Chemerinsky

Chemerinsky is rehired as the new dean of Irvine campus law school.

Chemerinsky is rehired as the new dean of Irvine campus law school.

In the LA Times, September 18, 2007, issue it was reported that Mr. Chemerinsky was rehired as the UC Irvine campus dean of the new law school. Now that the Irvine campus train is back on track from a derail, let us examine some of the possible views of what did take place and what will take place if Machiavelli was still alive to report to us.

Mr. Chemerinsky can ask for more money or any other perk he wishes in “payment” for suffering during the hiring process. Machiavelli’s guess is it will not be money but some hidden payment such as allowing Chemerinsky to be active in his advocacy of issues.

One might expect that the experience of the past few weeks might intimidate Mr. Chemerinsky, intimidate him into staying in his foxhole and not come out to influence issues. If this is true, then the conservatives have won a small victory. If the chancellor did a deal with Chemerinsky to not impede his penchant for activism, then the conservatives may have lost this part of the battle.

The chancellor has lost some prestige and with that power. In the near term, Chemerinsky can help the chancellor regain some of his lost power by supporting the chancellor and the university. In the long term, the people will rather quickly forget this part of history and as time is added to the existence of the campus, it may give the chancellor opportunities to show his stuff.

Both the chancellor and Chemerinsky need one another for mutual protection and survival for a year or two. The more people around these two see them being together the better it will be for both. The chancellor cannot now cut any support for Chemerinsky or this whole episode will be dragged up again as part of any explanation. Chemerinsky needs the chancellor’s support to move forward with his build out of the law school. The chancellor needs a successful well built out law school and Chemerinsky is now the man for the job. Both men need to be seen by the community as getting along for the better reputation of the campus. We should expect to see these two men in photographs shaking hands with wide grins on their faces for some time to come.

The chancellor might, himself be intimidated by interfering in matters that before this episode took place he would feel compelled to step in with regard to the process of building out the law school. Now that public opinion is on Chemerinsky’s side, he has sympathy for being wronged; he now has a stronger hand to do as he wishes.

None of this need be true but it is fun to think of what might have happened and what is next.

Law deans and their involvement in advocacy.

Law deans and their involvement in advocacy.

I would like to comment about an article found in the LA Times, California section, September 16, 2007. The article is found on the front page of that section of the newspaper. The article is titled “Law deans differ on ethics of advocacy”.

In the article the reporters interviewed a number of high profile law deans to gain any consensus at to what degree a dean of a law school should become involved in exposing and promoting a viewpoint. The article seemed well balanced but a tipping toward hibernation, I felt was the summary.

I am sure it occurs to most of us that a dean of a prestigious law school might be elevated to some ranking, a level of esteem, by the fact of title and employer name. Most any business tries to attain a good reputation in the minds of the public. Any college and university is a business and forging a good reputation is extremely important to draw in more customers and high achieving customers.

It would be obvious that any high profile employee of a business act carefully to put forth to the general public a vision of competence, relevance and propriety.

The LA times article seemed to deal with propriety but not relevance. Let us, in this argument dismiss competence as to get into the position of being a dean of a law school normally takes quite a vetting process. How does relevance insert itself into the educational process? Curriculum must be relevant; the courses taught must be grounded in reality and the necessities of civilized living. The instruction therefore must be relevant. The individuals themselves, one could put forth should be relevant. By relevant I mean significance and important to our daily lives. Some disciplines in college curriculum hug more closely relevance. Science, math, engineering, government, politics and law, my quick lists. Getting back to the classroom instruction, the teachers in those disciplines must keep up with what is new in their fields to maintain their level of expertise, and following that their relevance. I guess the LA Times article might imply that administrators do not need to exhibit their relevance to people outside the institution. On some college campuses, the deans teach one or more classes which puts a small hole in that argument. A dean is the head of the college swinging between titular to absolute. This position is an icon for all that the college represents. This person is a marketing tool, taller than most faculties working for the dean. Who better to promote the college to the outside public? A dean can spend days, months, years, giving talks before community groups but in one or two well placed news articles more people can be reached.

Colleges and universities have for years grown to promoting themselves in new and creative ways. In fact some campuses seem to spend more attention toward advertising than the core mission, education. As one goes up the ladder of administration of any campus, more and more self-promotion is required to maintain one’s job. And if an administrator can bring good press associated to the university that person will typically be well appreciated. I guess that the Irvine campus search committee might have spotted the possibility that Mr. Chemerinsky would, very quickly, bring worldwide notoriety and naturally following that, a perceived relevance of that campus law school and our society.

