The Faculty Lounge

Duquesne Law Seeks Dean

This just in:

Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, invites nominations and applications for the position of Dean of the School of Law. Under the leadership of Dean Maureen Lally-Green (who is retiring in 2019) and President Ken Gormley, a former dean of the Law School, Duquesne’s Law School continues to rise in national stature. With stable enrollments and a high bar passage rate, the Law School is strongly positioned for future success.
Founded in 1878 by its sponsoring religious community, the Congregation of the Holy Spirit, Duquesne University is Catholic in mission and ecumenical in spirit. The dean is expected to be committed to the university’s mission, which includes “serving God by serving students,” and to support and contribute to this mission.

Candidates must be eligible to hold a senior tenured appointment in the School of Law; document an outstanding record and/or capacity as a legal scholar and educator; possess a strong understanding of skills necessary for the practice of law in an evolving profession; have an ability to communicate effectively with diverse constituents; understand the dynamic and evolving environment for legal education; and possess demonstrated administrative and leadership skills.
The successful candidate will have established a reputation for high personal integrity, honesty and trustworthiness as well as the potential to enhance the rising reputation of the School of Law regionally, nationally and internationally. The dean is expected to collaborate with the Office of University Advancement in raising funds for the university as well as for the school, and to support the university’s goals articulated in its ambitious new Strategic Plan.

To obtain a more detailed profile of the position please see https://assets.storbeckpimentel.com/files/resources/duquesnelaw-dean-pd.pdf.

To make a nomination, or express interest, all confidential communications may be directed to Ms. Julie Tea, Partner, and Ms. Julie Williams-Krishnan, Senior Associate, Storbeck/Pimentel & Associates, LP at DuquesneLaw@storbecksearch.com

Duquesne University was founded in 1878 by its sponsoring religious community, the Congregation of the Holy Spirit. Duquesne University is Catholic in its mission and ecumenical in spirit. Motivated by its Catholic identity, Duquesne values equality of opportunity both as an educational institution and as an employer.

Meet me in Mannheim!

Next week I’ll be giving a keynote lecture and also participating in a panel discussion on “Allocation Problems in health care” at theMaCCI Law & Economics Conference on The Law and Economics of Market Design.  From the conference website:

The conference will provide an international platform for exchange and discussion between academic researchers and practitioners in public authorities, legal counsel, and economic consultancies.

The MaCCI Law and Economics Conference is organized for the eighth time since the inaugural edition in 2011. It is our ambition to stimulate and disseminate research in the field of market design, competition, regulation, and innovation policy.

We gratefully acknowledge financial support from White & Case and the EPoS Collaborative Research Center for this year’s annual law and economics conference.

This year the topic is “The Law and Economics of Market Design”. The conference will consist of 4 panel discussions, two keynote lectures and will cover the following topics.

• Design of digital platforms
• Managing private and public procurement
• Designing infrastructure markets (telecom, traffic, energy)
• Allocation problems in health care (organ exchange)

Keynote Speakers

Professor Kimberly D. Krawiec

Duke Law School, Durham

Professor Dr. Peter Cramton

University of Cologne and University of Maryland

For the keynote address, I’ll discuss repugnant transactions, or "taboo trades" (something I also recently discussed on Brian Frye’s Ipse Dixit podcast) and how the law responds to such transactions. I’ll focus on egg, sperm, and organ “donation” and, if I have time, briefly discuss blood, plasma, and bone marrow donation. (I’ve put “donation” in quotes because, consistent with common practice, I’m using the word donation to refer to transfers without regard to whether the donor was compensated).

For the health care allocation panel, I’ll discuss Global Kidney Exchange (prior blog posts on Global Kidney Exchange are collected here).

The full conference program is here.

Armistice 1918

The First World War ended 100 years ago today. At 11 a.m. on November 11, 1918, the devastating four-year-long conflict finally came to an end. It was at the time the bloodiest war in history, costing the lives of 9 million troops and over 10 million civilians. Only the Second World War—which cost over 65 million lives—surpassed World War I’s death toll.

Although World War II greatly overshadows World War I, the immense scale of the 1914-18 conflict should not be forgotten. Even the United States, which played a relatively small role compared to the other major powers, provides a case-in-point. After declaring war on Germany in April 1917, the United States sent 2 million troops to fight in France (most of whom arrived in the summer and fall of 1918). To put that army in context, the four American military service branches today—the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps—have a combined total active duty force of 1.3 million. Thus, the American Army in France in 1918 was 50% larger than the entire American military in 2018.

