"Objectivity" in law and hiring

Thu Sep 1 07:26:28 PDT 2005

At 09:07 AM 9/1/2005, Scott Gerber wrote:
>I'll make two brief observations, and then drop out of this discussion.
Scott, do you really think that there are fewer conservatives on law 
faculties than
there are minorities?  That's certainly not close to the case at Texas or 
Northwestern where I recently visited.  Maybe fewer than women but I'm not 
sure about that either.

Hiring is inevitably subjective, but that doesn't mean that ideology should 
be one of the subjective criteria used.  I can see giving a slight 
preference to conservatives in a school that is heavily liberal in 
orientation, but as with women and minorities, only for candidates who have 
demonstrated very high qualifications already.

>1.  I remember Lynne's prior post differently than she does.
>
>2.  If law schools are in fact actively recruiting conservatives, rather
>than blackballing them, there would be more conservatives on law faculty
>than there are.  Consequently, I don't believe the recruitment efforts are
>as Lynne describes them.  I wish they were.  Indeed, given that there are
>fewer conservatives on law faculties than other targeted diversity groups,
>perhaps the recruitment process should be as vigorous in its pursuit of
>conservatives as it is in pursuit of of women and minorities.  Of course
>it's not.
>
>Also respectfully,
>Scott
>
>
>At 04:59 PM 8/31/2005 -0700, Lynne Henderson wrote:
> >Dear All--and Scott--I did not write such a message. The computer that had
>that e-mail crashed las tsummer, so I don't have it, but I believe I said
>that I thought or schools I was with thought conservatives were important
>for divesity and that we'd actively looked for conservative faculty
>(whatever the heck "conservative" means). I may have said in that e-mail
>that I knew of no active discrimination aganinst conservatives in hiring.
>But anyway, I had written that "conservatives" should be recruited.
> > Then I sent a backchannel remark on a subsequent post by womeone else
>that wound up on the whole list  which was an  inappropriate  crack about
>an individual, not a crack about about hiring conservatives.
> >Respectfully,
> >Lynne
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Scott Gerber <s-gerber at onu.edu>
> >Sent: Aug 31, 2005 2:33 PM
> >To: Mortimer Sellers <msellers at ubalt.edu>,
> >       Lynne Henderson <hendersl at ix.netcom.com>
> >Cc: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> >Subject: Re: "Objectivity" in law and hiring
> >
> >I seem to recall that Lynne Henderson acknowledged a year or two ago on
> >this list, albeit by accidentally hitting the "send" button, that law
> >schools try not to hire conservatives and they would be "crazy" (or "nuts")
> >to change that practice.
> >
> >Scott Gerber
> >
> >
> >
> >At 05:16 PM 8/31/2005 -0400, Mortimer Sellers wrote:
> >>It is hard to apply objective standards in making hiring decisions if one
> >does not believe in objectivity.  There has been a great deal of writing by
> >law professors denigrating the desirability (or possibility) of
> >"objectivity" in discussing legal questions.  If objectivity is seen  by
> >many law professors as chimerical or even oppressive, we should not be
> >surprised that they do not strive to apply objectively justifiable criteria
> >in their hiring practices.  If (as many seem to believe) law is just
> >another form of politics, why shouldn't people hire their political allies
> >when they get the chance?  The same rationale applies to Supreme Court
> >appointments, legal interpretation and many other questions of interest to
> >this list.
> >>
> >>       Tim Sellers
> >>
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Lynne Henderson [mailto:hendersl at ix.netcom.com]
> >>Sent: Wed 8/31/2005 3:59 PM
> >>To:   Mortimer Sellers; Barksdale,Yvette; Earl Maltz;
>conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> >>Cc:
> >>Subject:      RE: Re: party affiliations of law profs
> >>
> >>In any event, assuming tht other academic discplines just *are* more
> >"objective" seems belied by studies of subtle (or not so subtle) biases in
> >fields ragning from the humaniteis to the social sciences to the hard
> >sciences.
> >>Lynne Henderson
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Mortimer Sellers <msellers at ubalt.edu>
> >>Sent: Aug 31, 2005 11:13 AM
> >>To: "Barksdale, Yvette" <7barksda at jmls.edu>,
> >>      Earl Maltz <emaltz at camden.rutgers.edu>, conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> >>Subject: RE: Re: party affiliations of law profs
> >>
> >>Might it not be that the standards for what constitutes a good law
> >professor are less objective and therefore more manipulable than in some
> >other academic fields?  There are many more people who meet the minimum
> >standard for teaching law (completing their J.D. degree) than in most other
> >academic disciplines, which require more substantial research and
> >preparation. There are also fewer objective requirements for promotion and
> >tenure in law schools(all that is needed are a few student-selected
> >articles).  One of the great beauties of being a law professor is the
> >breadth of what counts as legitimate scholarship.  But this also makes it
> >easier for those already in place to replicate themselves by hiring people
> >whose political views they agree with.  The "harder" (i.e more objective)
> >the discipline (e.g. mathematics), the more diverse the family backgrounds
> >and political views of the professors teaching the subject.
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> >>[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of Barksdale, Yvette
> >>Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 1:38 PM
> >>To: Earl Maltz; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> >>Subject: RE: Re: party affiliations of law profs
> >>
> >>
> >>Hi  -
> >>
> >>Did the authors of the study compare law professors to other professors.
> >It is certainly plausible that liberals might be more likely to enter
> >academia in general than conservatives. For example, economic conservatives
> >may be more interested in accruing wealth, than shuffling through dusty
> >library stacks (okay nobody does this anyway since the Internet age).
> >Social conservatives who believe that there are clear, certain, fundamental
> >truths may be less comfortable with the spirit of skeptical inquiry that is
> >the hallmark of academia.  This may not be a law professor issue - as much
> >as a professor vs. real-life job issue.
> >>
> >>(of course, you might also say that people searching for truth end up
> >being liberals in the end - smile)
> >>
> >>yb
> >>
> >>________________________________
> >>
> >>From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Earl Maltz
> >>Sent: Wed 8/31/2005 10:25 AM
> >>To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> >>Subject: Fwd: Re: party affiliations of law profs
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>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.
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>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.
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>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.
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>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.
> >>
> >>
> >**********
> >Scott Gerber
> >Law College
> >Ohio Northern University
> >Ada, OH 45810
> >419-772-2219
> >http://www.law.onu.edu/faculty/gerber/
> >
> >
> >
>**********
>Scott Gerber
>Law College
>Ohio Northern University
>Ada, OH 45810
>419-772-2219
>http://www.law.onu.edu/faculty/gerber/
>
>_______________________________________________
>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.

**********************************************************

Frank Cross
McCombs School of Business
The University of Texas at Austin
1 University Station B6000
Austin, TX 78712-1178