September 14, 2007
The Irvine Law School Fiasco, Part III
Officials said the turnaround on Chemerinsky could delay the opening of the law school -- scheduled for 2009 -- and so tarnish the institution that it would be difficult to assemble the scholars and staff needed to establish the school as one of the nation's best -- UCI's long-cherished goal....
[O]fficials leading the launch of the law school said the decision makes it likely the school will not be ready to accept its first class as scheduled in 2009.
In order to meet the target, plans called for a dean to be in place this fall and for six to eight senior faculty members to then be hired this academic year. The search for Chemerinsky took nine months before a formal agreement was reached, and search committee members said they would now probably start again from scratch.
"We had three other finalists, and one of them would have definitely done it a week ago," said psychology professor Elizabeth F. Loftus, a member of the committee. "If you asked them today, I don't know. I don't think the law school will be derailed, but who knows what's going to happen next?"
Although Drake has denied that he took action under pressure from conservatives, Loftus said Thursday that the chancellor told the committee during an emergency meeting Wednesday night that he was forced to make the decision by outside forces whom he did not name. A second member of the committee confirmed Loftus' account to The Times but asked to remain anonymous.
"I asked whether it was one or two voices or an avalanche, and the answer is that it was an avalanche," Loftus said. "But we are not supposed to capitulate to that in the world of academic freedom...."
Several members of the Board of Regents said Thursday they were puzzled by Drake's decision, adding that they believe Chemerinsky's appointment would not have been blocked by the 26-member body.
Gerald Parsky, former chairman of the Board of Regents, and Richard Blum, the current chairman, were contacted by Drake in late August before the UCI chancellor had reached a final decision about the hiring.
Blum was in the Middle East on Thursday and unavailable for comment, but Parsky said Drake briefed him about the search process in that phone call and told him he was leaning toward Chemerinsky. Drake "did not ask my opinion on Chemerinsky and I did not provide it," Parsky said.
"The regents support academic freedom and the right of the chancellor to decide on the hiring of a dean based on the academic needs and goals of his individual campus, and the regents do not interfere with these matters," Parsky said. "And I do not believe we did in this case at all...."
Regent John Moores said the chance that any regent knew about Chemerinsky's hiring as dean and sought to intervene was "as close to zero as anything can get."
Moores noted that people might speculate on what the Board of Regents would do in a certain situation. But he said that doesn't mean that any of the regents have actually weighed in. "It's awfully easy to hide behind the notion that the regents might not approve this," he said.
Regents Moores, Sherry L. Lansing and Judy Hopkinson, and Michael Brown, chairman of the UC system's Academic Senate and a non-voting member of the Board of Regents, all said they knew of no opposition that would arise when the salary came up for approval at their meeting next week....
In an interview, Drake said the law school's namesake and $20-million donor, Donald Bren, had no role in the decision. "He stayed away from the decision entirely," the chancellor said....
One fears Chancellor Drake may not be long for his own administrative post at this point. In order to recruit a credible Dean candidate, the University will have to at least give the appearance of independence and being able to stand up to political pressure, and it is no longer clear the current Chancellor can do that.
The Irvine Law School Fiasco, Part II
Confronted with a public relations fiasco of the magnitude of "L'Affaire Chemerinsky," administrators have only a few choices: they can offer a mea culpa, or they can come clean and defend themselves, or they can deny everything. The UC Irvine Chancellor, Michael Drake, has now issued a new statement adopting the last strategy:
Last week, we made an offer to Duke Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, an eminent academician, legal scholar and commentator. The offer was contingent on approval of the UC Regents, which we expected next week.
I subsequently made the very difficult decision that Professor Chemerinsky was not the right fit for the deanâs position at UC Irvine. I informed him on Sept. 11 that we were rescinding our offer and continuing the recruitment process. This matter has been the subject of extensive media coverage over the last 24 hours, much of which has been characterized by conjecture and hearsay [ed.-emphasis added].
I made a management decision--not an ideological, political or personal one--to rescind Professor Chemerinsky's offer. The decision was mine and mine alone. It was not based on donor pressure or political pressure; it was based on a culmination of discussions--over a period of time--that convinced me we could not effectively partner to build a world-class law school at UC Irvine. That is my overarching priority.
