The Mets completed a stunning collapse with an equally stunning performance in a 8-1 loss to the Florida Marlins today that, coupled with the Phillies’ 6-1 victory against Washington, eliminated them from postseason contention.This news delights those among us who hate the Mets, even if our own teams will also be watching the Major League Baseball playoffs on television.
By the time you read this, it will almost certainly be moot, but I am intrigued by the possibility of a three-team tie after today's games in the National League Wildcard Race. (This may have something to do with the fact that meaningful September baseball is being played in Colorado for the first time in more than a decade.)
1. Hiring is designed to create an intellectual and philosophical balance so faculty can debate and hone their ideas about important issues. (At the other schools, intellectual diversity is threatening.)
Sam's post on the WSJ story last Monday on the gap between the supply and demand for law school graduates was chilling. The riskiness of students' investment in a law degree has spiked as the inevitable product of flat or declining demand for entry level legal services and rising law school tuition. Add this to your stiff drink and stir: Student loans are generally nondischargeable in bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Code makes student loan debt unforgivable along with liability for filing a false tax return, "willful and malicious" tort injury, and "embezzlement or larceny." In contrast, entrepreneurial debt is generally dischargeable. So, if a twenty year old person borrows $100,000 to start a mobile dog grooming business and it flops, she can file for bankruptcy, get a discharge, and start again. The same person who borrows money to go to law school flies without the social safety net. True, educational debt can be discharged upon a showing of "undue hardship." But so far, the cases are fairly clear that failing to get a law job that pays enough to break even on the cost of law school is not grounds for an undue hardship exception.
Cross-posted at Legal Profession Blog.
(procrastinating) with a stack of nine books (not articles) I want to read, not including Charles Taylor's A Secular Age, which just came out and is almost 900 pages, but which I have yet to order, I take some heart from Professor Agassi's advice in his essay, Scientific Literacy, on the art of browsing, which I recommend browsing. Except when you are browsing, don't skip the introductory paragraph from this student of Karl Popper:The central end of all my research activities was the effort to break down the walls of the academy. The wall is defended by the idea that not only do experts possess knowledge beyond the ken of lay people, which is trivially true, but that there is an unbridgeable gulf between the two. The aim of this presentation, then, is to discuss the possibility of building a bridge between the ordinary educated citizen and the expert.
This is apropos to legal academia, in particular, for three reasons: (1) the issue of walls and the breaking (or construction) thereof implicit in "law and..." disciplines; (2) the particular position of legal academia between scholarship (the expert?) and professional training (the ordinary educated citizen?), and (3) the fact that most of us, experts and ordinary educated citizens alike, are in fact simple ordinary educated citizens with respect to MOST of what we know, as almost any Tuesday or Thursday law school faculty lunch presentation will demonstrate.
Hat tip to Nancy Rapoport.With law school ranking techniques being perennially popular and Moneyball type analyses gaining ground, what might be another way of assessing the relative capabilities of a law school’s students and graduates?
It seems to me that it would be great if we had this situation in which law schools had student teams that competed against other law schools’ student teams from across the nation in tournaments which showed off their lawyering and advocacy skills. Wow! That would provide us with some valuable and statistically verifiable assessment of how well a law school’s students might perform after graduating.
Head to head law school competition -- what a great source of information for law school rankings like US News & World Report or Leiter’s rankings. Too bad that this situation does not exist -- oh wait, actually it does exist, they’re called “moot court competitions.”
Thinking about incorporating? DON'T waste your time with those online companies that claim to incorporate you. Unless of course you just have a bunch of money laying around. I am sharing this with you because of the lesson I learned the hard way.Here in higher-cost California, the costs payable to state government of a properly done incorporation are a minimum of $150 - something to keep in mind when certain paralegal services on craigslist and elsewhere offer the entire package, including their 'service', for $125!
I'll start by saying I know pretty much nothing about business when it comes down to all of the legal issues, tax, and accounting mubo jumbo and so forth. I like to just
concentrate on doing the work at hand. For example, if you mow lawns, then you should do just that. Why should you have to have a business degree, learn to be a tax whiz, and be a legal expert right? While all of these are great occupations, and their great to know about, if you mow lawns, then that would really put you out of a lot of time and energy, when you could concentrate on getting accounts and getting the work done.
I made the mistake of starting a business jumping in head first, and with the best intentions of course, but I ended up in a mess. I fell into the hype of all of those
"incorporate now" websites, and I'm not mentioning names (there are a ton of them), as they seem to all be very similar.
