(Photo by Alex Maness: Duke Magazine)
UC Irvine officials on Friday were attempting to broker a deal to once again hire liberal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky as dean of its fledging law school, just three days after its chancellor set off a national furor by dumping him.But wait, it gets worse:
An agreement would be an extraordinary development after Chemerinsky contended this week that Drake succumbed to political pressure from conservatives and sacked him because of his outspoken liberal positions. The flap threatened to derail the 2009 opening of the law school and prompted some calls for Drake's resignation.Also Friday, details emerged about the criticism of Chemerinsky that the university received in the days before Drake rescinded the job offer, including from California Chief Justice Ronald M. George, who criticized Chemerinsky's grasp of death penalty appeals. Also, a group of prominent Orange County Republicans and Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich wanted to derail the appointment.
He worked against California's three strikes law, argued in support of judicial review for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and represented Valerie Plame Wilson, the CIA agent whose cover was blown by members of the Bush administration.
A conservative Los Angeles County politician asked about two dozen people in an e-mail last month how to prevent the University of California, Irvine from hiring renowned liberal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky as its founding law school dean, a spokesman for the politician said Friday.Making Chemerinsky the head of the law school "would be like appointing al-Qaida in charge of homeland security,'' Michael Antonovich, a longtime Republican member of the county Board of Supervisors, said in a voicemail left with The Associated Press.
. . . The Antonovich e-mail was disclosed after UCI Chancellor Michael V. Drake withdrew an offer earlier this week to appoint Chemerinsky to the law school post.
UCI certainly has egg on its Administrative face, and there's nothing I can do about that. But as a voter in Los Angeles, I can do something about Antonovich. Here's the email I sent to his office:
I am appalled that Supervisor Antonovich would not only get involved with Orange County business, but that he would say the following:
Making Chemerinsky the head of the law school "would be like appointing al-Qaida in charge of homeland security,'' Michael Antonovich, a longtime Republican member of the county Board of Supervisors, said in a voicemail left with The Associated Press.
This is a disgustingly partisan thing to say, and it indicates to me that Mr. Antonovich is no longer an advocate for citizens of his district, but has become a shill for the failed policies of the Bush Administration. I will work to defeat Mr. Antonovich in the 2008 election.Best regards,
Stephen Anderson
I was thus saddened to see Professor Chemerinsky hired and fired within the space of a week as the founding dean of the new law school at the University of California-Irvine. The events seem to me to speak poorly of university chancellor Michael Drake, who does nothing to clear up the controversy in his Los Angeles Times column this morning. Like David Horowitz, I have no taste for Professor Chemerinsky's clients or his causes. But it seems to me that in hiring and then firing Professor Chemerinsky Chancellor Drake has disgraced his institution.
Follow Steve Anderson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SteveAudio
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
HA!!! They hired him anyway! Go 'Eaters!!!!!!
Professor Chemerinsky has been a frequent participant in civil discussions of points of constitutional debate in local media. As I heard on KPCC, he was the faculty advisor to the Federalist Society at USC. Did Anotonovich really say Chemerinsky being Dean was like Al-Quaeda running DHS? That is shocking and I find it as offensive as the "General Betray-us" headline from MoveOn.org.
) (Actually, I would expect that being a Dean of a fledgling law school would mean his discretionary time would decrease.) As though being a Dean is the same as being a Judge or legislator, with regards to opinions on the death penalty appeals process and other policy debates.
As though his being or not being Dean would diminish Chemerinsky's participation in debate. (He is a top tier scholar -- he's going to be a Dean somewhere.
The Orange County people who I have heard speaking out about this, conservatives and liberals, think that Chancellor Drake has, once again, embarassed UC Irvine and Orange County.
Who cares that someone from LA is opposing the appointment of the Dean in Irvine, down the road in OC? Do we want to be held to the same standard? Sorry, we can't comment about racism in the South if we don't live there, etc.
Now let's talk about the real issue here. Why is the public supporting a law school? Why are tax dollars being diverted from the failing infrastructure and health care, education of young kids and going to produce more lawyers?
This is a vanity law school, not one that is needed. California already has a law school on every street corner. Someone suggested to me that if all the law schools in America were closed for ten years, after that time there would still be too many lawyers in this country.
Is the UC building a new one just so a wealthy guy can put his name on it? Can't he put his name on a private school?
Can anyone give me a good argument about why we need to produce more lawyers at taxpayer expense? If you are in favor of building this school you have my sincere good wishes that you do not fall into a giant pothole in the highway on your way to the opening day ceremony.
I wish some rich guys would adopt the infrastructure and put money into roads and bridges.
"Can anyone give me a good argument about why we need to produce more lawyers at taxpayer expense?"
If all the lawyers just go to private schools, all the lawyers will be right wing assholes.
Ha ha! Good one. I went to UC Hastings, FYI. And what is the deal with those absurd "there are too many lawyers" knocks? And didn't you go to a private law school?
"If all the lawyers just go to private schools, all the lawyers will be right wing assholes."
As opposed to just assholes?
swel,
This entire comment IS a joke, right? ALL of it, isn't it?
Consider the following:
"Sorry, we can't comment about racism in the South if we don't live there, etc."
You have the same rights I do when laws effecting your life are being determined by Congressmen from the south.
If you were truly SERIOUS you would propose that Congressmen could ONLY vote on legislation affecting their own states, which you didn't.
The rest is just one long, tedious "lawyer joke".
Very funny. I guess.
Both parties are equally partisan. It is increasingly rare to find mainstream voices eschewing their party's mantra.
I believe Hugh Hewitt is another conservative voice in favor of Prof. Chemerinsky.
I wish he was still at USC.
Hugh Hewitt was never at USC Law School. He is much too dumb. Just needed to make that clear, as an alumni of both UCI and USC Law School.
"He" clearly means Chemerinsky, not Hewitt. And you are an "almunus," not "alumni." Alumni is plural. A fellow Anteater should know these things. But you did go to SC...
Just playin' with you! As an aside, as you as appalled at UCI as I am?
Steve, I will also work to unseat this out of touch, partisan, Los Angeles, lifetime Supervisor. Time for Antonovich to retire. Unfortunately, he does represent my district.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with