The Risks When Law School Deans Go Woke

Deans who go woke will alienate conservative donors. Deans who refuse to go woke will alienate progressive faculties and students.


Deans have a multifaceted job. They must simultaneously balance the interests of students, faculty, alumni, donors, and the University administration. Not a simple task. Unsurprisingly, the average tenure of law school deans is only about three years. Deans are rarely fired. When things aren't working out, they usually take a hint and leave early.

Historically, successful deans have had a singular focus: promoting the institution. And that focus demanded broad neutrality. With good reason. If a Dean adopted a position on some issue of public concern, faculty and students may fear opposing that position. Especially for untenured people, the threat of retaliation is real. Moreover, the Dean's position could alienate other components of the community, such as alumni and donors.

In recent years, the position of the Dean has evolved. Now, Deans criticize, and indeed try to punish faculty members for controversial scholarly pursuits. Deans also criticize, and indeed try to punish student groups that host controversial speakers. Deans routinely issue statements on controversial issues du jour, and even ask members of the community to join those statements. Many of these deans lack any scholarly expertise to opine on these issues. (I challenge every law school dean to write a law review note explaining what "systemic racism" is). Invariably, all of these actions come from a single political viewpoint: the progressive left. Conservative faculty members are criticized. Conservative student groups are criticized. And these official statements often accept as gospel precepts of critical racial theory and Anti-Racism.

These actions do not go unnoticed. Deans have now abandoned any precept of neutrality, and have picked a side in the culture wars. At some point, Deans committed to the progressive revolution will alienate members of their community. Yet, most conservative students are powerless to effect any change. And most faculties have been systematically purged of conservative professors. Moreover, central administrations have accepted the same CRT dogma. But there is external resistance from the one constituency that can fight back: alumni and donors. Yes, those who fund and promote the institution. And, grossly speaking, wealthy donors will tend to be more conservative than an average 1L. Eventually, more and more donors will simply be turned off by a Dean's virtue signaling. And when those check-books close, central administrations will take notice.

What is a Provost to do if he finds that a woke Dean is no longer able to fundraise effectively from wealthy, conservative donors? No doubt, that Dean would be popular among students and faculties who agree with his ideological commitments. But what about donors who reject the CRT world view? A Dean is not hired to be a scholar. He or she is hired to do one thing: promote the institution. Can the provost remove a Dean for his inability to fundraise, due to his political positions?

Going forward, it will be difficult to hire a Dean who eschews these progressive principles. Any Dean who refuse to talk the talk during the interview process will be rejected by the faculty. Thus, Provosts will be stuck with candidates who will turn off wealthy donors.

Readers may see some connections between this post and the situation in Miami. I am trying very hard not to comment on that unfolding situation, because the facts are unclear. I don't know what happened there, and cannot provide any insights. Rather, I've tried to sketch at a high level what I see as likely conflicts between deans and their communities.

NEXT: Can Tenure Reviewers' Names Be Sealed in Employment Discrimination Lawsuit Filings?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Go woke, be broke.

    1. Yeah, that’s why that Black Panther movie tanked so badly…

      1. Black Panther was not woke. It was about Africans, not about the misfits from the American South, with half their genes from the British Isles. Our woke race whores are not even black. Any diversity teacher, any woke race whore needs to provide the ethnic DNA, and maternal mitochondrial DNA or STFU.

        1. Black Panther was not woke. It was about Africans

          Mythical Africans, no less.

    2. Deans are in the hierarchy. They are on the arrest list of the 25000 traitors. Try them an hour. The sole evidence will be their legal utterances. Shoot them in the court basement upon reading of the verdict.

    3. Coke sales dropped 28%. That is a hefty fine for their betrayal of our nation. The CEO must be fired.

      1. You may say pandemic closed the restaurants. Pepsi sales rose 5%.

        1. America is fat. It’s impossible to order a drink not from Coke, Inc., at almost all fast food restaurants.

    4. I like to think that I’m directly and negatively affecting businesses when I avoid them due to being tired of whatever SJW nonsense they’re squawking at in the moment. But the truth is practically every major company is doing it these days so its impossible to boycott everything and the vast majority of customers don’t care either way. They’re probably being hurt far more by what they’re doing to themselves if they’re dumb enough to do more than provide lip service such as new diversity hiring rules as well as the general incompetence and strife that the social justice mentality breeds.

      1. You are destined to become increasingly disaffected and bitter as America continues to progress against your obsolete wishes. Replacement will provide respite, though.

  2. This happened at a place where I do regular consulting. Management jumped on the BLM bandwagon last year when it was immensely popular. Even got “Juneteenth” (whatever made up holiday that was) as a paid day off. The next six months were all about “helping out the black community…”

    That then died down and then when the “ant-Asian” violence thing became the cause of the day, management really didn’t do anything. So some pissed off workers made a huge stink about it. Management then put out some milquetoast statement and it fizzled.