Most of them will ask you if you would like to incorporate, what type of corporation package would you like- as if you were ordering at a drive- thru. They are not
allowed to and won't give you any sort of legal advice, as they just sell the "package." It's really up to you to do ALL of the homework and research about the LLC's, S corps, C-corps, etc. They will in most cases be your "registered
agent," in which you will be represented in the event you are sued. And they will send you a VERY nice notebook with stock certificates and numerous other forms. In my case I got that and a nice library of five books (you would have to
be a lawyer to understand them), which if you were not already confused - you get the picture.
Ah, then the price. This can be from $600 and up. This is when I found a lawyer to be the best way in the first place, as they will know what type of corporation would best suit you. (No pun intended). In my case I had purchased the wrong type of corporation, and my lawyer had to fix it. In the end he charged me $400 to undo one corporation, and fix me up with the right corporation. AND he was also my registered agent. He also informed me that if you really wanted to put in the time, you could do the whole thing online in most cases for about $75. Wow.
Presentations are opportunities for people to recieve the advice they need to improve their work, in a setting that carries little risk. This is consistent with the idea that science has a component of professionalization, which as Elizabeth points out, assumes a degree of trust between speaker and audience, similar to a student and teacher. Blogging research talks seems consistent with the first view and inconsistent with the second view. My opinion is that one should be sensitive to what a workshop is about, but not let professional development become a shield against honest public critique.
There is another issue raised by presentation blogging. Traditionally, active researchers belong to an ”invisible college” of fellow scholars working on a topic who certifiy what counts as knowledge in an intellecual niche. The purpose of workshops is to vet your papers before they are submitted to the key journals. One benefit is that fellow researchers get a chance to point out flaws, which is what science is all about. Another benefit is strategic: by responding to comments of likely reviewers, or people in the network subscribing to similar views, an author improves their chances in the review process. The process is not full proof, but in areas with well defined boundaries and dense social ties, workshopping a paper in a few key places greatly increases the chance that your paper will appear competent and plausible to the people assigned to judge it.
Presentation blogging has the potential to change this system because it provides a chance for the discipline at large to respond to a work. Public discussion allows scholars who are not in one of these “invisible colleges” to provide additional information about a project. A person might attend a presentation, or download a paper, and write a response, which then draws its own counter responses. As to be expected, most comments will be of little value, but by expanding the paper’s audience, there is a chance that a insightful person outside the network can point out flaws, or improve the paper in other ways. Furthermore, scholars inside the network can read these comments and develop a more refined view of the paper, and of their own work.
To borrow a phrase from Mark Granovetter, the review process for many papers is built on a network of strong ties, which creates redundancy of information. Presentation blogging creates the opportunity for weak ties among scholars, generating new information. Thus, for some papers, presentation blogging has the potential to transform the production of knowledge, from a system based on chains of presentations and reviews in circumsribed settings, to a system where the broader discipline becomes a source of criticism and insight.
 |  |  |  |
 The Velvet Kings |  The Tortfeasors |
 100% Legal |  Shine-Ola |
 Cambia |  My Darling Asleep |
Some time ago I asked what a moneylaw law review would look like. After thinking it about it, I wonder if law reviews as they currently exist would be part of the legal education. Take what we know. Publication decisions are made by third year law students who are suckers for institutional appeals. Many law professors -- especially the ones with privileged backgrounds -- are quick to respond with all kinds of signaling about credentials and extensive acknowledgements of legal education "stars" even if their connection with the article was a quick comment while standing at the neighboring urinal. (I am not saying the non elitists are more honorable in this regard. They just do not have the tools)Hat Tip to Pamela's Protest for the V-Link!
| James Ming Chen | Introduction: First Person Plural |
| Cedric Merlin Powell | Bong Hits 4 Jesus: The Implications of Morse v. Frederick |
| Samuel A. Marcosson | The Role of Punitive Damages: Philip Morris USA v. Williams |
| Enid F. Trucios-Haynes | Funding Faith-Based Community Initiatives: The Hein Case |
| Russell L. Weaver | The Perils of Pragmatism: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's Legacy |
Click the image above to activate the (Real Player) stream.
The Ed & Elaine Brown Show; with Co-Host Tim Wingate 09-18-07
The E&E Brown Show, is featured on the Republic Broadcasting Network
In the spirit of the advice given to those intrepid Watergate reporters ("follow the money"), I have engaged in some speculation about the possible underlying cause of the UC-Irvine contretemps over at Legal Profession Blog.
Hat Tip to Pamela's Protest for the Idea.
Roadblock at the Browns: Brown 
I do not know Erwin Chemerinsky personally. In fact, based on what I have read, I may be the only person who does not know him personally. I know of his scholarship and based on what people have written he sounds like an all around good person. The handling of the situation so many have written about sounds like there is no other interpretation than Irvine blundered.I subsequently made the very difficult decision that Professor Chemerinsky was not the right fit for the dean’s 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.
