i think it is more a comment on the relative lack of weight of a jdversus a
Janet Alexander
jca at stanford.edu
Fri Dec 7 12:26:09 PST 2007
I truly have no wish to continue my part of this conversation. But
perhaps it is worth one more try to re-emphasize that the point of my
comment was that it would have been extremely unlikely that (1) there
was or (2) any sensible person could have believed there could be,
any way in which an appointment to the faculty of an elite university
could be arranged as a quid pro quo for testimony that (David
Bernstein's post asserts) she understood would not be disclosed to
anyone outside members and staff of the Judiciary Committee. Too
many independent-minded people, and too many levels of review, are
involved in the administrative process. I said nothing about why
Brandeis later made the appointment, and those reasons have nothing
whatever to do with the point of the original thread, which was about
circumstantial evidence of veracity at the Thomas hearings. (The
public testimony, of course, was consistent with the private
statements that were thought to be confidential at the time they were made.)
I regret very much having inadvertently provided an excuse for
trashing Professor Hill's academic qualifications for the job she
holds. None of us, except for those at Brandeis --who are under an
obligation of confidentiality -- have the facts necessary to make
such a discussion any more than gossip.
Janet Alexander
At 07:51 AM 12/7/2007, Earl Maltz wrote:
>Paul:
>
>Brandeis is a private university and can hire whomever they
>please. I was merely reacting to Janet Alexander's post, which I
>took to suggest that Anita Hill's background and qualifications were
>similar to those normally hired for similar positions. If I mistook
>her meaning, I apologize.
>
>My only other observation is that people on this list should be think
>very hard before leveling accusations of racism and sexism (as
>Michael Zimmer did). The next response might not be so gentle.
>
>At 01:50 AM 12/7/2007, Paul Finkelman wrote:
> >I rarely agree with Earl Maltz about anything; and David Bernstein and I
> >are hardly political pals. But I want to come to their defense on at
> >least one point. Surely it is reasonable to argue that Brandeis hired
> >Hill for reasons that are not entirely based on her scholarship. She
> >was involved in civil rights policy at the federal level -- that seems
> >to be a reasonable background for someone in a public policy slot. She
> >was an outspoken public intellectual involved in some very high profile
> >issues.
> >
> >My question is this: How does her appointment differ from that of other
> >high profile people with even weaker -- much weaker -- scholarly
> >records.
> >
> >Consider for example, the Duane & Kelly Roberts Professor at Pepperdine
> >Law School.
> >
> > A quick Westlaw search found only ONE article by him, in a not very
> >highly ranked law review. 25 Okla. City U. L. Rev. 813 Oklahoma City
> >University Law Review Fall, 2000 Symposium: Federalism and the Supreme
> >Court: the 1999 Term REFLECTIONS ON FEDERALISM. Again, like Eugene's
> >study of Hill's work, I have not looked for books or non-law review
> >articles. But surely one article does get you an endowed chair, unless
> >you are a famous person, as Ken Starr is.
> >
> >I am sure we can find scores of people who have tenure at good and great
> >and not so good and not so great institutions who were hired for things
> >beyond their scholarship. Hill may in part be one of them, but as
> >Eugene shows below, she has a far longer publication record that at
> >least one prominent chaired professor at Pepperdine. I would not
> >suggest Ken Starr got tenure because he is a white man, but maybe that
> >had something to do with it? Who knows?
> >
> >(No doubt he wrote some opinions on the bench, but my sense is that
> >judicial opinions don't count as scholarship.)
> >
> >Paul Finkelman
> >President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
> > and Public Policy
> >Albany Law School
> >80 New Scotland Avenue
> >Albany, New York 12208-3494
> >
> >518-445-3386
> >pfink at albanylaw.edu
> > >>> "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu> 12/07/07 1:04 AM >>>
> >Before we accuse fellow list members of racism and sexism, might it be
> >worthwhile to look at Prof. Hill's scholarship record, at least in a
> >cursory way? Prof. Hill was hired by Brandeis in 1999; I take it this
> >was with tenure, or was followed shortly by tenure, because she had been
> >a tenured professor at the University of Oklahoma. Her articles as of
> >then that I could find on Westlaw (all citation counts include post-1999
> >citations as well as pre-1999; most of them were indeed pre-1999):
> >
> >Thomas v. Clinton, in Debating Sexual Correctness: Pornography, Sexual
> >Harassment, Date Rape, and the Politics of Sexual Equality (1995) -- 1
> >citation.
> >
> >Marriage and Patronage in the Empowerment and Disempowerment of African
> >American Women, in Race, Gender and Power in America 275 (Anita F. Hill
> >& Emma C. Jordan eds., 1995) -- 6 citations. (I counted only the
> >citations to this chapter, not to the whole book, which Prof. Hill
> >coedited but which included works by other writers.)
