Deans' letters

As everybody (at least everybody in the little world of legal academia) knows by now, all but a few law deans have signed a letter urging politicians to stop threatening to impeach judges because of their rulings.  Last month all but a small handful of deans of accredited law schools signed a letter informing applicants that law school rankings were “unreliable,” “huge hype,” and “unworthy of being an important influence on the choice you are about to make,” and therefore “strongly urge you to minimize the influence of rankings on your own judgment.”

On the merits both of these raise questions.  I am sympathetic with the judges message, but it’s not beyond doubt that this is an inappropriate use of impeachment.  Moreover, I wonder about the agenda, since there have often been threats of political interference from left and right (e.g., Franklin Roosevelt), and I doubt it’s a complete coincidence that it’s the threat from the right that has the deans agitated.

I deeply disagree with the anti-USNWR message.  In a nutshell, as I said here, "it's about time legal academics found out about markets."

However, I write not about the particular messages, but about the general idea of a stampeding herd of deans signing letters.

First, though the deans say they’re signing only for themselves, the message regarding authority is ambiguous.  This is obviously not a randomly selected group of law faculty – they are signing, and being asked to sign, because of their positions.  Now why is that?  Because a dean is presumably the smartest person on a law faculty (he asked rhetorically)?  There are intellectual powerhouses running law schools (including mine), but there are also deans who are mainly bureaucrats.

Second, since the deans obviously are to some extent signing in a representative capacity, this is an “official” law school position. Did these law schools all take votes?  And if some did, were there any dissents? Even if – indeed especially if – the faculties authorized the deans' signatures, it’s disturbing.  I thought law schools were supposed to be places of inquiry and debate, not “official” positions.

Third, I wonder what's going through the heads of the individuals who are signing these letters.  Are they really thinking through these positions, or are they just joining the crowd?  There’s obviously a lot of social pressure here. (Brian Leiter, in his widely read blog, says “shame on” the non-signers.)

(For the curious, my favorite dean, Heidi Hurd of Illinois, was one of only three deans in the country who did not sign either letter, the others being the deans of Northwestern and Georgetown, unless I've missed something.)

I could go on, but I think I’ve said enough. The deans’ judges letter says to politicians, we “urge them to stop.”  I would say the same to the deans.

Comments

[Brian Leiter]

Larry, you think the issue is one about "stampeding Deans," but why not think the issue is about the substantive merits of the letters the Deans are signing? I agree with you that the letter about rankings is silly and pointless. The best you are able to say against the merits of the letter about attacks on the judiciary is that it is "not beyond doubt that this is an inappropriate use of impeachment." Who can fail to notice that you even leave out the word "reasonable" as a modifier on "doubt"! I don't know whether Heidi declined to sign the letter about attacks on the judiciary, or simply missed the opportunity, because Deans are busy etc. I hope it was the latter, since there really isn't an excuse for affirming a simple statement about one of the key values of the rule of law, namely, an independent judiciary. Why shouldn't Deans of *law schools* affirm that value publically at a time when those with contempt for that value are being brazen about it? Why shouldn't every law teacher in America affirm it?