not approve.
Posted by Dan Stants - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 14 hours, 37 minutes ago

Isn’t it interesting that a woman, and based on her comment most likely a liberal, would take a personal shot at me, calling me a “boring conservative” for expressing my displeasure with a sexually oriented joke about Bill Clinton, the patron saint of Democrats. I would think she would find the joke offensive herself for multiple reasons. I wasn’t offended by his joke, I just thought it was stupid and inappropriate for the setting. I didn’t pay all that money to listen to stupid jokes. And by the way, its not hard to get a joke where the punchline is Bill Clinton confusing the difference between the words “harass” and “her-ass.” But it just goes to show that people will ignore something that they would otherwise find offensive if the speaker shares enough of their views on other things. I wonder what Ms. Ricci would have said about the joke if it was delivered by a “boring conservative.” Sometimes a joke is just stupid or offensive regardless of the speaker’s political views. His lame sense of humor aside, I have read numerous quotes from Chemerinsky that indicate to me that he is someone who believes because he can string together an argument that makes sense to him, then it must be mandated by the Constitution, and those who disagree just aren’t as smart as he is and just don’t understand. That is typical of educators who are extreme in their views on either end of the political spectrum, and that is why he is not suited to dean a law school. That is my opinion, and I gave it. The fact that someone would take a shot at me, albeit a very lame one, just shows their own inability to make a rational argument and discuss issues in a civilized manner. And that is why extremists on both ends of the spectrum need to be kept out of education. They pass on their approach to dealing with issues, and the students receive a lesser education in the process.
Posted by David - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 14 hours, 34 minutes ago

To Daniel Lauber:

Your characterization of conservatives ignores that the left is just as bad on not tolerating dissimilar viewpoints. The left’s mantra always has been, “Freedom of speech, as long as your viewpoint is a liberal viewpoint.” Otherwise, if you have conservative viewpoints you are “insensitive,” “prejudiced,” or “elitist.” The left is willing to listen to many different viewpoints on a subject ONLY as long as they are so-called “liberal” viewpoints.

Both sides of the political fence are intolerant of people’s different viewpoints. Don’t act like that’s a problem exclusive to conservatives.
Posted by Steven Schindler - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 14 hours, 26 minutes ago

I was fortunate to have taken two of Professor Chemerinsky’s courses at Duke Law, and I can only celebrate the short-sighted approach of those who find his deanship objectionable to the extent that my colleagues still at Duke will continue to benefit from his presence a short while longer. He is one of the best teachers I have encountered, in part because of his skill at creating space for all views. Soon, a law school will recognize that his humility, integrity, and respect for others (especially his students), even more than (and perhaps in spite of) his unquestioned genius, make him an ideal dean. The great irony here is that future conservative students and professors of UC Irvine Law may have benefited the most from this self-avowed liberal law professor who would have gone to great lengths to ensure that any ideas with which he personally disagrees, and the scholars that espouse those ideas, are welcome at UC Irvine.
Posted by Jennifer - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 14 hours, 16 minutes ago

I don’t know everyone on his proposed advisory board, but I did have Viet Dinh for Corporations at Georgetown Law - he’s very conservative. Sounds like a very even advisory board was proposed.

Their loss!
Posted by Bernard Kaye - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 14 hours ago

It is the reason given for firing that is bothersome: fear, fear of any person or group is a problem; this is fear of reprisal. Is it a sincere effort to achieve intellectual diversity? Does the end justify the means? I think not.
Posted by Artin B. - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 13 hours, 52 minutes ago

I had Chemerenski’s “rival”, John Eastman, as my constitutional law prof a few years back. While I disagree with a many of his viewpoints, Eastman’s political views did not change the fact that he was an exceptional professor and academic. I suspect that to be the same with Chemerenski. As an alum of UCI, I’m disappointed to see my alma matter putting politics before scholarship.

Also, to the individual who took so much offense to Chemerenski’s Barbi jokes - I’m not sure how in the world one would sit through a lengthy Barbri lecture, and keep their sanity, without some kind of humor. You say it was stupid and inappropriate for the setting, but are you seriously saying you would rather have the professor get up there and just regurgitate what’s in the Barbri outline like Ben Steins in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off? Every single professor that gave a lecture in that series made jokes - and for a good reason. It keeps the student’s attention, allows them to remember the material better, and, importantly, helps to break the tension and stress created by having a room full of students trying to study for the bar exam. Actually, I would seriously pay money to see the torts lecturer again. He made me laugh more than any stand-up comedian ("oh how loathsome!"), and I did quite well on the torts section of the bar.
Posted by VF - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 13 hours, 49 minutes ago

