Why the University of California is in Trouble

The LA Times published two competing interpretations of why Duke professor Erwin Chemerinsky was unceremoniously dumped from being dean of the new UC Irvine Law School. They are hotlinked in this post because both are worth reading. One because of its absurd logic and the other because of the elegance of the statement. By all accounts Chemerinsky is a distinguished, left of center, legal scholar. He is a frequent commentator with Chapman's dean on the Hugh Hewitt show. They are sort of a point-counterpoint and do a wonderful job of explaining various legal issues. On those discussions I rarely agree with the point of view of Chemerinsky but he is always intelligent and thoughtful. In the case of hiring a dean you should be looking for someone who has some management skills but also someone who can be an intellectual leader in the school. Although I do not know anything about Chemerinsky's management skills (and a lot of that is a) proven after hiring and b) can be delegated to staff) but his intellectual integrity and substance is undisputed.

Victor Davis Hanson argues in an NRO post today that UC should hire him back. I disagree. But Hanson does comment "We have too many law schools as it is, so a new one at Irvine does not need to offer instant proof of why we don't need another."

What is undisputed is that the offer to Chemerinsky was contingent on approval by the regents. The Chancellor of Irvine claims in a piece in the LA Times that he rescinded the offer to Chemerinsky as a "a management decision -- not an ideological or political one." Chancellor Drake claims it was not based on pressure. He then goes on to claim "Independent thinking and autonomy are essential qualities that we seek in our law school dean. As academic leaders, we must also guide the university in ways that will inspire open discussion and empower our students to be courageous in seeking the truth. And we must ensure that the broader goals of our institution prevail." I guess the Chancellor believed that professor Chemerinsky would not engage in "independent thinking" and would be too dependent on some unnamed forces. What balderdash.

A WSJ Post had the following quote which disputes Drake's story "Irvine psychology professor and one of the members of the search committee that selected Chemerinsky to be dean — saying 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." The local paper (Orange County Register) also contradicts Drake's story quoting a Drake conversation with Chemerinsky where he said “’say some conservative opposition had developed to me, and we needed to strategize, maybe I needed to plan a trip out to Orange County,’” The Register story also implicates that both former Assemblyman Scott Baugh and LA Supervisor Mike Antonovich expressed opposition to Chemerinsky. But one wonders why UC would fold to the likes of those to politicos.

The Times gave Chemerinsky a chance to also comment on the event. His LA Times opinion piece offers a differing, and more credible explanation. In a phone call from the chancellor the professor was told he "had proved to be "too politically controversial." The Duke law professor then offers a strong defense of academic freedom which includes the a comment which Drake seemingly does not understand "All that matters is that the individual be committed to creating an institution where all viewpoints will be respected and flourish. That is what academic freedom is all about."

Chemerinsky had begun to put together an advisory board which included a couple of very conservative legal scholars. One of those,Viet Dinh, (Georgetown) seemed to sum up what the community of legal scholars think about Chemerinsky, "I disagree with Erwin on so many things, but with all the many panels and discussions I've had with him, I've never found him to be any other thing than a straight-up academic," Dinh said. "I think he is one of the great scholars of our days."

The case for a new public law school in Orange County is weak. Several reviews by the state coordinating agency found no justification for creating a new campus. California has a ton of law school opportunities in the state, although only a few are in public institutions. Public policy over the last decade has raised fees in the public institutions so they are very close to those paid by students in the private institutions. So the differences between public and private institutions are slight. The supporters of the campus offered the notion that only a public campus could produce "public interest" lawyers. The data on the subject suggests that invented argument is nonsense. Evidently Chancellor Drake believes that his campus will not be complete without a law school. It is what some people in academe call the "edifice" complex. That is supplemented by local civic boosterism. One of the claims by local supporters is that the new "public" law school will never require governmental support. One would ask then how is this new school public? There are lots of other questions about the new campus that suggest it will have a hard time becoming a parallel to the other UC law schools (Boalt, Hastings, UCLA). From Drake's actions on this case it is unlikely that this new law school will have a tough time finding any credible person to fill the role of founding dean.