Sunday, September 23, 2007

 

The Chemerinsky Affair


The University of California at Irvine, an academically distinguished and fast-growing part of the UC system, recently announced that they were going to start a law school. This was an intriguing development in several ways: First, it was the first such high-profile institution to start a law school from scratch in several years. Second, it serves Orange County, an important economic engine for Southern California and the west which already had a law school (at Chapman University). Third, the school faced the task of building a faculty and reputation from scratch.

In accomplishing this last task, UC-Irvine made a bold stroke: They hired Erwin Chemerinsky, one of America's top scholars of the Constitution, as dean. To someone like me, that gave them instant credibility, and I was interested to hear what would happen next.

What happened next was that they fired Chemerinsky before he had a chance to start. Rumor has it that the firing was due to pressure from conservative donors who were opposed to Chemerinsky's liberal politics.

The response from both conservatives and others was uniform in condemning this reversal. To their credit, conservatives held firm to the principle that the presence of ideology should not be equated with a lack of merit, something that had been proven already by the fine job Ken Starr has done as Dean at Pepperdine. Finally, after that outcry, the University has doubled back again and rehired Chemerinsky.

I hope it sticks this time. A few years ago, I had to honor of speaking at Valparaiso Law School; the speaker preceding me was Dean Chemerinsky. He spoke for an hour, without notes, on the tension between fighting terror and the Fourth Amendment, and was brilliant. Following him was a real challenge, and I didn't help myself much by beginning my talk by saying that whenever I wore a wireless mic, it made me want to play air guitar. (Valpo's Law Review to publish the discussion verbatim, and they only took out the air guitar reference after I begged).

Comments:
I was flipping through David Horowitz's book The Professors about how 101 profs are destroying America and I was struck by the same thing. His opposition to most people was that they had liberal politics. Which shouldn't really be an exclsuion from being a prof. A diversity of both liberal and conservative views is pretty essential in the liberal arts.

I did note there was a Baylor prof on the list. Then again, so was Eric Foner, who was only the president of the American Historical Association and is the nation's pre-eminent authority on Reconstruction. If you think Foner is a bad scholar, that says more about you than it does Foner.

I didn't buy the book.
 
Poseur--

It's kind of sad that they print and sell so many of those books about how either liberals or conservatives hate America and are evil.

It's not really political discourse at all.
 
I'm too tired to comment on liberal or conservative or Chemerensky, but I did see something on CNN yesterday about the Air Guitar Championships in Brighton, England in the summer. They showed the winners and the losers and everything. It was pretty cool.

So there is a venue for everything . . .
 
I remember reading a liberal professor's defense of Robert Bork about 20 years ago during his nomination fight. The guy said that he and Bork were friends despite their disagreements, but that Bork was a great Professor. He stated that when Bork had conservative students he could make them think he was a liberal and challenge the students to back up their conservative opinions and vice versa.

Up to that time I had always kind of resented my self-identifying socialist American History Professor.. I realized he had pushed me to back up my assertions and beliefs, not just spout rhetoric.
 
IPLG--

I remember that guy. I took him for the Vietnam class, I think. He was just a good teacher, and had the good sense to label his opinions as such.

And Poseur, I'm with you on Foner.
 
The best teachers I have ever had have been from all over the political spectrum, but they never tried to teach me politics--they tried to teach me to think. To bad I never really got the hang of it...
 
I had a professor at UT that is probably upset that he didn't make the list. He taught marxist economics, among other things, and was one of the best profs I ever had. He started every class with, "I know a lot of you took this class to challenge my commonly mis-quoted, mis-publicized, and overly simplified political beliefs. If that is the case, then we're going to have a lot of fun in here. Let's get started and If you have any questions, comments, or criticisms please speak up at any time."

He wasn't afraid to defend what he believed and respected those who disagreed. We would often spend whole periods answering a pointed question. It was like a 3 hour socratic dialogue in every class.

These profs are necessary, and anyone believing that they are distroying America simply missed the point.

Love,
Matt
 
Yep--the Baylor prof on the list is Marc Ellis, I think. Good guy. Kinda startling to hear him speak when you first have him for a lecture or something, but the dude's pretty smart, IMHO.

I really doubt he's destroying America, haha.


And I really think air guitar is a worthy, scholarly, respectable thing to comment on, too. You should've kept it in! That's instant cred with me, haha.
 
Erwin C. is a great guy and (obviously) a great scholar.

More proof that intercollegiate debate is a breeding ground for top notch constitutional scholars.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

#