Chancellor Drake's new statement now directly contradicts portions of Professor Chemerinsky's version of events:
As has been widely reported, on Aug. 16 I was asked to be the founding dean of the new law school at the University of California at Irvine. After a couple of weeks of negotiations, I formally accepted the position and signed a contract on Sept. 4. It always was understood that the job was contingent on approval of the University of California Board of Regents, and it was to be on the agenda for the regents' meetings on Sept. 18-20. I was tremendously excited about the possibility of being part of starting a new law school at an excellent university.
On Tuesday, Sept. 11, however, the chancellor at UC Irvine, Michael V. Drake, withdrew the offer. He told me that I had proved to be "too politically controversial." Those, by the way, were the exact words that he said I could use to describe the reason for the decision. He told me that he had not expected the extent of opposition that would develop.
What was it about my views that was too controversial? Only one example was mentioned: an Op-Ed article I wrote on these pages [ed.-Los Angeles Times] criticizing a proposed regulation by then-Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales to shorten the time death row prisoners have to file their habeas corpus petitions. There are more than 275 individuals on death row in California without lawyers for their post-conviction proceedings. The effect of the new rule would be that many individuals, including innocent ones, would not get the chance to have their cases reviewed in federal court.
The Op-Ed article was written and published before I was offered the position as dean.... On the ideological spectrum, it is not radical.
Professor Chemerinsky's statement about what Chancellor Drake told him were the reasons for rescission of the offer is actually (under the Federal Rules of Evidence) "not hearsay," but putting that to one side, the simple fact is that some reports of what others said or did are a lot more reliable than others, and it is quite reasonable to draw an inference about what transpired from an eyewitness report of what transpired. Professor Chemerinsky, to be sure, is an interested party, and so there is no reason we should treat his account as the gospel, but here is where we enter the realm of what the Chancellor disparagingly calls "conjecture," and what in the real world we do all the time: namely, make inferences to the best explanation for the evidence we have. Why would Professor Chemerinsky report that the Chancellor told him his appointment would be too "politically controversial" if that isn't what the Chancellor said? And why would the Chancellor say that if that wasn't, in fact, the reason for taking the highly unusual step of rescinding an offer a week after it was finalized?
Enter, then, the Berkeley Law Dean Christopher Edley, who now has the perhaps ignominious distinction of being, to the best of my knowledge, the only academic in the world to have come to the public defense of the Irvine Chancellor:
Christopher Edley Jr., dean of University of California, Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law who has been involved with the new law school -- and was handpicked by Chemerinsky to serve on his advisory board -- said it wasn't about Chemerinsky's "political leanings or ideology, which everyone knew" about.
"I think key people lost confidence that he would be willing to shed his high personal public profile in the service of the law school -- whether that was the right or wrong conclusion," Edley said, though he declined to identify the individuals who opposed Chemerinsky.
Edley continued: "At the end of the day, the chancellor had to have confidence that Erwin would be able to earn the trust, loyalty and investment of a diverse constituency, and for a startup venture that's an exceptionally delicate proposition."
The process of recruiting a Dean goes on over many, many, many months: what in the world could have happened in the one week between the signing of the contract and the rescission of the offer that would have, all of a sudden, caused "key people" to lose "confidence," to worry that "a diverse constituency" (including, among others, powerful conservatives and rich donors--hence the "investment" I guess!) would not "trust" or maintain "loyalty" to the new enterprise? A benign interpretation of Dean Edley's comments would make some sense if it had been offered as an explanation for why, e.g., an offer was not made on August 16, or why a contract was not forwarded to Chemerinsky to sign. But it strains credulity as an explanation for why after months and months of a search, Chemerinsky was suddendly dumped after signing a contract proferred by the University.
But there is a less benign interpretation of Dean Edley's comments that render them consistent with Professor Chemerinsky's version of events: "key people lost confidence" means that powerful political and monied interests behind the scenes finally registered what Irvine was about to do once it was put on the agenda for the Board of Regents and objected to such a highly visible liberal running the new law school. That is a "conjecture": it is also a reasonable inference to the best explanation for the peculiar timing of the events.
When I was on Southern California Public Radio yesterday, I learned that a spokesman for Donald Bren (the billionaire real estate developer who endowed the Law School) has denied that Mr. Bren had any involvement in this decision. That may well be true--conjecture about Mr. Bren's involvement involves much shakier inferences from the evidence than does the conclusion that the University caved in to political pressure from the right. Although I do not have great confidence in my ability to get "inside the mind" of billionaires who drop twenty million dollar gifts on schools, I would imagine that if one commits resources to a venture bearing your name, you want it to succeed, not fail, as the new Donald Bren School of Law at the University of California at Irvine now seems almost certain to do. So it may well be that conjecture aimed at Mr. Bren is ill-placed here. The "conjecture" that still seems rationally warranted on all the evidence, however, is that the University of California at Irvine caved into political pressure, and has now foregone any chance of hiring a credible Dean for the new law school. What a shame.