And the United States military was small by World War I standards. For example, Germany put over 10 million troops in arms, 2 million of whom would die in the war. The other major powers suffered appalling casualties as well. Russia lost 1.8 million dead, France lost 1.4 million dead, and Britain over 800,000 dead. Austro-Hungary, Turkey, and Italy also suffered hundreds of thousands of fatalities. Many other countries experienced horrendous casualties, including the United States, which lost 117,000 troops killed in about six months of fighting (a much greater number than the 58,000 American troops killed in Vietnam in in the 1960s and 1970s). Similarly, Canada lost 61,000 troops killed in World War I and Australia lost 60,000 troops killed, enormous numbers in any context, but particularly when one considers the fact that Canada had only 8 million people and Australia only 5 million in 1918.

None of those figures above include the millions of troops wounded, physically, emotionally, and psychologically, by the horrific carnage of industrial-sized warfare. The scars of war haunted the World War I generation for the rest of their lives. 

On this important anniversary, I recommend an outstanding documentary called Armistice 1918. The host is David Reynolds, a history professor at Cambridge University and a leading expert on World War I. As Prof. Reynolds explains, contrary to one of the most enduring myths of twentieth-century history, World War I did not end in a military stalemate. Under the weight of a massive offensive by the combined armies of France, Britain, America, Australia, and Canada, the German Army was in full collapse in the fall of 1918. If the war had lasted into 1919, Allied forces would have seized Berlin and inflicted a crushing defeat on the German Army on German soil.

But in a cynically shrewd move, the German high command capitulated before ordinary Germans understood the full, catastrophic extent of Germany’s military disasters in the fall of 1918. The sudden surrender enabled the German military to falsely blame domestic unrest for the nation’s defeat. Thus arose the ludicrous “stabbed in the back” myth that paved the way for the rise of the Nazi Party in the 1920s and 1930s, a development that in turn led to the eruption of the most devastating war in history from 1939 to 1945. 

Armistice 1918 is available on Netflix (in high definition) and it is only 55 minutes long. In addition, the original BBC version of the documentary, which is 90 minutes long, is available on YouTube here. Whichever version you watch, I think you will agree that nobody is better than Prof. Reynolds at explaining the significance of World War I and its aftermath.  

Speaking of the First World War, if you are ever in the Kansas City area, do not miss the National World War I Museum and Memorial. It is a must-see destination for any visitor to Kansas City, one of the country’s most underrated cities. So too is the Truman Presidential Library and Museum, which is located in the Kansas City suburb of Independence, Missouri. Harry Truman served as an artillery officer in World War I, and his artillery battery fired its last barrage at 10:45 a.m. on November 11, 1918. Truman would later observe, “My whole political career is based on my war service and war associates.” Over 2,700 troops died in France and Belgium on November 11, the last day of the war. The world we live in today is shaped in no small part by the events that unfolded between August 1914 and November 1918.

God Bless America

Written by the immigrant Irving Berlin and introduced by Kate Smith on Armistice Day (now Veterans Day) 1938:

 The most significant lyric is the closing line, describing America as "my home, sweet home," which emphasizes inclusiveness over nativism -- important in 1938, as it remains eighty years later.

Silver Threads and Golden Needles

Wanda Jackson released the original recording in 1956 (audio only)

Some unique and some straightforward covers after the jump 

Dara Horn on Anne Frank and Holocaust Erasure

Some TFL readers are probably familiar with the work of the novelist Dara Horn, who has written many fine books.  Her recent article in Smithsonian Magazine raises deeply unsettling questions about the appropriation of Anne Frank’s story in a way that all but obliterates her connection to Judaism and the Holocaust. It is essential reading on the 80th anniversary of Kristallnacht (November 9-10, 1938).

Here are a few key paragraphs:

BECOMING ANNE FRANK

People love dead Jews. Living Jews, not so much.

This disturbing idea was suggested by an incident this past spring at the Anne Frank House, the blockbuster Amsterdam museum built out of Frank’s “Secret Annex,” or in Dutch, “Het Achterhuis [The House Behind],” a series of tiny hidden rooms where the teenage Jewish diarist lived with her family and four other persecuted Jews for over two years, before being captured by Nazis and deported to Auschwitz in 1944. Here’s how much people love dead Jews: Anne Frank’s diary, first published in Dutch in 1947 via her surviving father, Otto Frank, has been translated into 70 languages and has sold over 30 million copies worldwide, and the Anne Frank House now hosts well over a million visitors each year, with reserved tickets selling out months in advance. But when a young employee at the Anne Frank House in 2017 tried to wear his yarmulke to work, his employers told him to hide it under a baseball cap. The museum’s managing director told newspapers that a live Jew in a yarmulke might “interfere” with the museum’s “independent position.” The museum finally relented after deliberating for six months, which seems like a rather long time for the Anne Frank House to ponder whether it was a good idea to force a Jew into hiding.