    I’m wrapping up my engagement there, but say the same thing happening. Someone must have complained and they released a statement supporting Israel and almost immediate there was public backlash. So now the new management line is “we don’t do politics anymore…”

    1. It’s almost like there was a good reason for the old conventions against discussing politics and religion in the workplace.

      Too bad that today’s problem children are too full of Marxism-taught hate for our institutions for them to ever realize that there is wisdom in much of what we do — even if it was originally done mostly by white men.

      1. I’ve done business with a lot of companies and don’t know a single one who is happy with any results that have come for dabbling in politics, even local. You figure our body politic is split 50/50 nationally and even in some states. No matter what you do you are going to piss off around 40-50% of the people and that loss is not going to be made up by the other 40-50% you assuage.

        Religion cuts slightly different in some bigger local businesses will donate to church outreach causes (not church religious program) which tends to be well received. But that is in communities where 90%+ have positive opinions of such a church or its religion in general. Also those issues are not likely to make news outside of the locality or at most the region. Your small business puts out a social media statement on Palestine and it is more likely to go “viral” and be subject to national scrutiny.

        1. Religious outreach, if legitimately that, is not proselytizing and hence the sort of “good works” that no objective person can really object to.

          So you are helping the elderly and disabled clean up their yards after the storm and you are asking a company to pay the landfill fees and/or loan you a big truck to haul the debris there. As long as you are not proselytizing, what decent person would object to this?

        2. ” You figure our body politic is split 50/50 nationally ”

          It is not. If it were, the conservatives would have been (and be) competitive in the culture war, and would not be relying on gerrymandering, voter suppression, and our system’s structural amplification of yahoo votes to try to stay on the lead lap a bit longer.

          1. If it were not split about 50-50 you’d already have us in concentration camps.

            1. Exactly — and some interesting stuff is starting to come out on Biden’s purported “victory.”

            2. Take your meds.

          2. Hi, Artie. Start shopping the Caracas apartment. All your kind are going to be cancelled. You better run.

            1. Artie was banned by the Volokh Conspiracy’s Board of Censors for making fun of conservatives.

              I am Arthur.

            2. The blackman kid’s piece is about wealthy donors cancelling law schools where the population of students and faculty are deemed to be excessively “woke”. Will funding of only sufficiently “non-woke” law schools (assuming that the “woke” don’t have any wealthy donors) change the views of the students and faculty such that they pivot to embrace “non-wokedness”? Of course not. Why would it make a “non-woke” wealthy person happy to have a dean that is mum about “woke” topics while the students and faculty carry on with their “wokedness”? The effect would be in appearance only, not in any substance. Luckily for rich people, appearance (and spite) is usually enough.

              1. Deans and Coke have public missions. When they deviate from education and from soda, they anger half the population, no matter the position, hurting their mission. They should be fired. They can run for office outside those institutions.

      2. “It’s almost like there was a good reason for the old conventions against discussing politics and religion in the workplace.”

        Excellent advice.

        1. My point is that politics and religion aren’t just similar phenomena in that respect, but the exact same one.

    2. Even got “Juneteenth” (whatever made up holiday that was).

      It is about as made up as any other holiday. Juneteenth is roughly as old as Memorial Day, and older than Veterans Day.

      On June 19th 1865 the commanding general of Union forces in Galveston Texas, General Gordon Granger, issued a proclamation announcing that slaves in Texas were now free. Annual commemorations of this event occurred as early as 1866 and spread across the South. It was an important part of black public memory regarding the legacy of slavery.

      Don’t be so dismissive of things you don’t understand.

      1. Yeah, so, Memorial Day has been a federal holiday for 70-80 years now. “Juneteenth” not so much. And even by your own admission is had local/regional impact at most.

        “Don’t be so dismissive of things you don’t understand.”

        I think you should take your own advice here.

        1. So the federal government’s blessing is generally a controlling thing for you?

        2. “I think you should take your own advice here.”

          What do you mean? I understand Juneteenth and it’s historical significance. You didn’t and were extremely dismissive of it despite your historical ignorance: you literally said: “whatever made up holiday that is.”

          1. By your own admission it is a local holiday for a niche community. Hardly the same as Memorial Day.

            And yes “Juneteenth” is a made up holiday in that it has no national significance or visibility and it only generated prominence because some opportunists in the cultural marxist community did an internet search for something around that date.

            1. “By your own admission it is a local holiday for a niche community. Hardly the same as Memorial Day.”

              I didn’t realize the American South and spreading from there is “local.”

              I also didn’t realize black people were “niche.”

