Clinton Misrepresents Obama's Professor Credentials
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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
As a person who was an "adjunct" professor for years at many different colleges and universities I find it elitist for the Clintons to disparage Obama's teaching status. Maybe they should stay home and roll around in their $109 million.
Sen Clinton MOST DEFINETELY DID NOT MISREPRESENT SEN OBAMA CREDENTIAL
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
whose results have now permeated the media.
http://www
How convenient, that Hussein’s better half, has been an Associate Dean
http://chr
at the University since 1996 and a Vice President for community and external Affairs http://www
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
who runs the University’s Legal Aid Clinic and writes pro-Obama screeds http://www
prominently domesticated on the University server.
http://www
“Professor” Obama, Rascist Media, and Obama Supporters in Rut” 4/1/08 by Juanita Gonzales
This is scurrilous garbage. The usual right wing smears, (e.g., Barack HUSSEIN Obama) are bad enough. But calling him simply "Hussein," as if he had one name like Madonna or Prince, is beneath even most right wing hate-mongers. And of course the StopObama website you got this screed from is just plastered with Muslim-baiting lies and smears that would make the Swiftboaters for Truth proud.
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?
It's an argument over semantics. Anyone who teaches in college and is not a teaching assistant or a grad student is called a professor.
Its much more than semantics.
This just in: the Clinton camp also cold-busted the guy on Gilligan’s Island. He wasn’t "The Professor" at all. Gilligan, The Skipper, The Millionaire and his wife, the Movie Star, and the rest must now refer to him as "The Lecturer."
I'm a lawyer, and I've spent a lot of time hiring lawyers at a large law firm. Lawyers have the highest possible duty of loyalty to their clients, so every hire risks the firm's money and reputation on the new lawyer deserving the clients' trust. Consequently, resume accuracy is taken seriously. Most anything questionable is nailed down, and the best way to do that is by going straight to the school or employer in question. If they say the resume is accurate, case closed. If they say otherwise, it's a problem.
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.
Good post, I read what the University of Chicago said vis a vis a senior lecturerer as compared
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.
John,
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: RATEMYPROF
Good point. Everyone who has attended college knows that a teacher in a college/university is referred as a professor.
Not to mention that the University of Chicago wrote in the paper this weekend that Obama was indeed a professor. Now that was from the horse's mouth - not Ms. Bosnia's lying mouth. How can anyone believe this lying deperate woman any longer. She is so seaching for a way to sink Obama that she is only sinking herself. She has spent all her money trying to get the Goods on Obama. Her campaing is secretly (not any more since we now know about it) calling all the Superdelagates and telling them that Obama can't win against the Repubs because of the Rev. Wright story so they should pick her. This is one desperate woman - oh yea - she is using the "woman" card again. What's next? Tears. I just want to see those tax returns. Ask yourself - why won't they show their tax returns from 2000-2006? HUMMMMM
Many of you are forgetting who prompted this discussion: Hillary Clinton's grasping at straws trying to create diversions from Barack Obama's first place standing in these primaries. He has the most popular votes, the most electoral votes, etc.
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".
Even worse - it is her ardent supporters who dig up this kind of 'scandal' on her behalf and go to great lengths to distribute it far and wide. Check out Hillaryis44, TaylorMarsh, StopObama and others. Then it backfires and leaves mud on the senator's face - who knew? They are wounding the person they purport to admire in more ways than one. As public domains, do they not think SDs along with others are aware of their smears? Sad.
The bio link in your article says Law Professor. Why are you claiming she was not a professor? I have no idea what her rank was or what the institution was, but if you cite a source it should back up your assertion or you should provide additional sources.
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.
Perhaps you should read before opening mouth and inserting foot...
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.
Yes I misunderstood the original article, still she was a law professor, they got the place wrong. It's not exactly the same as never having been a professor at any of the three institutions. Again I admit I misunderstood the original article on this point - sorry.
Listen, there was an unchecked impression in the media that Obama was a law school professor not a lecturer, which is what he was. This was repeated over and over so it becomes false conventional wisdom. By not correcting the record Obama is of course complicit in supporting this view. At the same time this works both ways since false conventional wisdom also has a smaller group that thinks he is a Muslim. I am sure if he fought the former incorrect view as much as he fought the Muslim thing more people would know the truth on the Lecturer/professor impression.
What does a lecturer do? What does a professor do? See why you're just sounding silly yet?