***

There is an exculpatory ease to embracing this “young girl,” whose murder is almost as convenient for her many enthusiastic readers as it was for her persecutors, who found unarmed Jewish children easier to kill off than the Allied infantry. After all, an Anne Frank who lived might have been a bit upset at the Dutch people who, according to the leading theory, turned in her household and received a reward of approximately $1.40 per Jew. An Anne Frank who lived might not have wanted to represent “the children of the world,” particularly since so much of her diary is preoccupied with a desperate plea to be taken seriously—to not be perceived as a child. Most of all, an Anne Frank who lived might have told people about what she saw at Westerbork, Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen, and people might not have liked what she had to say.

And here is the most devastating fact of Frank’s posthumous success, which leaves her real experience forever hidden: We know what she would have said, because other people have said it, and we don’t want to hear it.

The entire article is here.

CFP: Ass'n for Law, Property & Society Annual Meeting

This just in:

ALPS will hold its 10th Annual meeting at Syracuse University, in Syracuse New York, May 16-18. The dates include a pre-conference reception on the evening of May 16; full day meetings on May 17-18, each with continental breakfast, lunch, and light reception; and an optional field trip during the day on May 16. Field trip detail will be available prior to registration and tentatively include a visit to the Oneida Indian Nation of New York. The Oneida Indian Nation is one of the original members of the Haudenosaunee people (also known as the Six Nation of the Iroquois).

Paper submissions on any subject related to property law and the practices that shape property norms and institutions are welcome. ALPS has a strong commitment to international and interdisciplinary diversity, and paper topics reflecting that commitment are encouraged. ALPS accepts both individual paper submissions and proposals for fully formed panels (usually 3 to 4 presenters, sometimes including films or multimedia outputs). Individually organized sessions of full panels may have as few as 3 presenters; all sessions with individually submitted papers will typically have at least 4 presenters. Submissions may be of full paper drafts and completed projects, or early works-in-progress.

More details are available here.

 

Justice Thomas and the New Senate

Yesterday’s midterm election results shifted the U.S. Senate’s ideological center to the right. Senate Republicans began the day clinging to a narrow 51-49 majority, but they have emerged from the midterms with a strong 53-seat majority. Consequently, President Trump no longer needs the support of Sen. Susan Collins or Sen. Lisa Murkowski—the two most moderate members of the Republican caucus—to secure the confirmation of his federal judicial appointments.

It will be interesting to see whether the expanded conservative majority in the Senate prompts Clarence Thomas to retire next summer after almost three decades on the Supreme Court. As measured by Martin-Quinn scores, Justice Thomas is by far the Court’s most conservative member. There is no doubt he would like to see an equally conservative justice succeed him. The GOP Senate victories give Thomas cause to at least consider the idea of stepping down before the 2020 presidential election, timing calculated to make certain a highly conservative justice could be confirmed to replace him. 

To be sure, there are compelling reasons why Thomas might choose to remain on the Court for years to come. Foremost among them is the fact that he loves his job. During a Federalist Society event in 2013, he observed:

“I never thought that I would treasure doing my job, and I’ve reached that point. Even the most boring cases to others are fascinating to me. . . . I’ve gotten to this point where it’s like the priesthood. This is what I’m called to do.”

Moreover, by Supreme Court standards, Justice Thomas is not even close to retirement age. The average retirement age for modern justices is 83 and rising. Thomas, in contrast, is only 70. His former colleague John Paul Stevens served until age 90 and his current colleague Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85. As long as his health holds up, Thomas could still be an active justice 15 or even 20 years from now.

But if Thomas is not interested in serving into his 80s, then he has a decision to make. In 2020, Republicans will be defending 22 Senate seats but Democrats only 12; Republicans will also be defending more seats in 2022. There is no guarantee that the ideological make-up of the Senate in the 2020s will be as favorable to conservatives as the 2019 session. Likewise, in this era of razor-thin election margins, it is entirely possible Democrats will recapture the presidency at some point in the 2020s.

It is at least conceivable, therefore, that Justice Thomas may choose to retire a bit earlier than one would otherwise expect in order to ensure a like-minded conservative holds his seat for many decades to come. If Thomas does decide to step down next summer, Donald Trump will become the first president in 30 years to make 3 Supreme Court appointments. 

