Out of all the ridiculous attacks on Barack Obama in this campaign season, none quite matches the silliness and desperation of the Clinton campaign's assertion (refuted by the University of Chicago Law School) that "Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor."
Sadly, Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times, who initially made the erroneous claim that Obama was misleading people with those words, writes today about the Clinton critique as if it had some merit.
Sweet and the Clinton campaign are just utterly wrong.
As an expert on higher education, I can tell you that anyone who teaches a college class is broadly considered a professor, and is typically called a professor by students. Calling Obama a "law professor" is a description of his job category, not his official title.
It's common for everyone to refer to teachers as professors. In fact, the Clinton campaign itself does this in a press release announcing the endorsement by California State Senator Sheila Kuehl, which declares that Kuehl "was a law professor at Loyola, UCLA and USC Law Schools...."
However, Kuehl was never a professor of law at Loyola, because this bio of her says she was only an instructor (that dirty, dirty word) there.
So, if the Clinton campaign itself refers to an instructor of law as a law professor, how can anyone take seriously their assertion that Obama is engaging in deceit by doing so?
Continue reading OffTheBus contributor John K. Wilson's blogpost over at Daily Kos.
Read this well-researched, well-documented investigative report...
Thank you Ms. Gonzales for a job Well-done. Very thorough.
Astounding information presented to the public.
If you are not outraged by this, then you are NOT PAYING ATTENTION....
An excerpt-
While America’s Clean Black darling has stopped calling himself a Professor, the first thing you get when you Google “Professor” and “Obama” are just these sources, with their unanimous verdicts that Obama was indeed a Professor. This is the work of the University of Chicago’s appallingly mendacious statement,
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html
whose results have now permeated the media.
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/03/professor_obama.html
How convenient, that Hussein’s better half, has been an Associate Dean
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/960606/obama.shtml
at the University since 1996 and a Vice President for community and external Affairs http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2005/20050509-obama.html
at the University Hospital since 2005. How convenient, that one of Borack’s peers at the University of Chicago happens to be one of his political patrons, Abner Mikva, http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/mikva
who runs the University’s Legal Aid Clinic and writes pro-Obama screeds http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/mikva-021608/index.html
prominently domesticated on the University server.
http://www.stop-obama.org/?p=476
“Professor” Obama, Rascist Media, and Obama Supporters in Rut” 4/1/08 by Juanita Gonzales
But this isn't some right wing dirty trick. It's the depraved project of a group of Hillary supporters, which makes it not just disgusting, but tragic. You and your friends obviously don't speak for Hillary, her campaign or most of her supporters (including me, by the way. I'm for Barack, but will enthusiastically vote for her if she gets the nomination). But the sad fact that there are any people like you associated with one of our candidates shames Hillary, the Democratic Party, and every one of us by association. How dare you?
The University of Chicago backed up Obama's resume 100%. If I were considering him for a job, that would settle the controversy, and it should end this one. His opponents' spinning, which I'll charitably call uninformed, is no more than an exercise in keeping a non-story alive.
to a professor, and it seems absolutely definitive. The only possible quibble, could only be if
some universities define it differently, which I suspect is not the case. My impression of
Hillary's legal resume, is that it is relatively undistinguished. Apparently, an organization, who's
name escapes me, did call her one of the countries 100 most influential attorneys, but it had
mostly to do with the fact that her husband was the governor of Arkansas. Hillary went around
bragging that she had been selected as one of the 100 BEST attorneys in the US, until she
was threatened with a lawsuit. Influential does not equal best.
Here's one criteria even some of the most wilfully ignorant cannot answer. It comes in addition to your point about HRC's OWN PEOPLE calling a faculty member a professor despite their criticism of Obama for use of the same language.
When students go to get info on faculty (even if inaccurate or whatever), the leading site is called: RATEMYPROFESSOR.COM. It's not set aside for only the tenured. It's not divided by ranking at all. College facuty EN MASS can be included on the site if a student chooses to vent or to compliment faculty. The only divisions are by department and by last name. That's it. It's not called ratemyinstructor or ratemyteacher or ratemylecturer. It's RATEMYPROFESSOR. It backs even everything that has been said. And of course it has nothing to do with being published.
She is losing. She is desperate. She is a liar (remember the Bosnia story when she said she was under sniper fire). IMO she is also a bit deranged; otherwise, she would not keep pouncing on trivialities like whether or not Obama is entitled to the title "professor".
Professional Experience:
Counsel, California Women's Law Center, 1993-1995
Managing Attorney, California Women's Law Center, 1989-1994
Co-Founder, California Women's Law Center, 1989-1993
Practitioner of Law, Various Law Firms and Universities, 1978-1993
Law Professor, 1987-1989
Civil Rights Attorney
Instructor, Loyola University
Actress, Television
Instructor, University of California Los Angeles Law Schools.
Clinton claim: "...was a law professor at Loyola"
From Kuehl's bio: "Instructor, Loyola University"
So no, by Clinton's twisted (double) standards, she would not be considered a professor at Loyola.
Just my two cents. Been in and around academia my whole life.
He had Harvard Law Review behind him.
But here's the kicker.
He never published a word in that position. Not a word.
The kids on LiveJournal researched this awhile ago. I was astonished.
They kids were right.
He really is the guy in the class who gets the awards without doing the work. LOL*
I was absolutely astonished. It so fit with my impression of him. I've heard him in debates. He's weak.
