November 11, 2019
Some students and alumni of "Penn Law" are not happy about becoming students and alumni of "Carey Law"
November 04, 2019
This is not a good look, although perhaps this incident is sui generis. It is true that the University of Toronto charges more law school tuition than any other law school in Canada, and has for awhile, but this was part of a (mostly successful) effort to make Toronto faculty salaries competitive with the top 15ish U.S. law schools for both recruitment and retention purposes.
October 31, 2019
...based on interviews with dozens of lawyers and judges who had worked with him and found him “arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice,” and who also described a "lack of humility," and an "'entitlement' temperament." That certainly well describes his reaction to being called out for his idiotic apologia for Intelligent Design creationism fifteen years ago.
October 23, 2019
...for whom the Law School will now be named. Additionally, Mr. Caruso has committed to help the Law School raise another $50 million over the next ten years (he presumably has the right contacts to make that happen!).
This is definitely in the category of "Wow!" gifts to law schools.
October 16, 2019
The law schools at the University of Georgia and Georgia State are doing well. Kudos to them!
October 10, 2019
October 02, 2019
September 24, 2019
As a student at Harvard Law School fifteen years ago, Lawrence VanDyke (Trump's nominee) published an incompetent apologia for Intelligent Design creationism, under the guise of a "review" of a book shilling for creationism, in the Harvard Law Review. I excoriated it on my philosophy blog, while further efforts by Mr. VanDyke to defend himself only resulted in his digging his hole deeper.
Of course, an intellectually disgraceful book review fifteen years ago shouldn't be disqualifying, but surely Senators will want to find out if Mr. VanDyke is still a shill for creationism and how that might effect his rulings.
September 09, 2019
Twitter tends to be a forum for superficial and ill-considered reactions, but this one certainly was striking. I had written that, while I agreed with Professor Witt about the merits of changing the name of a Yale residential college named after a gross apologist for chattel slavery, I was,
also inclined to agree with Professor Kronman that (as he recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal), “Diversity, as it is understood today…means diversity of race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation. Diversity in this sense is not an academic value. Its origin and aspiration are political [i.e. justice for victims of discrimination]. The demand for ever-greater diversity in higher education is a political campaign masquerading as an educational ideal.”
In response, Jeffrey Selbin, a clinician at Berkeley's law school, tweeted:
White straight cis male education is apolitical until everyone else wants in. Then, “The demand for ever-greater diversity in higher education is a political campaign masquerading as an educational ideal.“ Seriously?
Of course, no one suggested that during the era when elite institutions systematically discriminated against non-WASPs and women and racial and ethnic minorities that these institutions were apolitical: far from it, they were devoted to reproducing the class system with a particular racial and ethnic composition. But none of us were even talking about that era!