Fwd: Re: party affiliations of law profs

[Earl Maltz]

>Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:00:06 -0400
>To: "Sanford Levinson" <SLevinson at law.utexas.edu>
>From: Earl Maltz <emaltz at camden.rutgers.edu>
>Subject: Re: party affiliations of law profs
>
>I don't seem to remember a noticeable right wing shift in the legal 
>academy during the Clinton years.
>
>At 09:27 AM 8/31/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>>         boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C5AE38.2AAA0877"
>>
>>Is it relevant to suggest that if Al Gore had been recognized as the 
>>winner of the 2000 election (which of course he was), a lot of liberal 
>>lawProfessors would be in gov't or on the bench, leaving lots of 
>>positions to be filled with conservatives (who didn't prefer private 
>>practice or affiliation with well-funded conservative think tanks?  A lot 
>>of conservatives have better things to do these days than enter the legal 
>>academy.  This is not meant to disagree with Mark's observations, which 
>>seem right to me, but to offer another explanation than the vast 
>>left-wing hiring conspiracy.
>>
>>Sandy
>>
>>
>>- Sanford Levinson
>>(Sent from a Blackberry)
>>_______________________________________________
>>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>>
>>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly 
>>or wrongly) forward the messages to others.