Recent Comments


Powered by Rollyo

July 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
Blog powered by TypePad


LAWJOBS.COM S.F. BAY AREA JOB LISTINGS

« Legislative Idol — What Will Arnold Veto Next? | Main | Contingency Fees — Unhealthy for Kids? »

September 13, 2007

Chemerinsky Controversy Zigs and Zags

We all want to know why UC Irvine really played a little game of backsies with liberal legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky — hiring and then firing him as the founding dean of their new law school within the span of a week because he was “too politically controversial.”

There’s an interesting explanation about how Chemerinsky ticked off the chancellor by writing an LA Times op-ed critical of former AG Alberto Gonzalez the day he received his offer from the school. But is calling Gonzalez’s attempt to shorten the time in which a death row inmate can file a petition for habeas corpus “unnecessary and mean-spirited” really that controversial?

And then there’s the whole UC Regents thing. Chemerinsky told Cal Law yesterday that one of the reasons UC Irvine chancellor Michael Drake gave for unhiring him was that there would be a “bloody fight” to get him approved at the UC Board of Regents meeting next week. (see the agenda (.pdf) with the nice red “item withdrawn” addition).

A distressed Drake told Cal Law yesterday that he was wrong to make the comment about the regents. “In the context of a very difficult conversation, I said a lot of things that may have been speculative,” Drake said. “I don’t believe [that statement] to be true.” 

But just to make sure we tried calling some UC Regents. Of the 10 we left messages with yesterday, eight didn’t return the call, one relayed a no-comment through a lackey, and one, the student rep, called back today.

Ben Allen, the student regent and a Boalt Hall Law student, said he hadn’t heard any buzz about strong opposition to the appointment.  He also said that he had been planning to vote “yes.”

“He’s a talented scholar,” Allen told Legal Pad. “But I understand and respect the fact that the chancellor has to be comfortable with it.”

For those keeping score at home, the regents are appointed to 12-year terms by the governor, currently Arnold Schwarzenegger, an old skiing buddy of real estate mogul and major Republican donor Donald Bren, who gave $20 million to UC Irvine's new law school, which named itself after Bren. For the record, Drake told Cal Law that Bren had nothing to do with the decision and a Bren spokesman also told us that his boss hasn’t shared a pro or con opinion on Chemerinsky with anyone.

Yesterday, Cal Law also talked to Viet Dinh, noted conservative legal scholar at Georgetown. Although an ideological enemy, Dinh strongly supported the choice of Chemerinsky for dean, but found the whole episode amusing.

“If it is true [that Chemerinsky was let go because of his political beliefs], it is the height of irony,” Dinh said. “One, everybody knows where Chemerinsky comes from and, second, all legal academia, with some significant exceptions, is very liberal anyway!”

Why did it really happen? Was it really that not-so-controversial L.A. Times opinion piece, or something else?

—  Zusha Elinson

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1128039/21585285

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Chemerinsky Controversy Zigs and Zags:

Comments

The op-ed was a bit more controversial than you're letting on. Kent Scheidegger at Crime and Consequences nailed Chemerinsky for playing a little too fast and loose with facts.

Is it possible that the piece co-written by the Professor a few months back in the D.J. which many took as blatently anti-Catholic had a bearing on the decision to pull his appointment?

The Daily Journal op-ed to which proudCatholic refers appeared May 15. It stated: "As [Justice] Kennedy admitted, there is no reliable data to support the notion that a ban on 'partial-birth abortions' will improve the psychological health of women. There is nothing but the view of five aging male justices, all Catholic, that abortions done through a particular procedure are 'barbaric.'"

As for the L.A. Times habeas corpus op-ed, California Chief Justice Ronald George apparently felt similarly to Kent Scheidegger.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-uci15sep15,1,2475298.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

Post a comment

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Cal Law's Blogs

  • An Affiliate of the Law.com Network

    From the Law.com Newswire

    Sign up to receive Legal Blog Watch by email
    View a Sample


  • lawjobs
    Search For Jobs

    Job Type

    Region

    Keyword (optional)