              It’s significant to Black people in America. Commemorating the end of slavery is of national significance. It only lacks visibility to you because you never paid attention and then when it’s brought to your attention you are arrogantly dismissive of it since you can’t understand things that aren’t in your bubble.

              1. I think you are overstating the prominence of the holiday mostly because you got caught in a lie.

                I’ve never heard of it and have lived and worked in black owned businesses in black neighborhoods in the Northeast. Never one mention before 2020.

                And yes Texas minority community is what I would call “niche”…

                One does not “live in a bubble” just because they didn’t know something prior to being pushed by cultural marxists in the year 2020 didn’t exist nor was of national significance. And you know what even after 2020 I would say it is not of national significance and, other then it will take a few years for the fad to fade, it won’t be much beyond that.

                1. How did I lie? What thing did I say was factually untrue? I’ve know about the holiday since 2011 when I read Fitzhugh Brundage’s The Southern Past (a 2005 book) which extensively documents its history.

                  1. How did I lie? What thing did I say was factually untrue?

                    Ah, lawyers. You… ahem, **strongly implied** it was something other than a local Texas holiday that just in the past small single-digit number of years took on some modest momentum across the rest of the country because activism.

                    1. Which is factually correct, dude.

                    2. Which is factually correct

                      Wait wait, don’t tell me — you read that in your ever-loving book.

                      If it’s that much of a secret, I rest my case.

                2. I’ve never heard of it

                  Bragging about your ignorance isn’t the winning argument you thought it was.

                  cultural marxists

                  Also, bragging about the fact that you’ve never heard of something celebrating the end of slavery, while using a Nazi phrase, is really not a good look.

                  1. You know you are winning an argument when someone goes back to the old hobby horse “well that was nazi stuff!!!!”

                    What isn’t a good look is calling something “nazi” when you are clearly losing an argument that was stupid to start in the first place.

                    1. Look up Cultural Bolshevism

                      Cultural Marxism is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims Western Marxism as the basis of continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture.[1][2][3] The conspiracists claim that an elite of Marxist theorists and Frankfurt School intellectuals are subverting Western society with a culture war that undermines the Christian values of traditionalist conservatism and promotes the cultural liberal values of the 1960s counterculture and multiculturalism, progressive politics and political correctness, misrepresented as identity politics created by critical theory


                    2. You’re the one who lost. I have receipts on Juneteenth. You have your own ignorance

                    3. Yeah….did you check the editorial history of that “article” you try to cite as a resource?

                    4. The date proves you wrong that this is some 2020 thing

                      Here’s another article:

                  2. Not cultural Marxist, Chinese agents, who should be arrested.

                3. “I’ve never heard of it”

                  Ignorant clingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.

                4. “cultural marxists.”

                  You’re a joke.

                  1. He’s just continuing a long tradition of white racists invoking Marxism/communism/socialism to attack anything important to black people.

                    1. How did I “attack” black people? Did nothing of the sort. Again you have to resort to strawmen. I just pointed out that Juneteeth was an inflated and conflated local holiday co-opted by cultural marxists and had absolutely no national significance before 2020. And you have yet to prove me wrong other then you cite some book that has so-so reviews with poor sales numbers from 2005 and some grainy Youttube video from the 80’s.

                    2. The book is by an expert in southern history based on primary source research. Sales numbers have nothing to do with anything. It proves you wrong.

                      The video proves you wrong too. You said it has no cultural relevance before 2020. That’s plainly not true.

                      And here is more:

                      A congressional resolution about Juneteenth sponsored by congressmen from NJ and MD

                    3. Here’s a 1997 LA times article talking about how the tradition came to Los Angeles.



                      2003 official establishment of Emancipation Day aka Juneteenth in Missouri

                    5. I said no NATIONAL cultural relevance. And you do know that state legislatures send out those resolution on just about every single day for anything, right? I can easily find one for National Ice Cream Day and National Peach Day. Should we celebrate these holidays too?

                    6. Yeah and you’re wrong. Juneteenth has relevance to people all across the nation. There is nothing “local” about it. Just admit you’re wrong.

                    7. You sound like an agent of the Chinese Communist Party. You should be investigated.

                  2. You keep on dancing but ought to just sit down and concede the point you have already lost over and over again. Absent a push by cultural marxists in 2020 Juneteenth would have continued to be just a local, niche holiday of no real national prominence.

                    1. Dude. Just stop.

                      First off, you have no idea what the word local means. If it’s in localities across the country, as I keep demonstrating, it’s not “local.” A local holiday would only
                      occur in one place. Juneteenth celebrations happen all over. So you are indisputably factually wrong that this is a “local holiday.”

                      I also keep showing you articles and sources about Juneteenth from well before 2020. Maybe there is a renewed focus on it in 2020 by national media, but people have been talking about it since well before then. So you are indisputably factually wrong that about timing too.