Then as I learned more, I got it.
This really is the guy who always got by without having to work much.
Could you be more wrong?
Nope!
First, editing any decent law review is a significant part time to full time job. The job of Editor in Chief of the Harvard Law Review, one of the two most prestigious and rigorous journals for legal scholarship in the US, maybe the world, can't be done by anyone you'd call lazy.
Next, and entirely separate from his law review duties, Obama graduated magna cum laude. At Harvard, that means the top 10% of his class. No affirmative action. Just blind grading. His GPA beat out 90% of the smartest, most driven law students in the world.
Nobody graduates magna cum laude from Harvard Law School without being certifiably brilliant AND working like a dog. And don't forget he pulled it off while Editor in Chief of the Law Review. But other than that, no big deal.
Let me repeat. It is simply not possible to be: (1) Editor in Chief of the Harvard Law Review; (2) in the top 10% of the class at Harvard Law School; and (3) lazy.
Or anything remotely like lazy.
Accusing Barack Obama of laziness may be the silliest thing I've seen written on Huffington Post by anyone I assume to be in contact with consensus reality.
Kudos!
cumulative proof the Hillary is a pathological liar.
The quesgtion is "DID OBAMA HAVE THE TITLE OR RANK OF "PROFESSOR?"
Access the U of Chicago site at the following link: cobweb.uchicago.edu/fm/xst/qu31207/findrecords.xsl
Enter Obama's name and you will get the following: Obama, Barack, sr. lecturer, Law School, LBQ 514 Out-of-Residence, 09-24-07 to 06-14-008
Evasions:
1) U of Chi says he was sr. lecturer but dubs him professor. No explanation for his not being listed as professor.
2) Students call everybody professor. Thata doesn't make him a professor.
3) He taught constitutional law and only the best teach that sub j, say some. What's hat got to do with his title?
4) Numerous academics say they were called professor even though they were only adjuncts or instructors or boondogglers or ...you name it. Still doesn't make him anyhthing but a senior lecturer.
5) Senior Lectutrer is an honorable title and, anyhway, what would students call a senior lecturer? Well, they call him Mr. Obama, or Counselor, or tghey could address him as "Hey you." None of this makes him anything but a senior lecturer.
None of these evasions, rationalizations, excuses or limp but indignant responses goes to the question,
The University's press release is no more convincing than the other stubborn refusals to acknowledge what is down in writing on the U of Chi website.
An appeal to reason on this site is useless.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html
How do you like that? Not only do they say "Barack Obama served as a professor" in the same paragraph they mention he was a Lecturer and Senior Lecturer. They explicitly say "Senior Lecturers [...] are regarded as professors." So much for catching them red-handed, huh? Ya know, admitting he was a Senior Lecturer... ALSO KNOWN AS A PROFESSOR?
Don't fret. I'm sure there's a way out of this. Maybe you can call them liars for saying Senior Lecturers are professors... umm... but what's the evidence they're lying? This time there's no website inconsistency. Actually, there NEVER WAS a website inconsistency. Just an out of context mention of one title without the other, plus your implication there's some reason Senior Lecturers can't be professors. An implication proved false, at least till you show why a law school shouldn't be allowed to call people who teach there anything they please.
But I digress. You were telling us how appealing to reason on this site is useless. Ouch! That's no way to make friends! But I forgive you, so enlighten me. What did I miss that a reasonable person would have grasped? Or could it be you're smearing some institution too big to care with unsupported claims of bad faith, just like unreasonable people do ALL OVER the internet?
From William J. Dyer
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2008/03/obamas-never-be.html
That said, this isn't the biggest gaffe Obama has made. It's just another slightly unsavory part of his character that doesn't jibe with the squeaky-honest Obama brand -- something that the Right will no doubt spin and something Obama supporters would relentlessly beat to death if it were part of Hillary's litany of gaffes. He's a brilliant mind. But he padded his resume. It's not cool.
An appeal to reason on this site is useless? Really? Anyone who doesn't submit to the incontrovertible truth of your argument is unreasonable? Well reason this, Batman:
If the University of Chicago Law School says Barack Obama was a professor, then either he was a professor or they're lying. You've made your opinion clear several times on this thread -- you accuse them of lying. So my question is, what's your evidence for such a serious accusation? And I hope it's something more than just your constant refrain that he's listed on their website as a Senior Lecturer. Because for that to mean the school is lying, it would have to be impossible to be both a Senior Lecturer and a professor. Which makes this an excellent time to look at what the school has to say:
"From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. "
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html
Everybody in academia know that. Everyone who went to college and was not stoned knows that
And the University of Chicago makes itself look dishonest to support one of their own.
I was a lecturer at NYU, but I never would p;ut myself down as Professor. It would be too dishonest. Too silly.
It was a mistake, no big deal.
Long, rambling disquisitions on the merits of various universities or the skills needed for teaching high level courses are simply obfuscations. If he was listed as a professor, you could say that in a sentence or two.. But of course he wasn't a professor; he was a senior lecturer.
"From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track."
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html
Bottom line, this is an accusation of resume padding. The authority for settling that sort of dispute is the school from which the job title was claimed. The U of Chicago has made it conclusively clear that Obama represented his job, title and experience accurately. Now if you want to call them liars, go ahead. But without evidence of dishonesty, I know whose credibility that sort of accusation makes me question, and it's not theirs.
Feel free to apologize for the smear, but I won't be holding my breath.