Thursday, August 13, 2009
That'll Teach 'Em?
“Let reverence for the laws be breathed by every American mother to the lisping babe that prattles on her lap. Let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges. Let it be written in primers, spelling books, and in almanacs. Let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in the courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation.”
Abraham Lincoln
16Th US President (1861-65),
1809 -1865
70 Professors Protest the Hiring of Alberto Gonzales at Texas Tech
(Update, as of 5 PM, 8/18/09, the number of petition signers is at 88)
Some 70 professors at Texas Tech University have signed a petition protesting the hiring of former U. S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The petition was started by long time ethics professor Walter Schaller, not unlike the earlier faculty protests against John Yoo being hired at Berkeley. Perhaps it is just me, but to have 70 potential colleagues protest in writing seems a pretty strong statement about how Gonzales is accepted, or more precisely rejected by his would be peers.
There are other unusual aspects to the hiring of Gonzales. For example, he is NOT being hired to teach law, which is his area of expertise. Gonzales former law firm would not take him back; and no one else in the private sector has expressed a desire to hire him, which certainly reflects on his abilities as a lawyer. Gonzales is writing a book, as are many former Bush administration alumni. Unlike those other administration alumni, so far no publisher is in a hurry to market Gonzales' story.
His one and only class, so far, consists of only 15 students, although there is talk about expanding the class size slightly. That class has already filled; this may be less of a kudos than it seems. In interviews, students have indicated they look forward to being able to put Gonzales on the spot with hard questions about his tenure with Bush. A number of students have expressed disapproval of having Gonzales on campus, on the basis of the ethical objections; they view it as a contradiction to the schools ethical policies, and to the school's motto "Do The Right Thing".
Gonzales is already having to decline to speak on some subjects because of ongoing investigations. Not, I would think, the most graceful excuse to decline to answer a difficult inquiry. And as the subject of Gonzales' class is in part to explain how things operated behind the scenes at the White House, it would suggest at the very least obstacles to Gonzales teaching this subject until after those investigations have been concluded.
Besides teaching, his other duties involve recruiting minority students. (Maybe it is just me who wonders this, but why would anyone seek the help or endorsement of a guy who left public service in such disgrace, who can't get a regular academic job, and who is so despised by the other professors.) Further, Gonzales was not even hired at Texas Tech through the normal channels; he was hired by the Chancellor, which is apparently highly unusual. This certainly suggests that the hire for the one class of fifteen students was some sort of 'good ol' boy network favor' employment.
While the signers of the petition do not realistically hope to see Gonzales removed from teaching this fall, the reason so many have signed is that there is a concern that Gonzales might be kept on for future teaching. The petition itself can be viewed at http://www.//:lubbockonline.com/pdfs/07-25petition.pdf
The objections in the petition fall into two categories, ethical objections, and academic objections.
According to the petition, for teaching the one class to only fifteen students, and the nebulous 'outreach' to minority students, Gonzales will be paid.... $100,000.00. It is noted in the petition that for that amount of money, "two top visiting professors could be hired from the best universities in the world." It should be noted, that so far as I can determine, and so far as the signers of the petition were aware, Gonzales apparently has never taught a class before, not a graduate class, not an undergraduate class. The petition specifically questions whether he even knows how to teach.
I find that an interesting fact in view of Gonzales receiving such a very large salary for teaching only 15 students.
Nice work if you can get it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Its sad that there are no generally accepted criteria on what qualifies one to teach a class at a University level, and yet we make public school teachers receive a degree in education with emphasis in their subject. In my many years in school, (both as a student and as an educator), I've found that there are a lot of brilliant people in their field., e.g. accounting, political science, biology, etc, who know more than I will ever know about a subject. Yet, if these same worthies can't explain the concepts they're trying to teach so someone else will understand, its pointless for them to be teaching a class.
ReplyDeleteI can't imagine how it would be anything but a waste of money to take a class taught by Alberto Gonzales. The questions that would be the important ones to ask, he probably can't answer, as the answers would tend to incriminate himself, and the puppet masters who pulled his strings.
You see, I think that Alberto Gonzales is a poor attorney, but even worse, I think he's a weak individual who allowed himself to be pushed around by Dick Chaney and others to authorize and approve incredibly stupid and utterly illegal and immoral acts on the part of the Bush administration. I'm not sure of which state bar he is a member, but like John Yoo, a disciplinary investigation for competence and independence of action should be instigated.
ToE wrote: "Yet, if these same worthies can't explain the concepts they're trying to teach so someone else will understand, its pointless for them to be teaching a class."