UPDATE: Some UC Irvine faculty have written a very apt "open letter" to the Chancellor about this fiasco.
ONE MORE: The UC Irvine Administration can not be happy that The New York Times is now editorializing about their Dean search fiasco:
A law school would be mighty fortunate to have Erwin Chemerinsky, a distinguished Duke Law School professor, as its dean. The University of California, Irvine, realized this when it asked him to head up its new law school. This week, however, it rescinded the offer, evidently because of his political views. It’s a disgraceful decision. The University of California system should admit its mistake and, with apologies, extend the offer again.
I share The NY Times's view about the remedy here, though they do get a bit carried away with the claim that "a law school would be mighty fortunate to have Erwin Chemerinsky...as its dean." There's no doubt that it would have been a huge coup for a brand new law school to have a high-profile legal scholar at the helm. But Chemerinsky's own law school, Duke, did not choose him as its Dean, no doubt for the obvious reason that not every well-known legal scholar is the right fit for every Deanship. That is not at issue here, of course, since Irvine did choose him before unchoosing him in the face of apparent political pressures.
September 13, 2007
Group of Leading Catholic and Christian Law Professors Speak Out about the Crisis at Ave Maria Law School
Their statement is here.
UPDATE: This is ironic--but the post immediately preceding the statement to which I linked, above, attacks me rather harshly for failing to acknowledge Postmodernism in my critique of Steve Smith's ignorant paper about the state of jurisprudence. The post is by Michael Scaperlanda, who quotes someone named Kevin Lee, who explains that Leiter "sets the bar pretty high for contemporary academic work--rational discourse/evidence etc." That is, I admit, pretty audacious of me, and I can understand why Professors Lee or Scaperlanda might prefer a lower bar. Professor Lee continues: "What is amazing to me is that a contemporary legal scholar can make a claim like that, as though the Postmodern movement never occurred. He seems dogmatically committed to some sort of foundationalism." Actually, I'm a Quinean pragmatist and anti-foundationalist, but people who think that referring to "postmodernism" is an argument usually aren't interested in actual philosophical arguments, so I'd best call it a day.
I still, of course, commend the MOJ statement on the Ave Maria crisis to interested readers.
September 12, 2007
Macleans Ranking of Canadian Law Schools
Results in the four main components of the ranking (placement at elite law firms, national placement success, Supreme Court clerkship placement, and scholarly impact of the faculty), plus a discussion of the methodology and its rationale are now on-line. The overall results are available in the printed version of the magazine, which is on newstands now. The top three law schools, overall, were, in order, Toronto, McGill, and Osgoode, though more interesting in my view is how the schools fared by the individual measures.
UPDATE: A couple of folks have asked why LSAT scores weren't part of this ranking. Several reasons: (1) those figures would be self-reported by the schools, and some might not want to report it, and there would be no way to verify the accuracy of what was reported; (2) LSAT scores are very weak indicators of either academic or professional success or competence; (3) there are always problems about the meaningfulness of comparing the median of different-sized groupings, which would result given that Canadian law schools range from the very small to the very big; and (4) if one gives significant weight to LSAT score as a factor in the ranking that gives schools a (bad) incentive to over-emphasize a credential of limited academic value in future admissions cycles (that's already happened in the U.S., to the detriment of legal education).
ANOTHER: The Macleans site doesn't make clear (at least not currently) that "elite firm" placement included the top New York law firms, as well as top firms in all the markets throughout Canada.
New UC Irvine Law School Hires Chemerinsky as Dean, Then Fires Him for Political Reasons
I have all of the following from a reliable source.
About a week ago, Erwin Chemerinsky, the well-known constitutional law scholar at Duke, signed a contract to be the inaugural Dean of the new law school at the University of California at Irvine.
Yesterday, the Chancellor of the University of Cailfornia at Irvine flew to Durham and fired Chemerinsky, saying that he had not been aware of how Chemerinsky's political views would make him a target for criticism from conservatives.