                      You don’t have any sources to support your claim whereas I can keep pointing to articles, photographs, and books about Juneteenth.

                    2. You showed that a few random places had isolated mentions of a rather local holiday that had no national prominence of significance. by doing so, repeatedly, you just prove my point over and over again. Hardly requires any “proof” on my part when all I had to do was give you enough rope….

              2. “Commemorating the end of slavery is of national significance.”

                Except Juneteenth was not the end of slavery.

                That’s what’s interesting about this sudden, very fake, manufactured push of Juneteenth. It’s paired with profound misinformation and distortion of history for political purposes. It is propaganda, and fits in with the broader propaganda falsehoods about the war (such as that it was a war fought to end or defeat slavery, or that it was a civil war).

            2. > “Juneteenth” is a made up holiday in that it has no national significance or visibility

              You’d think a holiday celebrating the end of slavery would be something that all Americans would want to celebrate, not just African Americans, but maybe not?

              1. Slavery ended on December 6, 1865 with the ratification of the 13th Amendment — as it says nothing as to when it shall take effect, I presume it was immediately upon ratification.

                Of course it also took Part 4 of the 14th Amendment to finally end the matter — that there would be no compensation for the freed slaves, that the 5th Amendment’s “taking” clause did not apply.

              2. It’s not a holiday celebrating the end of slavery. That was claimed, but is false, and people fell for it by the millions last summer, all while patting themselves on the back and smugly touting their nugget of false historical knowledge.

                The count of people commenting in this thread who fell for the falsehood is up to 2 so far.

            3. Jimmy,
              It does have more meaning than Kwanza

              1. Soros INC. manufactured “Juneteenth” whereas the FBI, using taxpayer money, made up Kwanza.

        3. Memorial Day came out of the GAR (Grand Army of the Republic) which was quite powerful in the late 19th Century. Lots of rural communities had a “GAR Hall” where, apparently, the Union vets (and their families) did stuff.


      2. “Don’t be so dismissive of things you don’t understand.”

        I understand it, can i be dismissive?

        Slavery ended de facto when Lee surrendered or de jure when the 13th Amendment became effective, not when some unknown officer issued some local pronouncement. If Galvaston wants to have some ceremony great, but giving employees hundreds or thousands of miles away a random day off 150 years late is pandering and silly.

        1. “I understand it, can i be dismissive?”

          You actually don’t understand Juneteenth or the history of how slavery ended.

          “Slavery ended de facto when Lee surrendered.” This is simply incorrect. Read a book on Reconstruction. Lee’s surrender did not
          “De facto” free slaves anywhere that Union forces weren’t currently occupying, like Texas.

          Juneteenth is a commemoration of the end of slavery that spread from Galveston to other places throughout the 19th century. See Fitzhugh Brundage’s The Southern Past, which details this extensively.

          So you can be dismissive but not because you “understand it.” You’re being dismissive because of your poor character and need to constantly vice signal.

        2. By law guy’s logic any local holiday is now a candidate for national prominence.

          I once lived in a town that had a local holiday celebrating the end of Prohibition. It commemorates the day the local Sheriff literally drove Treasury agents out of town, everyone got drunk in the street, and a tax collector building was burned to the ground. Maybe that should get celebrated nationally as well…?

          1. It’s not a local holiday! That’s what I’m trying to explain to you, dude!


            This is footage, posted in 2013, of a Juneteenth celebration in Milwaukee that occurred in the 1980s.

            1. Yeah looks pretty mainstream to me….(yes that is sarcasm)

              Does little to back up your assertion that Juneteenth was a mainstream holiday before it was picked up by cultural marxists in 2020. It is obviously a niche, local celebration (of which there are literally tens of thousands in the fifty states) that got inflated status because it was a convenient date that fell close to an incident that was also co-opted for propaganda purposes by said cultural marxists.

              1. Uhhhhh if it’s local in all fifty states it’s not local anymore. You’re just sadly using any justification to not admit you’re wrong about Juneteenth and I’m right.

                But congratulations on being willfully ignorant and also on continuing a long tradition of white racists calling anything dealing with black culture Marxist.

          3. There is a bar in Boston known as the 21st Amendment.

            It’s within the shadow of the General Court (legislature)….

        3. “Slavery ended de facto when Lee surrendered or de jure when the 13th Amendment became effective, not when some unknown officer issued some local pronouncement. If Galvaston wants to have some ceremony great, but giving employees hundreds or thousands of miles away a random day off 150 years late is pandering and silly.”

          How much more can superstition fade in our society before you would support eliminating superstition-based holidays such as Christmas and Easter? Surely we can find more important things to celebrate in modern, reasoning America. At some point, by your reasoning, not even trees and Santa, or bunnies and candy baskets, will be enough to support continued recognition of Christmas and Easter, right?

