So it's publish and perish now?
In the 9:48 p.m. version of our Erwin Chemerinsky story, Times reporters Garrett Therolf and Henry Weinstein drop a bombshell guaranteed to chill the hearts of any newspaper opinion editor:
Chemerinsky and [UC Irvine Chancellor Michael] Drake agreed the new dean's dismissal was motivated in part by an Aug. 16 opinion article in the Los Angeles Times, the same day the job offer was made. In it, Chemerinsky asserted that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was "about to adopt an unnecessary and mean-spirited regulation that will make it harder for those on death row to have their cases reviewed in federal court."
But Drake and Chemerinsky split sharply on what role the article played in the decision to fire the incoming dean and whether academic freedom was at stake.
"Shouldn't we as academics be able to stand up for people on death row?" Chemerinsky said.
Drake said "we had talked to him in June about writing op-ed pieces and that he would have to focus on things like legal education in this new role, and then here comes another political piece. It wasn't the subject, it was its existence. What he said doesn't matter."
He would have to focus on things like legal education is the part that really tells me Michael Drake isn't going to win any Manager of the Year prizes any time soon. I guess academic freedom's just another word for "stick to the hyper-narrow confines of your job, at least when communicating with the public." No more Karl Rove pieces for you, Dean Lemann!
The deal-breaking op-ed is here. Amina Khan poured a heaping of historical doubt on Drake's he'll-upset-the-Regents excuse here. Some righty defenses of Chemerinsky here. And check today's editorial, and op-ed by Douglas Kmiec.
Half of me says that there's nothing wrong with a university wanting to maintain a non-partisan political posture.
The other half of me says there's everything wrong with a university trying to *hide* a partisan political posture.
As an individual, he's entitled to his opinion but as the representative of an educational institution, he should do as his employer wishes.
Posted by: John | September 13, 2007 at 09:59 AM
Chemerinsky's problems are more than just expressing an opinion. He takes on a number of wild, leftist cases. It's one thing for an organization like the ACLU that claims to be willing to take on any cause despite their beliefs, that doesn't seem to be the case for Chemerinsky. Currently, he's representing the family of Rachel Corrie in a lawsuit against Caterpillar for supplying a bulldozer that killed their daughter. Caterpillar did not break any laws, yet Chemerinsky is invovled in a highly political and frivilous lawsuit against Israel. Do you think maybe too, that UC Irvine's problems with their Muslim students and their clashes with Jewish students could play a role in this?
Why can't we have a story that describes all of Chemerinsky's activism, rather than make it falsely appear that Chemerinsky is being punished for his right to speak his opinion and hold his own political opinions. He fought against California's recall election because a Democrat was about to be removed from office. I find it dangerous that a law dean would hold such extreme views, despite his supposed brilliance. Why don't we see Chemerinsky take up non-leftist causes? Isn't justice supposed to be blind, but there appears to be only one type of opinion for Chemerinsky.
Posted by: Happy4LA | September 13, 2007 at 10:56 AM
Are you kidding? The mission of a university is to facilitate intellectual dialogue. He clearly wasnt claiming to speak for the school - and anyway, the piece in question was written before his tenure began.
Since when do we expect university professors and deaen's to keep their opinions to themselves? If they did, exactly WHO would be left to give an informed opinion on matters of national importance? Generals and corporate PR lackeys?
This is frightening stuff if you believe in academic freedom.
Posted by: bishopmofo | September 13, 2007 at 11:03 AM
Shorter Michael Drake: “The first thing we do, let’s kill off the new UCI Law School”
Posted by: Susan Kitchens | September 13, 2007 at 03:52 PM
On a UC campus, a Chancellor's word is pretty much law. A Chancellor has the ability to quash any proposed hiring -- until the job offer is placed in the mail. After it has been extended, the situation becomes very different, unless the Chancellor can show what the law would recognize as "just cause" (for inst., if it is discovered a job candidate has misrepresented himself and his qualifications). This scarcely applies in the present case, and I can't help wondering whether his large authority went to Drake's head to the extent that he went ahead with his decision without first getting an opinion from University Counsel, who, I strongly suspect, would have tried to talk him out of it.
Posted by: dfs | September 14, 2007 at 02:01 PM
Dear L.A. Times:
Only I want to comment that Dr. Isaac Goiz Duran a mexican physician has
discover THE CURE OF CANCER DISEASE with his "Biomagnetic Pair Medicine" and I 'm impress that nobody can reach this in USA.
Thanks.
Posted by: Maria Baldi | September 24, 2007 at 03:26 PM