It is quite amazing that in a purportedly liberal state like California, the Chancellor of a major UC campus has apparently caved into political pressure from conservatives, even though, on the merits, Chemerinsky was a far more prominent scholar than the University had any reason to suppose it would be able to land for a brand new law school.
It’s fair to say that the future does not look bright for the planned UC Irvine law school. Who will take the job now given this history?
Posted at 10:45 am (CST).
UPDATE: Some colleagues speculate that Irvine hoped to get more donations from Donald Bren, the real estate developer who endowed the Law School and who is also a major donor to the Republican Party . Whether Mr. Bren played any role in this is something that perhaps the newspapers which investigate this story may unearth. Even if financial gain was the motive, the University, I suspect, has miscalculated the costs and benefits of its misconduct, since the reputational damage the school will now incur is likely to be quite substantial.
ANOTHER UPDATE (12:15 PM CST): The Wall Street Journal has more information, including quotes from Professor Chemerinsky.
AND ANOTHER (2:45 pm CST): The Los Angeles Times has picked up the story, and added some details:
Just days after he signed a contract to become the first dean of UC Irvine's new law school, Erwin Chemerinsky was told this week that the deal was off because he was too "politically controversial."
Chemerinsky said in an interview today that UC Irvine Chancellor Michael V. Drake had flown to North Carolina on Tuesday and told him at a hotel near the airport that that he did not realize the extent to which there were "conservatives out to get me...."
Chemerinsky said that Drake told him during a meeting at the Sheraton Hotel near the Raleigh-Durham airport that the decision "had been difficult for him."
He said that "concerns" had emerged from the UC regents, which would have had to approve the appointment, Chemerinsky said. The professor said Drake told him that he thought there would have been a "bloody battle" among the regents over the appointment.
The chancellor's office said Drake was meeting with the university's communications office and was not immediately available for comment.
John Eastman, a conservative constitutional scholar and dean of Chapman University Law School in Orange, who frequently debates Chemerinsky, called UCI's move "a serious misstep."
4:45 PM CST: Kevin Gerson, Associate Director of the UCLA Law Library, points out to me that Art. 9, § 9 of the California Constitution, regarding the powers and duties of the Regents of the University of California, provides that, "The university shall be entirely independent of all political or sectarian influence and kept free therefrom in the appointment of its regents and in the administration of its affairs."
ONE MORE (5:15 PM CST): If one reviews some of the trackbacks to this post (or looks at libertarian law professor Iyla Somin's post about the case), it is absolutely clear that across the political spectrum of the legal academy, the reaction to this news is the same: UC Irvine has disgraced itself, and it will be hard-pressed to hire any Dean for the new law school at this point. (As one of my colleagues put it, what self-respecting law professor, let alone one with any scholarly stature, wants to go be an apparatchik answering to unknown political and/or monied interests behind the scenes?) Irvine's plans to start enrolling law students in 2009 now seems quite unrealistic. It seems to me there is only one way the University is going to salvage its plan to have an academically respectable law school and to open it this decade: namely, to reinstate Chemerinsky promptly. They will only be able to do that, of course, if the Board of Regents makes clear its support. (A few apologies will probably be necessary too!)
Meanwhile, the Irvine Chancellor has issued a statement, which appears to be in the familiar administrative mode of "say nothing substantive, pretend everyone doesn't know what really happened, and hope it all just goes away." It won't. As Samuel Bagenstos, probably the leading authoritiy on disability law of his generation, at Washington University, St. Louis put it to me in an e-mail (which he gave me permission to quote): "These guys just declared, before the school opened, that UC Irvine Law will never be a serious academic institution."
HOPEFULLY THE LAST (6:50 PM CST): Because a couple of folks have asked, I should note that I have never met Professor Chemerinsky, and I think I have had an e-mail exchange with him just once, several years ago. I have certainly heard very favorable things about him from professional colleagues. I have also not spoken to him about the events addressed here. I am sympathetic with many of his public political positions, though I am to his left on some others, and to his right on the remainder. My personal views of his scholarship are obviously irrelevant here; he is an important contributor to constitutional law scholarship, and it would have been extraordinary for UC Irvine to have landed a legal scholar of his prominence as the inauguaral Dean. Perhaps UC Irvine will yet clean up this mess of its own making.