        4. Slavery ended de facto when Lee surrendered

          This is plainly false.

          De facto slavery, via debt peonage and other mechanisms persisted well into the 20th Century. You need to learn what happened after Reconstruction ended.

          1. But bernard, what you describe long postdated a General’s proclamation in Texas.
            Moreover, I’d see more sense in celebrating Lincoln’s signing of the Emancipation Proclamation. The country went to war on that account.

            1. “Moreover, I’d see more sense in celebrating Lincoln’s signing of the Emancipation Proclamation. The country went to war on that account.”

              South Carolina (first one) seceded on December 20, 1860.
              South’s Cowardly Attack on Fort Sumter: April 12, 1861.
              The Battle of Bull Run (first) was July 21, 1861.

              Date of Emancipation Proclamation: Jan. 1, 1863.

              The Country went to war because the South was a bunch of traitorous cowards that refused to accept the political process and, for that matter, refused to accept the humanity of their fellows.

              Oh, wait ….

              1. loki,
                what point are you making, beyond the fact that emancipation was the great issue underpinning the civil war and Lincoln’s leadership both saved the nation and freed the slaves.

                So we have MLK Day and Juneteenth , but not Lincoln’s Day (just a nondescript President’s day).

                1. Emancipation was not the great issue underpinning the war, any more than it was the great issue underpinning the revolutionary war (which saw not one but several emancipation proclamations of precisely the same sort of war measures).

                  The North did not go to war for anything having to do with slavery, only for money and power and empire. Indeed, they were willing to do anything from constitutionalizing slavery in an amendment, to trying and abolishing it, in furtherance of these primary aims.

        5. “Slavery ended de facto when Lee surrendered”

          Not in the border states — which were not in rebellion and hence the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t apply to them. Dec 6th…

        6. It might be pandering and silly, but first and foremost it is purposeful propaganda.

      3. The hell they were free.

        The second paragraph of the order read, in it’s entirety:
        “The freedmen are advised to remain quietly at their present homes and work for wages. They are informed that they will not be allowed to collect at military posts and that they will not be supported in idleness either there or elsewhere. “

        I call that “slavery” — nowhere does it say that they have the right to quit, nor to go work for someone else, and it doesn’t say what (if anything) they have to be paid.

        Hence as the US Army (men with guns) was preventing them from seeking a better deal from a different employer (which *is* what happened when Slavery was eliminated in Massachusetts) but there was nothing preventing Stanley Slavemaster from saying “OK, I’ll pay you $100 a day, but I’ll have to charge you $50/day for your housing and $55/day for your family’s food — and you’ll owe me that $5….

        In an era of imprisonment for debt, this was freedom?!?

      4. Most of the core claims about Juneteenth are myths:

        It only really makes sense as a day for remembering an airbrushed version of Texas-local history.

    3. Even got “Juneteenth” (whatever made up holiday that was)

      Yeah, we should have more real holidays like “Christmas” instead of “made up” ones like Juneteenth or Independence Day that celebrate things that actually happened.

      1. Your ignorance is showing. But please keep letting it all hang out for everyone to see.

        1. Dude you’re the one who keeps getting shown he doesn’t know anything about Juneteenth. I don’t think you can call anyone ignorant at the moment.

          1. No one has “shown” me up on anything. My thesis statement at the beginning has just been reaffirmed upteenth (maybe Juneteenth times over hahahaha). You are trying to make yourself feel good through your virtue signaling about a niche, local holiday that was just that, a niche, local holiday.

            1. No. I’m trying to explain why you’re simply wrong historically. I mean I guess being historically correct is virtuous, but that’s not why I’m doing this. You’re wrong and you can’t admit it, and I’m going to point that out.

              1. Saying someone is wrong over and over again, does not eventually make you right. You know that, right?

                1. No but constantly posting evidence proving me right and you wrong sure does.

        2. Your ignorance is showing. But please keep letting it all hang out for everyone to see.

          Wait, are you saying that you think Independence Day doesn’t celebrate something that actually happened?

  3. Outside of specific big items such as new buildings, how important are donors to law schools?

    Donors are often alumni and in higher education generally, as tuition increased over the past 40 years (800% the rate of inflation if I recall correctly) donations from younger alumni have decreased as what was once a debt of gratitude has become a debt to the student loan company.

    The law schools that I am somewhat familiar with appear to be largely tuition driven, which is why they worry so much about retention and recruitment. If donor dollars were a bigger part of the mix, I don’t think this would be so much the case.

    No, what I think will happen will be a populist revolt with states taking the law school monopoly away from them.

    1. “Outside of specific big items such as new buildings, how important are donors to law schools? ”
      Donors support scholarships, remodeling & reconstruction of major structures, faculty recruitment, non-tenure track appointments, sometimes summer salaries. Modern teaching technology. It systems.