> >
> >A TRIBUTE TO THURGOOD MARSHALL: A MAN WHO BROKE WITH TRADITION ON ISSUES
> >OF RACE AND GENDER, 47 Okla. L. Rev. 127 (1994) (12 pages) -- 0
> >citations.
> >
> >Is The UCC Dead or Merely Languishing?, 26 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 651 (1993)
> >-- 4 citations.
> >
> >SEXUAL HARASSMENT: THE NATURE OF THE BEAST, 65 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1445
> >(1992) (5 pages) -- 11 citations.
> >
> >The Relative Nature of Property in the Context of Bankruptcy: Resolution
> >of a Conflict Between Federal Pension Law and Bankruptcy Law, 40
> >KAN.L.REV. 643 (1992) -- 1 citation.
> >
> >Bankruptcy, Contracts and Utilitarianism , 56 Mo. L. Rev . 571 (1991) --
> >2 citations.
> >
> >A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LIMITATION
> >PERIOD IN THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS AND SECTION 2-725 OF THE
> >UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, 25 Tex. Int'l L. J. 1 (1990) (22 pages) -- 5
> >citations in law reviews, all before 1999, plus 7 in what seem like
> >practitioner publications.
> >
> >A DRAWEE'S RIGHT TO RESTITUTION OF MISTAKEN PAYMENTS UNDER ARTICLES 3
> >AND 4 OF THE U.C.C.: A PLEA FOR CLARIFICATION, 7 J.L. & Com. 293 (1987)
> >(34 pages) -- 1 citation.
> >
> >Perhaps there are articles I missed, in law or in other disciplines, or
> >citations I missed in other disciplines. Perhaps there are also books
> >that I missed, despite checking her Brandeis site (which admittedly
> >doesn't include older articles, so maybe there are older books it
> >misses) and amazon, or perhaps there are book chapters that I've missed.
> >It's certainly possible that I erred in my queries. And of course I
> >should acknowledge that counting pages and citations is an extremely
> >rough cut at measuring marketability; maybe her works on "Social Policy,
> >Law, and Women's Studies" (which is what she's professor of at Brandeis)
> >are very good, though some are short, or maybe she had some superb
> >manuscripts that I haven't seen. If others on the list have read her
> >works and can vouch for their excellence, I'd love to hear that.
> >
> >But I think this suggests that reasonable people who don't care a whit
> >about Hill's race or sex might still infer that Brandeis was in large
> >measure influenced by Prof. Hill's having been a cause celebre, and not
> >solely by her scholarship (which is what I understood Earl Maltz, David
> >Bernstein, and others to be saying). Perhaps this inference is mistaken
> >for one of the reasons I mentioned above, or for some other reason. But
> >it's hardly clear why it would be a racist or sexist inference.
> >
> >Incidentally, I recognize that there's something unsavory about
> >dissecting a fellow academics publication history on the discussion list
> >this way -- nonetheless, it seemed to me necessary given the charges
> >being made about Prof. Maltz.
> >
> >Eugene
> >
> >________________________________
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Zimmer <zimmermi at shu.edu>
> > To: Earl Maltz <emaltz at camden.rutgers.edu>
> > Cc: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu;
> >CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu; DavidEBernstein at aol.com
> > Sent: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 11:16 am
> > Subject: Re: Justice Thomas's Memoir
> >
> >
> >
> > What is your source of information about this? Unless you come
> >forward with evidence, this sounds remarkably like a claim that an
> >African American woman could not be qualified for a chair at Brandeis.
> >
> >
> > Michael J. Zimmer
> > Professor of Law
> > Seton Hall Law School
> > One Newark Center
> > Newark, NJ 07102
> > 973.642.8833
> > 973.642.8194 fax
> >
> >
> >
> > Earl Maltz <emaltz at camden.rutgers.edu>
> > 12/05/2007 08:19 PM
> >
> > To
> > Janet Alexander <jca at stanford.edu>,
> >DavidEBernstein at aol.com, zimmermi at shu.edu, jfnbl at earthlink.com
> > cc
> > conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu,
> >CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
> > Subject
> > Re: Justice Thomas's Memoir
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Are you seriously claiming that at the time of her appointment
> >Anita
> > Hill had a"written record that...compare(s) with the record of
> >others
> > appointed to similar posts," i.e., chairs at Brandeis?
> >
> > At 08:49 PM 12/5/2007, Janet Alexander wrote:
> > >Of course Professor Hill came to a lot of people's attention as
> >a
> > >result of the hearings (and by the way, at least as much
> >because of
> > >Arlen Specter's questioning as her own testimony). What I said
> >is
> > >that it is self-contradictory to say in the same breath that
> >(a) she
> > >expected to gain professionally and hence economically from her
> > >testimony and (b) she did not expect that testimony to become
> >known
> > >to anyone outside the Judiciary members and staff. University
> > >appointments processes are replete with layers of review that
> > >require appointments to be supported by a written record that
> >must
> > >compare with the record of others appointed to similar posts.