9/13 UPDATE (12:30 PM CST): I am skeptical, as some have claimed, that UC Irvine's bad behavior implicates issues of academic freedom (see my discussion of the Larry Summers case, which also did not implicate academic freedom). Administrators are, after all, supposed to be devoid of personality, ideas, or opinions that might offend someone (I exaggerate a bit, of course); candidates for Deanships are passed over all the time for this reason, and while one might think it reflects badly on universities and the culture in which they operate, I'm not sure it implicates academic freedom. Professor Chemerinsky will, after all, continue to produce scholarship and continue to be a tenured professor. What makes the incident with Irvine so unusual is that, after deciding that Chemerinsky would not be unduly "offensive" as a Dean (going so far, indeed, to present him with a contract that he signed!), the University then reversed itself under circumstances that raise questions about both the independence of the university from external political forces and the judgment and competence of its administration. This is particularly embarrassing because, in fact, Professor Chemerinsky's public profile was known at the time he was chosen; his public political persona is hardly out of the conventional mainstream in either academic or public life in the United States; and he was so obviously an unusually prominent scholar for a brand new law school to land. That, nonetheless, the University felt it had to walk away from this opportunity suggests, at best, incompetence and, at worst, something far more nefarious that raises questions about the academic integrity of the institution.
UPDATE 9/14: More on the latest developments here.
September 11, 2007
"Why Tolerate Religion?"
The penultimate version of this paper is now on-line; it will appear in Constitutional Commentary early next year. This version can be cited and quoted.
September 10, 2007
The Coming Ranking of Canadian Law Schools
Later this week, Maclean's in Canada will release its first ever ranking of Canadian law schools. The magazine retained me to design a ranking system, one that avoids the numerous pitfalls of U.S. News. The result is a ranking system that can not be gamed, that does not depend on self-reported data, and is not an indecipherable stew of a dozen different ingredients. It is also a system that puts academic excellence and professional achievements front and center; nonsense criteria like expenditures on utilties and secretaries plays no role at all. Half the criteria pertain to faculty quality; the other half to the professional success of graduates of the law schools. (I am sure the extensive data on private sector employment will be of tremendous interest to prospecive students, in particular.) We will be quite interested in feedback, and with more time to prepare next year, I expect some additional data to be brought to bear in both categories.
September 9, 2007
The worst jurisprudential article of the year?
Visiting Professors at the Top Law Schools for 2007-08
MOVING TO FRONT FROM JULY 22 for benefit of those who missed it during the summer.
As I did last year, I'm posting a list of the visiting professors at the top six law schools by almost all measures of faculty quality--which are the schools that also typically have the most visiting professors on a regular basis. While many visiting stints are made with an eye to possible permanent appointment, not all are; some are so-called "podium" visits, which aim to fill an immediate teaching need at the school. By my calculation, for example, less than 25% of the visits last year resulted in (or are in process of resulting in) offers of permanent employment--but a somewhat higher percentage of the non-podium visits resulted in such offers. Often visitors from local schools in the area are invited for podium visit purposes--though some "locals" may also be "look-see" visitors, i.e., under consideration for appointment. NYU also has a fair number of "enrichment" and "global" visitors, well-known senior folks who are keen to spend some time in NYC (especially if the rest of the time they have to be in New Haven!), but who aren't necessarily interested in, or being considered for, lateral moves. (Columbia gets some of these folks too.) From the outside, of course, it's very hard to tell all these apart, so here, without further comment, are the visiting professors for 2007-08; please e-mail me about omissions or corrections, and I will update the list at various intervals over the next couple of months and move it to the front.