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.
My decision was absolutely not based on Professor Chemerinsky’s political views; they are, in fact, quite similar to my own. Nor was this a matter of “academic freedom.”
We find deeply disturbing the many reports now circulating regarding the hiring and “firing” of Erwin Chemerinsky as the founding Dean of the UC Irvine Law School because he is too “politically controversial”, and not least regarding your role in this unfortunate debacle. We are disturbed because of the deep violation both of the integrity of the university and of the intrusion of outrageously one-sided politics and unacceptable ideological considerations into a hiring process that should be driven by academic excellence, administrative expertise, leadership capacity, and personal integrity. By your own admission, Professor Chemerinsky exhibits all of these qualities in very considerable measure, which is why you sought to hire him in the first instance. Thus to withdraw the offer even after it has been formally accepted confirms that it is for reasons that should play no role whatsoever in the process, as even self-professed conservative deans of law schools have been quick to point out.
But perhaps above all we are deeply concerned that, if the reports are true, as our institutional and intellectual leader, and as our representative, you have failed to defend the integrity of the university, its recruitment process, and the sanctity of academic freedom you have given voice to supporting in the past. We have no idea what pressure you came under from those promising to support the university financially or politically, but we have heard nothing of your public undertaking to stand up for the intellectual independence of the university, its hiring processes which weren’t allowed as a consequence to run their course, of academic integrity and of the principle of reasonable independence. It is this that disturbs us most deeply.
NEWS SOURCES:
UPDATES:
LA Times: UCI reportedly working on a deal to rehire Chemerinsky
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.
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.
The decision to drop Erwin Chemerinsky as dean could delay the 2009 opening. In the wake of the turmoil, some faculty members have called for Chancellor Michael V. Drake's resignation.
Chemerinsky, who was slated to begin at Irvine next summer, said the chancellor “said he hadn’t expected that I would be such a target for conservatives, a lightning rod. It’s clear that significant opposition developed,” including, Chemerinsky added, from certain members of the Regents of the University of California. The chancellor told him that even if regents ended up approving the appointment, it would be after a “bloody battle,” and damaging the law school.
“I’ve been a liberal law professor for 28 years,” Chemerinsky said. “I write lots of op-eds and articles, I argue high-profile cases, and I expected there would be some concern about me. My hope was that I’d address it by making the law school open to all viewpoints
Drake disagreed with the account. "No one said we can't hire him," he said. "No one said don't take this to the regents. I consulted with no regents about this. I told a couple people that I was worried and that this might be controversial, but no one called me and said I should do anything."
LA Times Op-Ed Columnist Dana Parsons
Orange County is obviously conservative political territory. And UCI, like most universities, longs for a sustainable base of financial donors to keep it moving forward. Did a deep-pocketed cadre of conservative donors put the heat on Drake to rescind the offer?
Or did the impetus for the Dump Chemerinsky movement originate with the UC system's Board of Regents, which would have to approve the contract?And, if either speculation is correct -- and Drake didn't simply change his mind, as he says -- why didn't Drake stand his ground and fight for Chemerinsky?
You may think I'm avoiding the obvious, but I'm not: Yes, I know conservative Orange County businessman Donald Bren has pledged $20 million to the new law school and will have his name on it.Is Bren the heavy? Did he learn of Chemerinsky's hire and throw a billion-dollar fit?
Could be, but it's almost inconceivable to me that UCI would offer Chemerinsky -- or anyone -- the job without, if only as a courtesy, telling the man the school is named after. That just doesn't make sense, and unless I'm hopelessly naive about such things, that means Bren would have had time to indicate his displeasure -- if, in fact, he would have had any -- before Chemerinsky had a contract to sign.
Yet as early as Aug. 29, Republican political consultant Matt Cunningham said he received a forwarded e-mail in which Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich asked fellow Republicans how Chemerinsky's appointment could be stopped.
Attorney Scott Baugh, chairman of the county GOP, said Chemerinsky shouldn't have been picked in the first place.“It's not because he's a liberal,” Baugh said. “It's because he's polarizing. You wouldn't hire Jerry Falwell to be the dean of religious studies at Berkeley.”
In UCI's case, many Republicans in Orange County were shaking their heads.“He's exemplary. He's a marquee name,” said Irvine attorney Michael Capaldi, former president of the venerable GOP Lincoln Club and a former Chemerinsky student. “Every attorney I know – Republican or Democrat – thinks this is silly.”Republican attorney Jim Lacy, a former Dana Point councilman, called the firing “sad,” noting that Pepperdine University's law dean is conservative hero Ken Starr.