I hope it is obvious to us all that the world is constantly changing. We need to change with it. We need to become a better society just to survive. To become better, we need to be better informed. We need to see and understand all sides of all the issues. Our viewpoints need to be challenged by views that we do not share. Mr. Chemerinsky seems to not be shy in helping all of us see another viewpoint, which I, for one, appreciate.

Some of the opinions in the LA Times article, one might suggest, are from an older school of deans who are playing it safe, staying out of the fray of organizing public opinion. For them, they may become irrelevant and the college they represent may or may not diminish in stature as a result.

Chemerinsky might be rehired.

Chemerinsky might be rehired.

September 16, 2007

I finally got to read the Saturday LA Times, a day late, Septermber 16, 2007. It was reported on page one that UCU was “… reportedly working on deal to rehire Chemerinsky”. This is obviously good news for those who value a better life, a better environment, for southern California. The report goes on to reveal that the conservatives allegedly did indeed lead the movement against Chemerinsky and allegedly, more specifically, Republican political figures in California politics. Well I guess the chancellor was hammered by the right and he failed to gauge all the concerns of the electorate, a tactical error. The left and central political elements of Orange County and California, just might wield more influence upon the situation than anyone expected, including me. It would seem that the Irvine campus chancellor, if the LA Times is correct, realizes that he made a mistake, once it was the turn of the electorate to way into the conflict. I do think the news media had a significant influence upon the issue. Both the LA Times and NPR stations seem to show a lot of concern and put this issue right in the face of the electorate.

It takes a big person to admit to such a significant error in judgment. The Irvine chancellor should be commended for realizing his mistake and reversing his decision. Too bad the Republican politicians put the chancellor into this compromising position.

I do hope this turns out well for the Irvine campus, that Chemerinsky accepts being the dean of the new law school.

UCI drops Erwin Chemerinsky. Follow up thoughts.

UCI drops Erwin Chemerinsky. Follow up thoughts.

After reading news reports in the LA Times, Friday, September 14, 2007, edition, and listening to NPR local radio reports my viewpoint has not changed much except for the following thoughts.

Some reports point to the possibility that the Irvine campus chancellor was pressured by some powerful political types to rescind the appointment of Erwin Chemerinsky. If this is true, then what about Mr. Chemerinsky offends those allegedly political types? Obviously, it is the fact that he is a liberal. He also engages in debate about his views. Do we take this apparent motivation to make the Irvine law school another Chapman University, to promote an agenda of conservative values? Or did some pretty powerful people get wind that Mr. Chemerinsky was going about creating a balanced faculty base as some reports suggest? If so, either or both plots seem to point to someone possibly orchestrating a conservative agenda for the new law school. Thoughts of some neoconservative individual or individuals standing in the shadows to force a political thought process upon all of us comes to my mind as a possibility.

I want to know who, if anyone, put pressure upon the chancellor. I think if there was a pressure process upon the chancellor, the people responsible should have the back bone, step forward and make their case and not hide behind anyone.

The people of California own the Irvine campus. The whole compete process of hiring Mr. Chemerinsky should be transparent to the people who own and rule this state. The chancellor must tell the people of California who, if anyone, has the power to over ride the faculty search committee recommendations and intercede in the process.

The best solution, to this debacle, is for the chancellor to admit he made a mistake, apologize to Mr. Chemerinsky, to his UCI faculty, and to the people of California and try like hell to get Mr. Chemerinsky back as the dean. To do otherwise is just plane stupid at every level of analysis.

On the lighter side, if Mr. Chemerinsky is not hired back as the new dean of the University of California, Irvine, then everyone who received the 14th Annual Best of Orange County, September 14, 2007, should make the following changes on page 55:

California State University, Fullerton #1
Chapman University #2
University of California, Irvine #3

UC Irvine rescinds appointment of Erwin Chemerinsky.

UC Irvine rescinds appointment of Erwin Chemerinsky.

In today’s newspaper (LA Times, Thursday, September 13, 2007) there is an article revealing the withdrawal of Erwin Chemerinsky as being the new dean of the Irvine campus law school. This is a most unfortunate development for all concerned. So why did this happen, why this turn around? Lets itemize who looses and who gains. The Irvine campus has been in the news for one campus problem after another. This campus needs to settle down and get it right for a long time so the effect of time smooths down the craggy remembrances we all have of past events. This most recent development creates a huge rough edge.

For Erwin Chemerinsky, the withdrawal from starting a new law school must be a shock, a personal hurt, and a minor insult to his professional reputation. If I were Erwin Chemerinsky’s lawyer, I would propose to my client legal action against the Irvine University.