Professor of Law is a title reserved for tenured professors. Law Professor can refer to associate professors and/or those on the tenure track. Saying someone is a professor with a small p usually has some wiggle room but to call one's self a Professor of Law when one is a part time lecturer who teaches a few introductory courses is something that really gripes academics. It's like calling yourself Dr. when you only received an honorary doctorate instead of completing a PhD program. It's like alluding to being a senior Doctor on staff at a hospital when you were only a resident. If you aren't in the circle who cares about these titles, I suppose it seems silly. But these titles actually DO mean something and to claim Professor of Law when you were a part time lecturer is pretty crummy for anyone to do. Constitutional Law instructor/lecturer is a fine title. Padding it makes Obama look shifty.
Just my two cents. Been in and around academia my whole life.
nt: just how far up your navel will you go to try and excuse Hillary?
Read the papers! the University of Chicago said "He is a Professor" - they should know - they paid him! End of story!
Dude - He was not a constitution Law professor. Period. He lectured only.
The University of Chicago says he WAS a law professor.
Dude - He was not a constitution Law professor. Period. He lectured only.
Let's see he graduated from Harvard Law and he taught at the Univerity of Chicago. What should we call him a teacher of college students? The title professor is exactly what he was, unless we're arguing over his tenure status and weather or not he deserves a penstion, etc it doesn't matter. Next Clinton supporters will be claiming that he only taught 5 years and 11 months instead of 6 years. Hillary Clinton, now that's a liar, once a liar always a liar.
I hate to sound snobbish about this, but this is the part where the fact that Barack Obama attracts more educated voters than Hillary Clinton become painfully apparent. Those of us who've endured the rigorous of grad school and achieved graduate degrees know this whole title thing is a complete bunch of hooey from the Clinton campaign. While his title was "Senior Lecturer, Barack Obama is/was addressed as Professor by his students. The distinction of being a Senior Lecturer is you're NOT on a tenure track at that university and you're usually not full-time. In fact, in some fields, being a Senior Lecturer means you have STRONGER credentials than many full-time professors and a university could only dream of hiring someone like you full time.
*blink*
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.
So now Obama's lazy. Well, well.....
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!
This is the single most idiotic thing you've ever posted here. Ask any attorney, anywhere. The post of editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review is the most prestigious position a U.S. law student can attain, the cream of the cream of the cream of the crop. You are elected by your peers on the Law Review, and it's an immense amount of work and responsibility. Had Barack Obama wished, he could easily have used this post as a springboard to a clerkship on the U.S. Supreme Court and then a top-paying starting job at any major law firm you'd care to name. Being the editor in chief is actually MORE prestigious than writing a student comment, since the important articles in any law review are those written by law professors or other professional legal scholars. At any rate, I've come to think that you're a Republican troll. But this information may be of interest to others.
You have no idea how Law Reviews work, do you? Law Reviews by and large consist of articles written by professors, judges, and other legal scholars. Every Law Review student is required to write their own article, but they typically do not get published. Rather, the primary objective for law review students is compiling and editing the articles for publication. But don't let facts stop you from being "astonishe
You don't have a clue do you. YOu probably never heard of the Harvard Law review. The EDITOR DOESNT WRITE THE ARTICLES - THEY EDIT THEM - GEESH.
I've actually come to believe that your point is exactly why the Clinton campaign put this in their press release as the first of their weak list of accusations. Knowing that so many Obama supporters would be stunned by the sheer stupidity of the accusation, they giggled and figured this would serve to take some of our time in the blogosphere, thereby decreasing the time we have to address other fallacies of the Clinton campaign.
Maybe that's what they thought, but the actual effect has been
cumulative proof the Hillary is a pathological liar.
Did you ever read so many evasions on a single topic?
The quesgtion is "DID OBAMA HAVE THE TITLE OR RANK OF "PROFESSOR?"
Access the U of Chicago site at the following link: cobweb.uch
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.
[Part 2]
http://www
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
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
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?
"The reason big academic institutions have all these titles is that that's how they keep score internally. The exact titles certainly do matter to them, and to those who are trying to figure out those institutions. And it's one thing for Scheiber or Allen to spin all this to make Obama's misappropriation of a title seem insignificant. But it's ridiculous — to and past the point of dishonesty — to try to compare or equate Obama's academic titles or service to those of serious legal academicia
From William J. Dyer
http://bel
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.
[Part 1]
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
See Blake Fleetwood's Profile
They are lying. It's how a simple truth gets distorted. A Lecturer or Senior Lecturer is not the same as a :Professor in any University in the country.