> >No
> > >one who has any familiarity with faculty appointments at
> >reputable
> > >institutions would think such a conspiracy possible.
> > >
> > > Janet Alexander
> > >
> > >At 03:22 PM 12/5/2007, DavidEBernstein at aol.com wrote:
> > >>Let's go over this one more time. Michael Zimmer wrote that
> >the
> > >>logic of the situation is that Hill was telling the truth.
> >Why?
> > >>"Then-Judge Thomas had all to gain by denying Professor Hill's
> > >>claim and she had little to gain, but doing her civic duty,
> >bycoming forward."
> > >>
> > >>It's not 100% whether Prof. Zimmer was addressing her initial
> > >>claim, made confidentially to the Judiciary Committee, her
> >ultimate
> > >>willingness to come forward and testify against him, or both
> > >>(though the context implied to me both). So I addressed both,
> >and
> > >>showed that in neither case does "logic" dictate that she was
> > >>telling the truth (nor does it dictate that she was lying). I
> > >>should note that she had the choice at both points not to come
> >forward.
> > >>
> > >>When the allegation was first made, confidentially, Prof. Hill
> >may
> > >>just have been doing her civic duty, or she may have disliked
> > >>Thomas for person, ideological, or other reasons. If the
> >latter,
> > >>than she did have something to gain--personal satisfaction at
> > >>helping to defeat Thomas--but also nothing to lose, assuming,
> > >>fairly I think that she trusted the committee to keep her
> > >>allegations confidential.
> > >>
> > >>Once the allegations became public, Prof. Hill could have
> >demurrred
> > >>from pursuing them further, or she could do what she did. At
> >this
> > >>point, Michael Zimmer's post suggests that he still thinks she
> >had
> > >>little to gain. But she did gain, as is obvious, winning
> >fame,
> > >>fortune and adulation (though also, of course, suffering
> >attacks
> > >>from the right). And if she had declined to testify, not only
> > >>would she not have gained, some people would have surmised
> >that she
> > >>was unwilling to publicly assert her allegations because they
> > >>weren't true to begin with, which couldn't have helped her.
> > >>
> > >>And, to address another of Prof. Alexander's points, Prof.
> >Hill was
> > >>certainly obscure, having no citations in the Westlaw database
> > >>(beyond here own two publications and one "thank you") as of
> >the
> > >>end of 1990. That doesn't make her "unqualfied," but it does
> >mean
> > >>that she would have been highly unlikely (to put it mildly) to
> >come
> > >>to Brandeis's attention but for the Thomas-Hill hearings.
> > >>
> > >>Brandeis, after all, simply doesn't go out and recruit law
> > >>professors for anything. No one else on Brandeis's legal
> >studies
> > >>faculty is a former law professor,
> >
> > >><http://www.brandeis.edu/programs/legal_studies/faculty.html>http://ww
> >w.brandeis.edu/programs/legal_studies/faculty.html,
> > >>and I believe the rest all have Ph.Ds, as I believe was true
> >when I
> > >>was an undergraduate there.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>In a message dated 12/5/2007 5:30:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> > >>jca at stanford.edu writes:
> > >>David Bernstein's original post (see below) said that
> >Professor Hill
> > >>"did gain, big time" in that she is "now a well-known chaired
> > >>professor and feminist icon at Brandeis" and that "she had
> >nothing to
> > >>gain, but did gain, big time, doesn't make much sense." That
> >is, he
> > >>implies that Professor Hill expected to gain professionally
> >(and
> > >>economically) by her testimony. In the very next sentence, he
> >says
> > >>that she did not expect her allegations to be made public.
> >So, she
> > >>expected a payback in the form of a better job from testimony
> >that
> > >>she was promised would not be made public? It would be quite
> >a
> > >>conspiracy that could get an endowed chair for an "obscure"
> >(and by
> > >>implication unqualified) professor through the appointments
> >process
> > >>at a university like Brandeis as payback for nonpublic
> >testimony.
> > >> Janet Alexander
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>----------
> > >>Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the
> >
> > >><http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030
> 000000>001>hottest
> > >>products and
> >
> > >><http://money.aol.com/top5/general/ways-you-are-wasting-money?NC
> ID=aol>top00030000000002>top
> > >>money wasters of 2007.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> >
> >________________________________
> >
> > More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail
> ><http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.ht
> m?nci>d=aolcmp00050000000003> !
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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.
More information about the Conlawprof
mailing list