Brian Leiter's Law School Reports

Another penetrating critique of the ABA proposal to double the number of experiential credit hours required

This one from Notre Dame lawprof Derek Muller, which is worth reading in its entirety.  If the Council does not withdraw this ill-considered and inadequately justified proposal, then it really will be time to seek alternative accreditation agencies for law schools, ones that respect both law students and the academic freedom of law faculties to plan different courses of study.

Excellent letter by Marquette Law Dean Kearney in opposition to the terrible ABA proposal to double the required number of experiential hours

The full letter is here (earlier coverage).  As Dean Kearney writes:

[T]he Council’s proposal would mandate a startling redirection of resources. Given the integrated nature of a program of legal education, the proposal would constitute an unprecedented invasion into the upper-level curricula of law schools, diminish substantially the schools’ appropriate autonomy, and impair their ability to innovate and to adapt their programs to local needs and institutional missions—all at a time of other extraordinary pressures on legal education. More succinctly and concretely: The proposal ignores the curricular tradeoffs that will necessarily result for schools and students and dismisses the likely financial costs of the new requirements.

 

The proposal’s apparent general animating philosophy—which has scant regard for the precept that accreditation standards are intended to establish minimum requirements for “adequate” education while protecting each school’s leading role in defining its own educational program—is regrettable enough. More specifically objectionable is that the proposal to double the current minimum requirement of experiential-learning credits lacks adequate evidentiary support. Valuable though experiential education is, a “more is better” approach to its requirement is not adequately supported in the proposal—notwithstanding the observation that other, very different professions, with different educational pathways, have more experiential education. Given the weak evidentiary basis for increasing the number of mandatory experiential-learning credits, the absence of a rigorous (or really any) cost-benefit analysis should prompt the proposal’s withdrawal.

Other comments on the proposal are here, and they are overwhelmingly opposed, with the rather revealing exception of a letter from the Clinical Legal Education Association.  If the ABA does not withdraw this intrusive proposal, that will disrupt the legal education of thousands of students, then massive defiance will be the only appropriate response of law schools.

 

If this report is correct, then everyone should boycott the Harvard Law Review

Is this for real? 

[Harvard Law Review] Editors complained that a piece had cited "A LOT of old white men," attempted to guess whether a scholar was "Latina," complained that an author was "not from an underrepresented background," and praised an article for citing "predominantly Black singers, rappers, and members of Twitter."

Another article was recommended, in part, because "it cites a Kendrick song in the Conclusion!"....

While some editors recommended pieces on the grounds that the author was a minority, others paid more attention to the article’s footnotes, combing through the citations to see how many sources were white, black, or transgender.

"The author cited 20 men by name," Leah Smith, who graduated Harvard Law School in May, wrote of one article, but only "9 women and 1 non-binary scholar."

Everyone knows student editors don't know what they're doing (which is why it's good they consult more now with faculty*), but this is really a new low.

*Some student-edited law reviews can't even do faculty-consultations in a professional way.  In one case (involving a very prominent law review, not Harvard or Chicago), I was given the usual 48 hours to give my opinion.  I did:  the article, I noted, was "sophomoric" and "not publishable," and I gave some explanation.  The journal accepted the article for publication.  The author was a faculty member at that school.  My assessment was, in fact, correct.

 

Faculty hiring freezes?

At my philosophy blog, I'm collecting information, please contribute there.

Congratulations to the University of Chicago Law School Class of 2025!

It was a pleasure and privilege to teach such talented young men and women. I join all my colleagues in wishing you much happiness and success in the years ahead!

Summer quasi-hiatus from blogging has begun...

...as readers may have gathered.  I'll continue to update the laterals list, and will try to post about important or time-sensitive matters, but don't expect much regular content until August.  Good wishes to readers for a productive and enjoyable summer!

Congratluations to the Chicago alumni who made or announced lateral moves this past year (24-25)

They are:

 

*Katharine Baker '89 from Chicago-Kent College of Law/Illinois Institute of Technology to the University of Iowa.

 

*Samuel Bray '05 from the University of Notre Dame to the University of Chicago.

 

*Jason Czarnecki '03 from Pace University to Chicago-Kent College of Law/Illinois Institute of Technology (to become Dean)

 

*James Macleod '12 from Brooklyn Law School to Cardozo Law School/Yeshiva University.

 

*Goldburn Maynard, Jr. '05 from Indiana University, Bloomington (business school) to the University of Connecticut (Law School).

 

*William Ortman '06 from Wayne State University to the University of Georgia.

 

*Mary-Rose Papandrea '95  from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill to George Washington University.

 

*S. Sean Tu '08 (patents, food & drug law, intellectual property) from West Virginia University to the University of Alabama.

 

*Alexandra Yelderman '10 (law & technology, criminal law, law & economics) from Jacksonville University to Chicago-Kent College of Law/Illinois Institute of Technology (untenured lateral).