ReplyDeleteClasses in teaching are offered / required for those who teach at the lower levels. Doesn't anyone think it makes sense for people who are teaching higher levels of education to take those?
I suppose that once you are in college level classes, you should have demonstrated a certain self-starter mentality to learning that is not assumed in the lower grades. But teaching IS a skill, like anything else, and I agree that being expert in your own area of endeavor does NOT always translate to being a good teacher in it.
In any case, from the news articles, etc. I read, there seemed to be a strong determination by the students to be critical of Gonzales' ethics. Before reading that I had wondered how idealistic college students might be about that conduct. If the reports are correct, Gonzales is going to be squirming. His "I don't understand why people don't think I did a good job." statements are going to get a rigorous challenge apparently. VERY rigorous, hot seat rigorous. Big buck salary or not - he mady bail before his year is up; in any case, I could not find any indication that he is scheduled to teach any time after this fall during the rest of the year.
ToE, perhaps you could answer a question for me. I have heard criticism of the Bush administration that they tended to seek out lesser qualified candidates from what were referred to as 'third and fourth tier' law schools for Justice, so long as they were extremely conservative / republican AND tended to be fundamental or evangelical christians. What are these so-called 'tiers' and who determines what schools are in them, what schools are prestigious and which are not?
Texas Tech is a large, I believe 'land grant' university... in view of now 86 signatures on this petition, I find myself wondering "How many professors do they have?"
ReplyDeleteAre 86 petition signers a big number, or a small number, of the total faculty and administration?
I'm not sure where to check; haven't found numbers so far.
Basically, the 1st tier law schools are the top 10 law schools in the nation, based on quantitative opinion. This is generally ranked by the ABA and other legal groups based on the difficulty of course work and the quality of the instruction. Examples include: Yale, Harvard, University of Chicago, etc. The 2nd tier is the next 15 or 20 law schools. Examples include UCLA, etc. 3rd and 4th tier are the ones after that. Some claim that the 2nd tier goes down to the next 50 or so, and the 3rd tier goes down another 75 or so with the remaining at the bottom in 4th tier.
ReplyDeleteWell seeking out 3rd and 4th tier would not seem to be true in Gonzales case "then he transferred to Rice University in Houston, where he was a member of Lovett College and earned a bachelor's degree in political science in 1979.[7] He then earned a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from Harvard Law School in 1982."
ReplyDeletettucker said...
ReplyDeleteWell seeking out 3rd and 4th tier would not seem to be true in Gonzales case "then he transferred to Rice University in Houston, where he was a member of Lovett College and earned a bachelor's degree in political science in 1979.[7] He then earned a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from Harvard Law School in 1982."
You are correct tt. However, as AG, Gonzales did preside over a DoJ that routinely employed those individuals from such schools and was part of their recruitment. One of the patterns that is emerging from the investigation into DoJ is that those who were less competitive as attorneys were going to be less confident in opposing things like the poiticization of the DoJ. Prior to this, under administrations from both right and left, being hired for those positions was a point of pride in selecting the best and brightest talent from the most prestigious schools. Is someone who does this the person you want to be teaching in a University?
So...why deviate from that hiring tradition at Justice? What do you gain by it?
I will defer the answer to a future post. Suffice it that I have begun slogging through the Karl Rove deposition transcripts.
There is also something else to consider here. Just because you look at schools that are tier 2 and 3 according to the ABA does not mean you are not getting some of the best and brightest. For instance University of Texas was never in the top 10 law school but according to friends who went to undergrad with me looking for a law school at the time it was number 3 or 4 in the country for constitutional law. Several people went to St Mary's in San Antonio because they wanted to continue a Catholic education. The admissions standards are up there with the top ten law schools. There were also people who met the standards to apply to schools like Harvard and Yale but did not qualify for financial aid and just plain could not afford it( this was 1982 and there was a much bigger difference in tuition than there is now.) There were also those who got scholarships to tier 2 or 3 schools and not to the tier 1 schools. And then there is a question of diversity of opinion. Just because they were selecting candidates from schools other than Harvard and Yale does not mean they were not getting some of the best lawyers in the country.
ReplyDeletePerhaps, perhaps not.
ReplyDeleteI will agree that the ABA ratings are quite frankly... not as important as the ABA would like everyone to believe. I've thought for years that the ABA's ratings of Supreme Court nominees should be limited to "qualified" or "not qualified", rather than a rather interesting 4 different classes. (I still think Clarence Thomas is unqalified.)