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.
There isn't a need for an explanation for anyone except intentionally obtuse ppl such as yourself. He's a professor. End of story. There's a reason why students go to RateMyProf
Obama is running for president of the United States, Kuehl isn't. If he doesn't want people making distinctions between what he says and what their understanding of positions is, he needs to be literal in his claims. It is a case of inflating a resume. When I was in college, the title of Professor distinquished the educational level, the status, and the tenure of the person we were learning from. Perhaps Obama wants to be more specific about who he is so people can put these questions to rest.
The University of Chicago School of Law is consistently ranked as one of the TOP 3 or 4 law schools in the country, behind only Yale, Harvard (where Obama graduated), and sometimes Stanford. Students at the school graduated at or near the top or their classes in college, and have near perfect entrance exam scores. I'd guess that far less than 20% of applicants get accepted. A large component of the criteria for ranking law schools is the quality of its teaching faculty. Bottom line: you don't step foot in front of a class to teach at this school, whether you a lecturer, professor, or whatever pay-grade title, unless you are a superstar in the field. Furthermore, based on my own law school experience (I graduated from a Top 10 school, I didn't have the grades to get into UoC), ConLaw - the subject Obama taught - is probably the most intellectually challenging subject taught in law school. ConLaw involves far less "black letter law" than most other law subjects. It is about interpretation, policy, theory, thinking, seeing not just the black and white (absolutely no pun intended) but all the grays that are in the Constitution - the "penumbras" found in landmark Supreme Court decisions (incidentally, these are skills that will serve Obama well when he is President). Obama taught one of most mentally vigorous and challenging subjects at one of the top law schools in the country. This "issue" raised by the Clinton campaign is an absolute joke.
so 1 year of the law school is enought to teach law.
huh?
U of Chi could be the #1 law school in the world but it wouldn't change the fact, THE FACT, that he is listed as a senior lecturer on the website of the Law School of the U of Chicago. Others who are actually professors, not senior lecturers, are listed as Asst. Professors and Professors, according to their actual titles.
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.
And your argument relies on a false dichotomy. As the following statement by the law school shows, there's nothing inconsistent in being both a Senior Lecturer AND a professor. Different names, same job. Both legitimate titles as far as the U of Chicago is concerned. And who else's opinion should matter at all after they've confirmed that Barack represented himself accurately?
"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-tra
http://www
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.
Here's why it's relevant: there has to be some motivation, some underlying POINT for the Clinton camp's continued harping on the whole professor/lecturer dichotomy. That point is ostensibly that Obama padded his resume, with the underlying implication that one doesn't need to pad their resume unless their true credentials are lacking. So the whole point of this charge is an implication that Obama's credentials are subpar. As I and many others simply point out that, whether Obama's job title was professor with a lowercase p or a capital P, his credentials are exactly the same - he taught a tough course at a top tier law school. This argument is all the more petty because Obama hasn't premised his campaign on his experience as a law professor. In fact, I've heard many remark that they didn't even know about it until these snippy attacks came out. And that's another great irony here: Clinton's attacks have accomplished nothing but draw emphasis to another Obama plus, while making herself look small and petty in comparison. Not a great strategy, but what the hell do I know, I don't make millions of dollars like Mr. Penn.
Well, I don't know about law schools, but I can tell you I graduated from the number one school in my area in the country...
It's not that damn significant unless you're not in that "world."
I got jobs immediately based on the program I came out of. I still appreciate that, btw.
But the criticisms are also legit.
Come on........
Fine, but which criticisms of U of Chicago Law School give anyone the right to tell them who they can and can't call a professor? Because that's all that this is about. Obama was accused of padding his resume. There's one authority for answering that type of question, his former employer. The employer said, "Nuh uh, no padding there. He was indeed a professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago."
Next!
Apologies for the smear?
[crickets]
What criticisms against the program? And what do the jobs you got based on the program you came out of have to do with anything? BTW, just what WAS that program?
I see your blogs all over the place but I've yet to read one that made sense. Nor do you ever back up your dithering with fact. Didn't the #1 school in your area of the country teach you how to construct a logically sequenced thought?
I should have added, in a law school, adjunct professors are generally used to teach subjects that are practice areas rather than areas of scholarship, such as animal law, trial advocacy, or film and the law. They are generally not used to teach core classes, and in fact, I believe that the ABA prohibits a law school from using adjuncts for certain courses.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