Yale Law School
Seung Wha Chang (Seoul National University)
William LaPiana (New York Law School)
Mitchel Lasser (Cornell University)
Thomas Merrill (Columbia University)
Theodore Ruger (University of Pennsylvania)
Harvard Law School (many of these are Winter Term [January] visitors only)
Ian Ayres (Yale University)
Gary Bass (Princeton University)
Jack Beermann (Boston University)
Mary Sarah Bilder (Boston College)
Curtis Bradley (Duke University)
Jennifer Brown (Quinnipiac School of Law)
James Brudney (Ohio State University)
Daniela Caruso (Boston University)
Seung Wha Chang (Seoul National University)
Bradford Clark (George Washington University)
Sharon Dolovich (University of California, Los Angeles)
Aaron Edlin (University of California, Berkeley)
Jill Fisch (Fordham University)
Jesse Fried (University of California, Berkeley)
Amanda Frost (American University)
Mark Gergen (University of Texas, Austin)
John Goldberg (Vanderbilt University)
Laurence Helfer (Vanderbilt University)
Don Herzog (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor)
Ram Hirschl (University of Toronto)
Allan Hutchinson (Osgoode Hall School of Law/York University, Toronto)
Vicki Jackson (Georgetown University)
Edward Janger (Brooklyn Law School)
Derek Jinks (University of Texas, Austin)
Russell Korobkin (University of California, Los Angeles)
John Leshy (University of California, Hastings College of Law)
Sanford Levinson (University of Texas, Austin)
Catharine MacKinnon (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor)
Thomas Merrill (Columbia University)
Hossein Modarressi (Princeton University)
Jonathan Molot (George Washington University)
Peter Muelberg (University of Mainz, Germany)
Neil Netanel (University of California, Los Angeles)
Nathaniel Persily (Columbia University)
Kal Raustiala (University of California, Los Angeles)
J.B. Ruhl (Florida State University)
William Sage (University of Texas, Austin)
Pamela Samuelson (University of California, Berkeley)
Max Schanzenbach (Northwestern University)
Ayelet Shachar (University of Toronto)
David Sklansky (University of California, Berkeley)
Henry Smith (Yale University)
David Super (University of Maryland)
Gerald Torres (University of Texas, Austin)
Amanda Tyler (George Washington University)
Kevin Washburn (University of Minnesota)
Kathryn Zeiler (Georgetown University)
Jonathan Zittrain (Oxford University)
Eric Zolt (University of California, Los Angeles)
Stanford Law School
John Harrison (University of Virginia)
Timothy Holbrook (Chicago-Kent College of Law)
Jennifer Urban (University of Southern California)
Jonathan Zittrain (Oxford University)
University of Chicago Law School
Susan Bandes (DePaul University)
Howard Chang (University of Pennsylvania)
Margareth Etienne (University of Illinois)
Tom Ginsburg (University of Illinois)
Michelle Goodwin (DePaul University/University of Minnesota)
Patrick Keenan (University of Illinois)
Clarissa Long (Columbia University)
Ed Morrison (Columbia University)
Jonathan Nash (Tulane University)
Jide Nzelibe (Northwestern University)
Ariel Porat (Tel-Aviv University)
Andreas Their (University of Zurich)
Michael Vandenbergh (Vanderbilt University)
Noah Zatz (University of California, Los Angeles)
Columbia Law School
Sherry Colb (Rutgers University, Newark)
Melvin Eisenberg (University of California, Berkeley)
David Enoch (Hebrew University)
Jill Fisch (Fordham University)
Jesse Fried (University of California, Berkeley)
Clayton Gillette (New York University)
Lani Guinier (Harvard University)
Mitchell Kane (University of Virginia)
Jonathan Klick (Florida State University)
Melanie Leslie (Cardozo Law School)
John Leubsdorf (Rutgers University, Newark)
Ariel Porat (Tel-Aviv University)
Claire Priest (Northwestern University)
Amnon Rubinstein (Interdisciplinary Center, Herzilya)
Christopher Schroeder (Duke University)
Olivier de Schutter (University of Louvain)
Joel Slemrod (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor [Business School])
Jane Stapleton (University of Texas, Austin; Australian National University)
Stephen Sugarman (University of California, Berkeley)
Alec Stone Sweet (Yale University)
New York University School of Law
Sir John Baker (Cambridge University)
William Carney (Emory University)
Donald Clarke (George Washington University)
Daniel Crane (Cardozo Law School)
Theodore Eisenberg (Cornell University)
Mitchell Engler (Cardozo Law School)
Mitchell Gans (Hofstra University)
Sally Gordon (University of Pennsylvania)
Mitchell Kane (University of Virginia)
Christopher Leslie (Chicago-Kent College of Law)
John Leubsdorf (Rutgers University, Newark)
Jerry Mashaw (Yale University)
Trevor Morrison (Cornell University)
Robert Rabin (Stanford University)
Larry Ribstein (University of Illinois)
Matthew Spitzer (University of Southern California)
Geoffrey Stone (University of Chicago)
Katherine J. Strandburg (DePaul University)
Robert Thompson (Vanderbilt University)
Kenji Yoshino (Yale University)
Kimberly Yuracko (Northwestern University)
September 7, 2007
Temple Dean Reinstein to Step Down After Nearly 20 Years!
News item here. Decanal tenures that long are quite unusual.