The real point behind the entire scandal at DoJ, however, wasn't that they were recruiting from tier 3 and tier 4 law schools and thus weren't getting the cream of the crop. There are some really good lawyers who graduate from tier 3 and 4 law schools. The fact is, the criteria used for hiring were not academic excellence and intellectual capacity, but how rabidly republican and right-wing conservative a candidate was. THAT is what made a mockery of the hiring process, and THAT is the part that may have broken the law.
Well personally I think it would do us some good to get some people on the supreme court who have not even been to law school. The job of the courts are to interpret the law but the job of the supreme court is to interpret the constitution. It was written so that someone with the average education at the time (roughly 6th grade) could understand it. Now I am not meaning put someone with a sixth grade education in there but I think someone who just read the constitution and the case in question would inject a little common sense into some rulings. For instance the the Conneticut town that used eminent domain to build a Wal-Mart, Congress using the commerce clause for medical marijuana when it is prescribed by CA doctors to CA patients and grown and used in CA how do they manage to use a law on interstate commerce to govern it? A majority of non law school educated judges might be bad but a couple might add a bit more common sense.
ReplyDeleteOoops - put this comment under the wrong heading before - sorry!
ReplyDeletedog gone said...
Possibly some very bright people went to school at these institutions. My point however is that is not what was being sought. They were looking for a specific kind of conformity, and a willingness to act in ways which were not ethical in pursuit of political loyalty.
August 16, 2009 3:16 PM
While technically its possible for a non-lawyer to be appointed to the federal judiciary, its an incredibly bad idea. To have a non-lawyer on the Supreme Court of the US would be an even worse idea. Federal law and procedure is incredibly complicated, and although we all hear of the cases which are newsworthy, the majority of the cases decided by the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeals and US District Courts are dull and quite uninteresting. They involve everything from complex contract disputes, patent and trademark issues, currency issues, and a whole host of other issues which, I might add, routinely end up in law school final exams, bar exams, and law review articles at the top 10 and virtually every other law school in the nation. At some point in our past I think it might have been possible for a non-lawyer to sit on the Supreme Court and make "common sense" decisions. Those days are long gone. However, the problem with Ttucker's argument is that its not what it seems.
ReplyDeleteThe "common sense" argument is ususally an euphemism for "let's ignore the rule of law and give a knee-jerk reaction to the case in front of us". I thought that conservatives favored the "rule of law", which allegedly also requires strict construction of the constitution. If you strictly construe the constitution, you must also accept the pitfalls that go with it. Would you care for the government to decide how to raise your child? Strictly interpreted, there is nothing in the Constitution to prohibit that. Do you want the government (i.e. federal government) to deal with immigration reform? There's nothing in the US Constitution giving congress the power to do that. The fact is, strict construction has never been the rule in the US, and I doubt it ever will be. Fortunately, most of the judges appointed are reasonable, pragmatic people. 99.9% of the judicial decisions that I read are reasonable, common sense decisions. Even when I disagree with a decision, however, its important to read the legal logic behind the decision. This is why, among the other reasons listed above, that its important that a judge be a lawyer.
Probably don't get the difference between a Bill of Attainder and getting on the Mayflower, eh KR?
ReplyDeleteThe point was and is, it has been your standard position to advocate strict constructionism. Strict constructionism wouldn't limit immigration, and your pithy comment doesn't change that.
The founding fathers certainly had issues with confiscation and boarding of British soldiers, since when was that the same as preventing people from emigrating?
Your comment makes little sense, and is historically pretty far off the mark.
tt wrote:
ReplyDelete"Well personally I think it would do us some good to get some people on the supreme court who have not even been to law school. "
tt, I'm NOT a lawyer but I do appreciate that the rulings of the SCOTUS have huge repurcussions on subsequent legal practice.
It is my impression - I defer to ToE, as he is looking at another term of teaching constitutional law starting this week - but it is my impression that much of the casework in front of the supreme court deals with matters that are heavily procedural in nature, what trumps what in order and importance for consideration, if I may be so irreverent as to use a card playing analogy. A non-law school trained individual would be completely out of their depths, and the consequences could be both serious and costly. The supreme court has been pretty agile about actually reversing any errors in their decisions (Dredd Scott comes to mind as one of their more critical 'oopsies'.) They're not very big on saying 'we blew it' or 'we were wrong, but this time for sure'. And not without reason - admitting an error and changing could have an enormous ripple effect on subsequent judgements by lower courts, and on subsequent law. Putting a non-law trained person into that particular situation is asking for trouble. big trouble.