  4. Impressive seven paragraph apophasis.

    1. I see somebody went to college.

      1. Technically.

        It was a conservatory.

  5. “Historically, successful deans have had a singular focus: promoting the institution. And that focus demanded broad neutrality.”

    That seems like it would need some supporting evidence.

    1. This whole piece requires supporting evidence. Josh doesn’t even seem to understand what “CRT” actually is.

      1. To the right, it doesn’t matter what it means. It’s just something they shout about to signify tribal membership.

    2. Hi, Queenie. Read the promises made in the IRS 990 form for the tax exemption.

  6. Let’s go back to law reading [either locally or an Inns of Court system] and get rid of these deans and their schools. That system worked for 600 years.

    Paradox solved.

    1. 1) There is no paradox.
      2) You would have solved nothing but created intramural chaos.

  7. The woke fight is going to become ballistic when people discover the latest proposal put forth by the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar for Notice and Comment. Here is the proposal:
    Standard 303:
    c) A law school shall provide training and education to law students on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism: (1) at the start of the program of legal education, and (2) at least once again before graduation. For students engaged in law clinics or field placements, the second occasion for training and education will take place before or concurrent with their enrollment in clinical or field placement courses.
    Interpretation 303-6: With respect to 303(a)(1), the importance of cross-cultural competency to professionally responsible representation and the obligation of lawyers to promote a justice system that provides equal access and eliminates bias, discrimination, and racism in the law should be among the values and responsibilities of the legal profession to which students are introduced.
    Interpretation 303-7: Standard 303(c) may be satisfied by: (1) Orientation sessions for incoming students on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism; (2) Guest lectures or trainings by experts in the areas of bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism; (3) Courses on racism and bias in the law; or (4) Other educational experiences that train students in cross-cultural competency. While law schools need not add a required upper-division course to satisfy this requirement, law schools must demonstrate that all law students are required to participate in a substantial activity designed to reinforce the skill of cultural competency and their obligation as future lawyers to work to eliminate racism in the legal profession.

    1. At what point will critical mass be reached and the ABA monopoly eliminated?

      With modern technology, there really is no longer any rational basis for a physical law school with a physical law library — and no reason why law professors couldn’t become independent contractors issuing independent creditations. Doesn’t that already largely exist with CLE?

      1. “With modern technology, there really is no longer any rational basis for a physical law school with a physical law library”

        The CLE model is very far from in person instruction. In took 30 CLE hours a year ago; that was interesting but a far cry from what one would get in a physical class.

        It is rather amazing that someone who claims to have written a 203 page thesis for a D. Ed could be so ignorant of how modern universities and professional schools function

        1. FIRE hosts in-person CLE events.

          1. Which proves nothing. CLE is not the equivalent of extensive in-class instruction and supervised mentoring.
            And before you say more about experience, let me tell you that I have a dozen years directing and teaching a national graduate program of intensive courses. They are a fine adjunct to what can be offered on campus, but they are no substitute for a mutli-year course of instruction.

            1. *If* law school were the be all and end all, (a) no law school graduate would ever flunk the bar exam, and (b) no law school graduate would ever need to study for it, either.

              I don’t know how much you know about pedagogy so I’m skipping all of that and jumping right to the end — educational outcome. If the law school education is so great, why are there so many incompetent lawyers? (Why are there so many lawyers willing to buy me beer to explain education law to them?)

              Furthermore, neither John Adams nor Daniel Webster nor John Marshal ever attended law school. They somehow managed to become such great lawyers that they remain famous to this day. In fact — just a guess — but I suspect that the majority of the SCOTUS justices since 1789 did NOT go to a law school.

              Likewise, even if there actually is merit in your argument (which I doubt), there is nothing preventing others from copying it. This has already happened three times in the history of American Higher Education — first the Catholics copied the best part of the Protestant model, and then Horace Mann did the same thing when he created the Normal Schools (most of which are now State Universities), and then the various Morrill Acts did something similar, with the first one creating most of the flagship universities of today, and the latter creating most of the HBUCs.

              And I should perhaps mention that a lot of law schools are affiliated with these alternative institutions….

              1. “*If* law school were the be all and end all, (a) no law school graduate would ever flunk the bar exam, and (b) no law school graduate would ever need to study for it, either.”
                That is a completely nonsensical assertion. You must have learned nothing in your School of Education, proving my point.

                ” If the law school education is so great, why are there so many incompetent lawyers? ” Half of them were in the bottom half of their class. Seriously yours is yet another stupidity. There are bottom quartile engineers and superlative engineers. You could ask the same stupid question about any profession requiring formal training.

                As for pedagogy, I have talk university graduate level courses for over thirty years and still do so actively.

