...and it doesn't bode well for law schools. Bar review courses have long been done via what were essentially "MOOCs," it would not be surprising were many law schools to start to incorporate them into core classes. Of course, the so-called "Socratic" method of instruction is not feasible with a MOOC.
On Friday, Dean Nicholas Allard at Brooklyn Law School, sent me a constructive reply to the concerns raised on Thursday about the proposed definition of "adequate cause" (and, in particular, "demonstrated incompetence") for termination of tenured faculty. Dean Allard also kindly gave me permission to share his response with the academic community. I post it below in its entirety:
I appreciate your acknowledgment of Brooklyn Law School as a school of long-standing and good reputation. I also share, and applaud, your commitment to academic freedom, and I welcome a vigorous discussion about how best to achieve it. It is a critical issue and a core value at Brooklyn Law School.
The recent change to our faculty regulations that you wrote about added the concept of “demonstrated incompetence,” which, as I understand it, is a long-recognized and widely accepted regulatory term supported by the AAUP and others. Our regulations did not previously include any reference to “demonstrated incompetence.”
The definition of the term “demonstrated incompetence” that was also included in the new regulations was not meant to expand its scope, but quite the opposite: the intent was to offer additional language to clarify a term that seemed potentially vague without further explication. The particular language of the definition obviously has raised concerns and will be addressed. To that end, I welcome further input from the faculty — and from other sources, like the AAUP, as referenced by the post on your blog — and that is exactly why the matter has been referred to our Faculty Hearing Committee for its review and guidance.
Last week I asked the Hearing Committee, which is the panel of BLS professors that applies internal regulations to tenured faculty, to review the definition for “adequate cause.” Under our regulations, this committee assures that peers are responsible for performance review — an important safeguard of both due process and academic freedom. I await their suggestions, concerns, and improvements, which I will take to our Board of Trustees to address.
I have full confidence that faculty peers will apply the standard fairly and in alignment with Brooklyn Law School’s tradition of outstanding scholarship.
I view this as welcome news, and will be interested to see the final standards that emerge from the process. I think this will also be an instructive process for other academic institutions.
...in the form of more full-time faculty doing research in the area. It's our topic du jour, so perhaps a poll of readers will prove informative. No lobbying for votes by blogs in particular areas! The poll only includes areas about which one hears with some regluarity concern that they are under-treated by law schools (so no constitutional law, corporate law, tax, criminal law, which almost all law schools are well-represented in or try to be).
When the results are in, I'll open them for discussion next week.
UPDATE: Unfortunately, the Workplace Law blog linked to the poll, which resulted in a surge for employment law. I've asked them to remove the link, otherwise we will have to drop employment law from the results, which would be unfortunate.