For the chancellor, who at that level of involvement in an educational institution, the job is mainly politics and to survive in that position, one must not make too many political mistakes. This is a serious political mistake for a number of reasons. First, the campus faculty, who tend to side with the liberal side of things just, might be quite upset. Second, most faculty, worth their pay, would not stand for religion and politics entering into the decision making process for selecting top quality deans. This should especially be true for public institutions and the last time I checked, the people of California owned Irvine University. This leads nicely to talking about the importance of the people surrounding the Irvine campus. Orange County, it is some times claimed, is a conservative voting area. Does that mean that the people in the geographical service area, which the campus claims to service, must have a conservative dean or worse yet, a milk toast, offend no one, dean? I think not. We already have a conservative law school at Chapman University and a conservative Dean for that law school. My point is this; I do not think the people in the service area will be happy with this decision. For the customers, both parents and students, this decision might diminish the importance of obtaining a degree from Irvine.

Who can trump the people of California? Well the chancellor, being a politician, must make the donors, local industry leaders, trustees, legislature, and governor happy. The people of California show their viewpoint, typically far removed from the process unless they feel personally affected. This current situation, I believe, will motivate the few community people one would categorize as politically active. Parents who are thinking of suggesting their child go to Irvine might choose another campus. Students who understand what is taking place might scratch Irvine off their list. So the few community leaders, parents and students will most assuredly not put immediate pressure upon the process. I put my bet on the trustees and powerful community leaders for pressuring the chancellor. It is these people who can and will trump, and trample what is best for us all.

It has been reported in the news that Erwin Chemerinsky had his offer rescinded because he was perceived as being either too liberal, too controversial, or other factor (something we do not yet know about). Why are one’s political credentials a determiner factor? Well one can argue that law is the foundation for politics in our country. Ok, so what? What it probably means is that Erwin Chemerinsky has viewpoints that some other people do not share. I guess it is abhorrent that we include anyone else in our group that is not a lemming. It is humane nature that we gravitate toward like-minded people. Even people that look similar hang out together. An educated person likes and cherishes new ideas and viewpoints, a sort of positive spiral toward enlightenment (if done correctly). So how much sense does it make to surround yourself with like-minded people? A well-educated person typically realizes their innate propensity to embrace people who are mirrors of them but at a rational level a well-educated person balances the animal instinct with a decision to value people that are different. A person who values knowing more about life will be open to different viewpoints and this necessitates hearing from people that might not normally be in one’s social circle. This further labels the chancellor’s decision a bone headed one, a non-educated decision.

I will attempt to now draw a conclusion as to whether the liberal or conservative viewpoints are more important to society today. The definition of a conservative is “it is all about me”. The liberal viewpoint is “it is all about us”. When you think about conservative, think gated communities. When you think about liberal, think about open multi cultural integrated society. When you think about conservative, think about NRA. When you think about liberal think about gun control. When you think about conservative, think about stopping stem cell research. When you think about liberal, think about advancing stem cell research. When you think about conservative think about impeding environmental concerns. When you think of liberal think of people who want to minimize our impact upon this great Earth. When you think of conservative associate that term with management and business owners. When you think of liberal think union. Conservative agenda is let me keep what I have worked so hard for. Liberal agenda is we share our riches with others so others will not war with me. When you think of the conservative line of thinking draw the parallel of what is going on in Iraqi (All about me, not willing to share).

A rich private institution, Chapman University, must have a conservative faculty base, and a conservative dean of their law school. The rich embrace conservatism for conservatism speaks for the rich. It is galling that the public institution, Irvine University, is not allowed to have a liberal dean to help balance the southern California education environment. But there again, the conservative agenda tries to rule over the rest of us instead of with us.

The conservative agenda, if taken forward into the future might result in class warfare. The lower class and the middle class are becoming one. There is a very large rich upper class that is becoming a polarized element in our society. So whom do you think put pressure upon the UCI chancellor, liberal or conservative elements?

The conservative agenda, right now, is stupid if tallied in total for what is best for this country. The liberal agenda is based an enlightened view of life, an educated view of our society and our role as struggling individuals in this absurd world we are all actors in.

My final point is this. The conservative agenda right now is keeping our society stagnant, even moving backward. The liberal agenda tends to push society into making all of us live out our lives better for all of us. I think the reversal of the appointment of Erwin Chemerinsky is a further attempt of the conservatives to keep us stagnant and not advancing forward and the same can be said for the Irvine campus and I suspect the reasons are personal, devoid of intellect and thus short sighted.