                As for alternative institutions, what is your point. That MIT could start its own law school?
                Yes it could. And It rapidly make it at least to Tier 2. Would it bother? No, because we have Harvard and BU in Cambridge.

                But for all your Blah blah you have not been able to defend your assertion that a CLE-like program would suffice to train competent lawyers. I can’t imagine the amount of BS in your 203 page thesis

      2. The ABA represents 20% of Commie lawyers. It has no power, except that granted by the Department of Education to accredit programs. That power should be rescinded, of course. The ABA is an agent of the Chinese Commie Party. It should be investigated and shut down.

        Brick and mortar schools are dead schools walking. Transportation and buildings are stupid. They contribute to global warming.

        1. Behar is wrong — ED grants that power to the regional acreditors — ABA’s sole power, granted by *states*, is ability to sit for that state’s bar exam.

    2. So you think there is something wrong with promoting “a justice system that provides equal access and eliminates bias, discrimination, and racism in the law.”

      Do I have that right?

      1. “”When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.'”

    3. “A law school shall provide training and education to law students on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism:”

      Who trains the trainers? You can require that law schools provide training on these things, but you can’t require them to know anything about them.

    4. ” law schools must demonstrate that all law students are required to participate in a substantial activity designed to reinforce the skill of cultural competency and their obligation as future lawyers to work to eliminate racism in the legal profession.”
      In principle, the requirement is anodyne. In practice, it is likely to be intellectually oppressive and counterproductive.

  8. I’ve spent a few months less than 80 years on this earth, some of it in the American South. Until about 5, or maybe 10 years ago, I had never heard of “Junteenth”. Since then I’ve always thought it was some kind of made up festival like Kwanza. Thanks to LTG for providing the apparent historical significance of Junteenth.

    1. See:

      Yes, wiki — but it has an image of the actual order…

    2. ” Since then I’ve always thought it was some kind of made up festival like Kwanza. ”

      Is Christmas a similarly “made up festival? The subject is plainly childish superstition. The date apparently pinched from a pagan celebration. Is there a serious argument that Christmas is not a “made up festival?”

      Great comment!

  9. Is Prof. Blackman just reaching recognition that conservatives have lost the culture war, are on the wrong (fading) side of history, and can no longer expect to be numerous on faculties at strong, reason-based educational institutions? That conservative students may continue to be influential at fourth-tier goober factories but not at first- (and even second- and third-tier) schools?

    1. We haven’t lost — we won TWO Presidential elections, the latter stolen from us, and you won’t like 2022 and 2024….

      1. Hmm…
        …and MTG and friends will PROVE the steal, right? Go count AZ and GA votes (and then go pound sand). Rev. Artie is correct, God bless him. You are all losers in the ongoing culture wars.

      2. You’re a jackass and a gullible fool.

        There was no stolen election in 2020. Trump lost, legitimately, and by an EV margin that he himself proclaimed a “landslide” in 2016.

        1. I guess that he cannot help himself, bernard.

        2. Perhaps the explanation is that it is Saturday night and he is drunk out of his mind.

        3. Yeah, Republican claims of stolen elections in 2020 don’t sound any better that Democrats in 2000 claiming the same thing.

          1. Very true, they don’t
            Gore lost in 2000. The Orange Clown lost in 2020.

          2. Let’s see.

            Good evening. Just moments ago I spoke with George W. Bush and congratulated him on becoming the 43rd president of the United States. And I promised him that I wouldn’t call him back this time.

            I offered to meet with him as soon as possible so that we can start to heal the divisions of the campaign and the contest through which we’ve just passed.

            Almost a century and a half ago, Senator Stephen Douglas told Abraham Lincoln, who had just defeated him for the presidency, “Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism. I’m with you, Mr. President, and God bless you.”

            Well, in that same spirit, I say to President-elect Bush that what remains of partisan rancor must now be put aside, and may God bless his stewardship of this country. Neither he nor I anticipated this long and difficult road. Certainly neither of us wanted it to happen. Yet it came, and now it has ended, resolved, as it must be resolved, through the honored institutions of our democracy.

            … the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court’s decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome, which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College. And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.

            I also accept my responsibility, which I will discharge unconditionally, to honor the new president-elect and do everything possible to help him bring Americans together in fulfillment of the great vision that our Declaration of Independence defines and that our Constitution affirms and defends.
            I know that many of my supporters are disappointed. I am too. But our disappointment must be overcome by our love of country

            Some have expressed concern that the unusual nature of this election might hamper the next president in the conduct of his office. I do not believe it need be so.

            President-elect Bush inherits a nation whose citizens will be ready to assist him in the conduct of his large responsibilities. I personally will be at his disposal and I call on all Americans — I particularly urge all who stood with us to unite behind our next president.

