Althouse: UC Irvine unfires Chemerinsky.

September 17, 2007

UC Irvine unfires Chemerinsky.

Desperately trying to restore the reputation of the unborn law school.

16 comments:

Maxine Weiss said...: ---and they all lived happily ever after...; 9/17/07, 2:47 PM
hdhouse said...: Is there a "decisions 101" course at the school?; 9/17/07, 3:03 PM
lurker2209 said...: I'm normally not into conspiracy theories of any sort but some nagging feeling makes me wonder if all this is simply a ploy to get the unborn law school some press. Make Chermerinsky look really controversial and then appeal to law students who think going there might be less boring than most other law schools?

The more reasonable part of me that follows Occam's razor suspects that this was more about the big egos of Drake and Chermerinsky clashing in public view and less about the politics.; 9/17/07, 3:04 PM
The Drill SGT said...: hdhouse

THere is at the business school there. I'm a graduate.

Inside the Quantitative Methods course there should be material on: Decision Theory

My thoughts? I would not want to work for a Chancellor like Drake who has already proved himself spineless on several occasions; 9/17/07, 3:11 PM
Ruth Anne Adams said...: Does an unborn law school have a reputation? If so, is it a viable reputation?; 9/17/07, 3:14 PM
Anonymous said...: The entire affair is a joke.; 9/17/07, 3:26 PM
Gedaliya said...: It amazes me that this story gets any press at all.

Who cares if Chemerinsky gets this job or not? Who cares if there is another law school in California?

I don't get it.; 9/17/07, 3:32 PM
John Stodder said...: Throughout the past week, we have maintained an open dialogue. Over the weekend, Chancellor Michael Drake traveled to North Carolina to meet in person and at length with Professor Chemerinsky. Many issues were addressed in depth, including several areas of miscommunication and misunderstanding. All issues were resolved to our mutual satisfaction.

Just so we know what we're dealing with, I'd like an accounting of all the "areas of miscommunication and misunderstanding" between and among people who purport to be experts on the precise and legal meanings of words.; 9/17/07, 3:33 PM
George M. Spencer said...: Volvo salesman gets hired by the Chevy dealership, but then gets fired before he starts work, possibly because he's still driving that '63 Volvo or maybe because the dealer's big pockets uncle hates Abba.

Then the salesman talks to the local business rag while the dealer backpedals.

But then the dealership decides to go ahead and hire him anyway.

My, my, I tried to hold you back, but you were stronger. Oh, yeah, and now it seems my only chance is giving up the fight, and how could I ever refuse. I feel like I win when I lose.
--Vaterloo by Abba; 9/17/07, 3:53 PM
Paddy O said...: Well now they have a reputation.

UC Irvine? Oh, I've heard of them. They're wishy-washy.; 9/17/07, 3:55 PM
Swifty Quick said...: Desperately trying to restore the reputation of the unborn law school.

Actually, their cred went up a few notches when they undid the wrong-headed decision to hire him for the job. It's now that they need to be wondered about, mainly on account of all the vacillating.; 9/17/07, 4:49 PM
Gary Carson said...: They deserve each other. A second rate law school headed by a dean with no sense of self-worth.

I wonder who Texas A and M, Kingsville will get for a dean when they start a law school?; 9/17/07, 5:03 PM
James said...: Zeb Quinn said:

Actually, their cred went up a few notches when they undid the wrong-headed decision to hire him for the job. It's now that they need to be wondered about, mainly on account of all the vacillating.

Ah yes, it was such a terrible decision to get one of the most respected law profs on the planet to be their dean. It should say something that the consensus, even among conservatives, is that the firing of Chemerinsky was the horrible decision. I guess that leaves you on the "fringe" that can't see past the fact that the professor is *gasp* a liberal. (Shocking, isn't it??); 9/17/07, 6:03 PM
Daryl said...: I still haven't seen a single substantive defense of Chemerinsky's thoughtless errors, either the ones pointed out by Patterico or the one most recently commented on by California State Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George.

If Chemerinsky is such a thoughtful, qualified guy, why does he keep making these indefensible errors? If he's constantly screwing up for partisan reasons, why should we trust him to do a good job running a law school?

Where is the substantive defense of Chemerinsky? Or is his work indefensible?; 9/17/07, 6:24 PM
T Mack said...: Ann,
Why haven't you answered the questions about Chereminsky's qualifications?
The guy said that the best way to decide the 2000 election is to have Florida re-vote. A lie and he knew it.
Is it good to have a liar for dean?
What about his views on filibusters? Under Clinton, its unethical with no historical precedent. Under Bush, its a valuable tool to prevent the majority from abusing the minority.
If Chereminsky really understands the law, why was he suing Catipilar?
Alito was competent. Ed testified against him saying he wasn't, another lie.
If he is so "brilliant" why is he so wrong on the US constitution?
My gut feeling is that only in the law profession can one be "brilliant" and wrong at the same time.; 9/17/07, 6:31 PM
T Mack said...: Correction; Chemerinsky not Chereinsky.

No response from Althouse or Hugh Hewitt on his blog.
What is wrong professors, common sense has got your tongues?; 9/17/07, 6:45 PM