The liberal/conservative issue really isn’t the point here. The true issue is that Drake and the other administrators responsible for the decision apparently either didn’t do their homework--whether you’re a fan of Chemerinsky’s or not, if you’ve followed his career at all over the years, his outspoken opinions and his nontraditional legal analyses are impossible to miss--or were so swept away by Chemerinsky’s celebrity (and what was sure to be seen as a fantastic recruiting achievement on Drake’s or whomever’s part) that they miscalculated their own ability to deal with controversy. For better or worse, that ability is one of the characteristics of a great contemporary university. Whether you see Drake et. al. as making the mistake by hiring Chemerinsky in the first place or by firing him now, the ultimate result is that the entire ordeal is an embarrassment.
Posted by Dan Stants - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 13 hours, 42 minutes ago

If you had the same tort’s lecturer that we did when I took the course, I agree with you. He gave an excellent lecture and was funny as hell. I got a lot out of his lecture. However, I thought Chemerenski was generally boing, and his jokes were stupid. In fact, I didn’t say that I took offense at his jokes, but that I thought some did because of the type of joke he told, and I could see why they did. I suspect that the people who felt otherwise feel that way because they like his politics, not because theey really thought he was that great. But that doesn’t change the fact that his lecture was boring and his jokes were lame. I personally didn’t agree with some of his statements on Constitutional law because I recognized that they were a product of his political views, and that wasn’t what I was paying for. For the most part I found BarBri not to be worth the amount I paid for the class, and Chemerinsky was part of the reason why. If all of the speakers were as good as the guy who covered torts, or Paula Franzes who covered property, I would feel differently. If you are going to crack jokes during a lecture to keep the student’s attention they at least have to be funny to accomplish that goal.
Posted by DPB - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 13 hours, 31 minutes ago

As a conservative republican, I can only echo Chapman Dean John Eastman’s comment that this is a serious misstep by UC Irvine. Eastman understands that Chemerenski is a brilliant scholar and would have been an exceptional leader for the new school. To even think that Chemerenski would have merely hired a faculty of acolytes is insulting on many levels. This is a man who enjoys the debate and would have helped create a lively and vibrant legal and educational community. UC Irvine, with this move, will get the law school it deserves.
Posted by Bruce L. Rockwood - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 13 hours, 29 minutes ago

I find it hard to believe the law school can credibly get off the ground, starting out this way. Any Chancellor with integrity would resign rather than go along with this kind of hatchet job. And what would it say about the integrity of anyone who agreed to be Dean under these circumstances?
Posted by JD - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 13 hours, 23 minutes ago

WE NEED MORE DIVERSITY in law schools and that means we DO NOT NEED more liberal deans. Our law schools are nearly all leftists and are providing future lawyers a one-sided education.

WHY DOESN’T THE ABA investigate the lack of political diversity amongst law school staff in their next issue? It’s sad that I feel the need to “reeducate” myself only months out of law school.
Posted by M.E.S. - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 12 hours, 17 minutes ago

All you whackos who commented on that article should be sent to a mental institution. There was one basic point that not one person mentioned, as you are all too obsessed with pushing your whacko agenda (left or right)… The point is quite simple. UCI should have obviously made this determination before they publicly hired him. That way none of this attention would have been brought upon them. They are stupid for not having done their internal diligence and not realizing that his hiring would cause such problems.
They deserve the bad press for a poorely played hire.

I don’t really feel bad for the Professor. I thought he was an enormous hack who made the most basic Con Law concepts seem incredibly complicated. He was a dull and tedious professor (as shown in his BarBri lectures), and he is a nerd academic that needed a good dose of reality.
Posted by J Thomas - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 11 hours, 13 minutes ago

While I may be a “liberal” and hopefully not a “whacko,” I agree with the conservative poster who notes correctly that Chemerinsky is a brilliant scholar and that it’s silly to think he’d fill the school with sycophant-types. But, alas, we are a silly spoiled and intellectually lazy public and we’d rather spout nonsense about “all professors are liberal elites” or “conservatives don’t have a place at the table” or “he told a bad joke and offended me” and other such nonsense. Typical of everything else nowadays, the true issue at hand falls prey to hyperbole and Fox News-style commentary.
Posted by Ry C. - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 11 hours, 9 minutes ago

Why would a university ever consider a constitutional law professor for the position of dean? Such conundrums boggle the mind and shock the conscious. Everyone knows tort professor are far superior than those pesky constitutional law ones - with their judiciability requirements.
Posted by Kevin Stamps - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 10 hours, 58 minutes ago

According to poster #3, “Chemerinski is a genius.” What does that have to do with anything? Law school deans are hired to raise funds and advance the school’s rankings. This guy is incapable of responding to basic questions about directions. He is a door-closed academic who is probably on better terms with deceased Supreme Court justices than with fellow professors and students.
Posted by M.E.S. - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 10 hours, 56 minutes ago

J Thomas, hopefully you are not a whacko (your thoughtful post suggests the negative). You highlight well the point I was trying to make. These comments infuriate me, because they typify how quickly and thoughtlessly, so-called “educated Americans” fall into stereotypical pithy quips about the left and the right… all of which leave so much to be desired..

