Michael Drake, the chancellor of Irvine writes to set the record straight on why he let Chemerinsky go.
(Our earlier post here.)
Stop and Fisk below the fold. (And more Frisking at TaxProfBlog here)
The University of California at Irvine over the last several months has conducted a nationwide search for the founding dean of our school of law...
I see. This means that the decision to hire Chemerinsky was the product of considerable time, discussion and work.
I subsequently made the very difficult decision that Professor Chemerinsky was not the right person for the dean's position and informed him that we were rescinding our offer and continuing the recruitment process.
A week later? It took a months to find him, but less than a week to conclude that he wasn’t the “right” person for the job?
My decision -- and the motivation for it -- have been the subject of extensive media coverage over the last few days,
Of course it has. I think my post set a record for hits on this blog. I thank you for that.
much of which has been characterized by assumption, conjecture and hearsay.
Well, much of what we know about the universe is characterized by assumption, conjecture and hearsay. This is how legislators make laws, and even how juries convict people. (The rules against hearsay, at best, require lawyers to make arguments as to why certain things are not hearsay, or are specific exceptions to hearsay.) But, so far, you have not provided any specifics as to why you made your decision. You have denied things. You have provided vague answers, but nothing specific. Heck, let me give the audience a clue as to everything else you are going to say: there are no other specifics. So, quite frankly, the best we have to go on is assumption, conjecture and hearsay.
Let me set the record straight. I made a management decision -- not an ideological or political one...
This means absolutely nothing. “Management” decisions can be political, especially when you need to relate to people on “political” grounds. For example, if Hillary Clinton makes a “management” decision to allocate funds towards campaigning in one state and not in another, it is also a “political one.”
The decision was mine and mine alone.
This is a refeshing bit of responsibility-taking. However, other people would take issue with this claim.
It was not based on pressure from donors, politicians or the University of California Board of Regents.
Well, nobody wants to admit to being “pressured.” But, if a decision is the result of pressure, one can save face by making the decision and denying that they were pressured. In order to lend some credibility to this claim, we would need to know the complete substance of all conversations about Professor C. But, no specifics are offered.
It was a culmination of discussions -- with many people over a period of time -- that convinced me that Professor Chemerinsky and I would not be able to partner effectively to build a world-class law school at UC Irvine.
By “time” do you mean a week?
So there were discussions (with people that you won’t name)? The discussions were about Professor Chemerinsky, and the discussions lead you to believe that something bad would happen to your goals if Professor Chemerinsky was your “partner.”
That is my overarching priority.
So, let me get this straight. Your “overarching priority” is to build a good law school. Then, someone without a name or face told you that you wouldn’t be able to “partner” with Professor Chemerinsky to achieve this goal. And you say that you were not pressured.
My decision was absolutely not based on Professor Chemerinsky's place on the political spectrum, which is, in fact, quite similar to my own.
And what place on the political spectrum is that?
Nor was this a matter of academic freedom. UC Irvine -- and I personally -- staunchly support and defend freedom of speech and the expression of a wide range of viewpoints on our campus; nowhere is this more important than at a public university.
This actually carries some weight. Not because I agree with his viewpoints, but it is unclear as to whether “academic freedom” in the First Amendment sense of the word extends to the freedom to hire deans. But, the rest of the sentence is fluff.
There are individuals with political views far more liberal than Professor Chemerinsky's or mine who conduct research, teach and serve in senior administrative positions at UC Irvine.
What? Communists run the physical plant? Financial aid is run by members of the pro-marijuana party? The guy in charge of procurement doesn't believe in private property? I would really like to know this stuff.
Independent thinking and autonomy are essential qualities that we seek in our law school dean.
Oh come on. Law school deans are there to make the school look good. In the law school context this usually means: 1) keep professors happy; 2) bring in funds; and 3) raise the USN ranking.
...
I am confident that our search process will ultimately result in the appointment of a founding dean who will work with my colleagues and me to build the world-class law school that we envision for UC Irvine.
Wow! I beg to differ. Any famous guy you approach will be asking “why did you fire Professor C?” Unless the famous guy is an idiot, he won’t accept your explanations. Why don’t you just come out and tell us what people told you about Professor C? Stop making crap up. It makes you look silly.
Comments