Today’s L.A. Times has a pair of op-ed pieces in which Erwin Chemerinsky and Michael Drake offer differing accounts of UC-Irvine’s rescinded law school Deanship offer.
Chemerinsky reiterates that Drake explicitly admitted that the decision was politically motivated:
On Tuesday, Sept. 11, … the chancellor at UC Irvine, Michael V. Drake, withdrew the offer. He told me that I had proved to be “too politically controversial.” Those, by the way, were the exact words that he said I could use to describe the reason for the decision. He told me that he had not expected the extent of opposition that would develop.
What was it about my views that was too controversial? Only one example was mentioned: an Op-Ed article I wrote on these pages criticizing a proposed regulation by then-Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales to shorten the time death row prisoners have to file their habeas corpus petitions. There are more than 275 individuals on death row in California without lawyers for their post-conviction proceedings. The effect of the new rule would be that many individuals, including innocent ones, would not get the chance to have their cases reviewed in federal court.
The Op-Ed article was written and published before I was offered the position as dean. More important, the whole point of academic freedom is that professors — and, yes, even deans — should be able to speak out on important issues. It would never have occurred to me that arguing against a proposed federal regulation on behalf of those on death row would be deemed objectionable. On the ideological spectrum, it is not radical.
Drake, on the other hand, denies that Chemerinsky’s political opinions played any role in the decision. His alternative explanation, however, is vague and unpersuasive. He claims that, “It was a culmination of discussions — with many people over a period of time — that convinced me that Professor Chemerinsky and I would not be able to partner effectively to build a world-class law school at UC Irvine.” Yet, Drake provides no indication of why he concluded that he and Chemerinsky “would not be able to partner effectively.” Nor does he offer any explanation for why he reached this conclusion only after having already offered Chemerinsky the job.