However, I take issue with the following point. Chemerinky is a brilliant scholar who certainly keeps himself apprised of all worthy scholarship across the ideological spectrum, but that does not necessarily mean he would honor such a model in hiring (i.e. in building a balanced faculty), especially when looking to build from the ground up. It would be a different story if he were to jump into a dean position at an established institution.
Posted by R Nedwey - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 10 hours, 33 minutes ago

Someone above posted that “their experience was that law school provides balance in teaching young lawyers.” Having just completed law school I would have to say I felt an extrme push of socialist or liberal agenda or slant in virtually all areas. Conservative comments where often minimalized or made in humorous retorts.
Posted by anonymous - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 7 hours, 40 minutes ago

Congratulations to the extremists in the contentious tents of the political circus who posted here today; you’ve proved your talent and stripped the clown of his make-up with your tangential and vulnerable comments. If I could offer you a single suggestion to carry with you for the remainder of your life, then it would have to be please don’t write or say what you think ever again, no matter the amount of time or extent of deliberation that go into your thoughts. Let me qualify my suggested self-censorship: I endorse free speech, regardless of its subjective value; however, continuing to exercise your communicative capacities may prevent you from succeeding in life. (Albeit, your circus tent probably cheers loudly for you. If that’s the dynamic you wish to live in, then I will confess that I am impressed with your ability to ignore reality.) Whether you agree with Professor Chemerinsky or Chancellor Drake, it is clear that the Professor dwarfs the majority of you when it comes to simple thoughtfulness.
Posted by J.C. - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 7 hours, 35 minutes ago

I’ve watched Chemerinsky for years on T.V., and I had NO idea he was “liberal,” only brilliant. I passed the MPRE on first try after attending his (taped) Barbri lecture—and after getting a bad grade in the ethics class. He was a very engaging lecturer and appropriately funny, with barbs against both political parties and both sides of the O.J. trial. ‘Tis a shame that a nationally renowned Con scholar, who could have immediately brought cache to a new law school, was turned away for the wrong reasons. But maybe we don’t need anymore law schools right now…
Posted by Why badge him as liberal and not progressive? - 11 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 4 hours, 3 minutes ago

I don’t understand why the ABAjournal of all sites engages in sensationalism. Why does a highly respected legal journal care about a political status?

Either you have a rogue editor, or your standards are waning.

Failure to keep in line with the legal standards that are expected of ABA Journal will get you dis-barred among your constituent readers.

Kind regards,
Chris B
Posted by pmklein - 11 months, 3 weeks, 1 day, 16 hours, 13 minutes ago

THree factors should govern the selection of a law school dean: respected scholarship, leadership/management skills, and fund-raising capability.

Presumably Dr. Drake saw all three in his candidate before making the offer or he failed in his responsibilities. When he withdrew the offer, he either recognized his own failure or was too weak to defend his choice. In either case, the question now for his superiors is Drake’s own worthiness of the office he holds.

Let judgements be made without bias of either right or left.
Posted by Responding to #33 - 11 months, 3 weeks, 1 day, 4 hours, 19 minutes ago

Let me first note that I used Chemerinsky’s constitutional law text book in school and found that it suffered from the same bad editing and dry prose that plagues most casebooks in that area. I’m not saying Chemerinsky is bad, I’m saying I don’t find his scholarship anything special. With that said…

Respected scholarship - I agree that a big name dean helps, but it sounds like Chemerimsky’s partisan views were marring whatever credit he’d developed in this regard, Better to find a dean whose academic prowess rises above politics rather than being mired in it.
Leadership/management - If partisan politics is this big of a problem for the regents, it could be for the faculty as well. Doesn’t sound like a good leader to me.
Fund-raising capability - if Chemerinsky scared away as many conservative dollars as he brings in liberal ones, he won’t do the school much good.
This country has no shortage of legal scholars and Irvine is a nice city. I’m sure someone else will come along and do a wonderful job.

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Law Schools