            Let me know when Trump says anything resembling that.

            1. Yeesh. I didn’t say they all said exactly the same stuff. Sure, the Dems were sneakier about it, but I’m not going to make an issue out of it.

              Election denial, as happened in 2000, 2004, 2016, and 2020, is bad no matter who does it or how they do it.

              1. You tried for some equivalence.

                It’s not there.

        4. Ballot box stuffing…

      3. “the latter stolen from us,”
        OMG. Spoken like a loose wingnut

    2. Hi, Artie. Start shopping the Caracas apartment. Bring toilet paper. You Cinese Commie spies are about to get cancelled.

  10. ” the situation in Miami ”

    What situation in Miami? The most recent shoot-’em-up? That type of event will eventually cause mainstream America to put the gun nuts on a short leash, but I see no relevance to belated whimpering about conservatives’ increasing impotence on strong campuses.

    1. I’m guessing that there is more than he is saying….

      1. Big deal.
        Verona is just fishing for a rich settlement. The university president’s statement is pure academic boilerplate.

        1. I did not say the claim was justified; just that it was the Miami situation JB posted about. As an aside EV has a post devoted to the topic.

          1. All such law suits depend on how good the record keeping has been by the relevant university officials. Excellent records as evaluated by a trained arbitrator will tell the University whether to offer a settlement. The University President will not retract the statement. The most Verona can hope for is cash.

        1. Inside Higher Ed is known in the industry as being notoriously left wing, and hence I am not surprised that it was merely mentioned that the dean was a professor who focused on media and sexuality law.

          Is that a common specialty?

      2. A reference that requires a Google search (and might not even be illuminated by a Google search) constitutes bad writing.

        1. Yes, we all know already that you’re too bloody stupid to use Google.

  11. Can you imagine someone who keeps opining on just about everything? What a time-wasting…oops, never mind.

  12. Who pays the bills? Who pays the piper?

  13. Situation in Miami (for the “Reverend”). Popular law school dean gets canned after two year’s time. Well at the least he was popular with the students and faculty. Not so popular with the trustees.

    One function of the President/Chancellor/Dean Grand Poobah in academia is fund raising for the institution. Somebody who is really good at that can weather and survive some scandals. A situation not too long ago at USC comes to mind. But if you are not really good at that, well you may not last very long as Dean. If you are not politically sensitive to the wishes of the trustees/the faculty/ the students, you won’t last very long either. You have to satisfy all three–plus be a good fund raiser. Or you are toast. That’s just the way it is.

    1. Ummm, there was more than just one scandal at USC…

      And I wonder how popular he really was…

    2. Am I to understand that Prof. Blackman referred to a law school’s demotion of a gay dean in his polemical rant about the dangers of “woke” schools?

      This blog continues to sink. Which is nice.

      1. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

  14. Why do we have so many people professing to know what happened at the U of Miami?

    The President issued a statement that suggested Varona wasn’t doing a good job of fund-raising. But no figures are provided, and we aren’t given any information as to what the normal procedures for removing a dean are, or whether they were followed.

    Mostly, this story is an inkblot that readers are interpreting in accordance with their own preconceived ideas.

    1. “Mostly, this story is an inkblot that readers are interpreting in accordance with their own preconceived ideas.”

      Well said, bernard.

  15. The right has married itself to compulsive dishonesty and trying to throw out elections over blatantly false claims, cult of personality, science denialism, and racism. And scale matters, pointing out that these issues exist on the left, albeit at a vastly lesser scale, impact, and support, doesn’t get you very far.

    And you wonder why nobody listens when you stumble on a valid point like how terrible certain aspects of CRT are?

    But UMiami is my undergrad alma mater, what’s going on there now? Already can’t stand Mary Ann Franks being on the law school staff.

    1. Isn’t UM a catholic school? Maybe just have Catholics on the law school staff and not bolsheviks….or as Trump would say..get her out..get her out…ha ha

  16. the issue is revenue not just from alumi but the prodominatly Euro and Asian Americans who represent the students actually paying out of pocket. With more and more college “reaching” out to offer bs majors so increase equality of graduation by race and the kids finishing with massive debt and no job prospects and the limit to the non profit grifter/govt jobs to these folks..the whole system will collapse on itself. And it should. Colleges should purge themselves of all communists, bolsheviks, socialists and the like…this would also inject real diversity for Catholics, Irish, Italian, and so on who are not under”served” in academia if you know what I mean. It’s all coming to an end….the entire educational woke complex…besides engineering, computer science and business/economics..there really is no reason for any other majors at this point.

  17. “Eventually, more and more donors will simply be turned off by a Dean’s virtue signaling. And when those check-books close, central administrations will take notice.”
    I suspect that this describes exactly what’s going on at Miami. We shall see (I hope) . . .

Please to post comments