The Ghost of Father Coughlin

The mass murder of 11 worshippers at the Tree of Life Synagogue ten days ago in Pittsburgh constituted the deadliest act of anti-Semitism in American history. The atrocity reflects a chilling rise in anti-Semitism, including a 57% increase in anti-Semitic incidents in the United States in 2017 alone. Last year also witnessed the hideous spectacle of white supremacists chanting “Jews will not replace us” during a Nazi-inspired candlelight march at the University of Virginia. 

There is no doubt the internet has facilitated a resurgence in anti-Semitism in the United States and Europe. Just a few days before the Tree of Life attack, a study by the Anti-Defamation League documented how the internet amplifies anti-Semitic propaganda and harassment. As Jonathan Greenblatt, the national director of the ADL, pointed out last week in a New York Times op-ed:

“[F]ar-right extremists and the so-called alt-right have stepped up their efforts on social media to attack and intimidate Jews, and especially Jewish journalists, in the run up to the midterm elections. These radicals engaged in ‘Twitter bombing’ of Jews, barraging our community with an estimated five million highly politicized and anti-Semitic tweets per day. Social media creates its own realities for individuals, where people feed off the anonymity . . . . Anti-Semitism is being normalized in public life.”

The vile hatred spewed on the internet represents a grimly ironic development for a technology once expected to elevate the quality of public discourse.

But the internet’s dissemination of vicious bigotry is not the first time that a new communications technology has enabled the spread of anti-Semitism and other forms of hate. We have been down this road before, as the cautionary story of Father Charles Coughlin demonstrates.

Recent Bar Pass Rates - A Cautionary Tale

A number of states have released bar results from the July 2018 examination over the last several weeks, including New York, Texas and Florida.  Overall, performance on the bar was very poor, although there have been a few bright spots.  The national average on the MBE was down 2.2 points to 139.5, a 34 year low.   To those who have followed law school admission trends closely, this should not have come as a surprise. The 2014 and 2015 entering law school classes were arguably the weakest ever in terms of entrance credentials, and these cohorts (part-time students who started in 2014 and full-time students who started in 2015) made up the majority of the first-time test takers in July.  There were also a lot of repeat takers from 2017 and February 2018 who also had very low credentials.

The purpose of this post is to remind everyone, especially law school faculty and administrators at lower tier schools, of the perils of admitting very high risk (LSAT of 145-146) and extremely high risk (144 and below) students.  As law schools start to experience an uptick in applications, the focus, especially at low-performing schools, should be on raising the quality of admitted students, not growing the class.  A few examples should suffice to demonstrate this point.

Touro Law School – Touro had 105 first time takers on the New York July bar; 51 passed. That’s a 48.6% pass rate.  Touro’s 2015 entering class was terrible:  149/147/145 LSATs with GPA at 3.31/3.03/2.77.   

Texas Southern - 69 of 155 Texas Southern graduates passed the July 18 Texas bar for a 44.5% rate. In February, TSU had 5 of 18 first time takers pass, for a 27.88% rate.  Overall 74 of 173 TSU grads passed for a 42.8% first-time pass rate in Texas for 2018.  TSU’s 2015 entering class had an atrocious LSAT GPA profile of 146/143/141 3.44/3.11/2.80. Texas Southern was sanctioned by the ABA for its admissions practices in June 2017, and this is why.  Texas Southern was admitting large numbers of extremely high risk students and the bar pass statistics reflect this.  Texas Southern has not yet released the class profile for the 2018 entering class but it has promised the ABA to significantly raise its admission standards.

UNT Dallas - UNT had 10 of 25 of its students pass the February 18 Texas bar (40%), followed by 52 of 85 on the July bar – 61.18%. The combined pass rate for 2018: 62 of 107, was an uninspiring 58%.  According to fact sheets published by UNT Dallas, the LSAT profile for the 2015 entering class was 149/146/143 3.40/3.11/2.67 for the full-time division and 150/145/142  3.36/3.03/2.64 for the part-time division.  This was even lower than the woeful credentials of their inaugural entering class in 2014. After nearly not getting provisional approval from the ABA in part because of valid concerns over admitted student credentials, UNT-Dallas has significantly tightened admissions standards. Their admitted student profile for the Fall 2018 class is 153/150/148 with a 3.32/3.08/2.68.  Expect UNT Dallas to see a steady rise in bar passage rates over the next three years.

Barry Law School and Florida A&M Law School – July 2018 results at Barry: 55/121 (45.5%) In February 2018, Barry had 16 of 39 first-time takers pass for a 41.0% rate. Overall for the year, Barry is at 71/160 (44.4%) in Florida.  Similarly, Florida A&M was 11 for 30 ( 36.7%) on the Feb 18 Bar, and 39/77 (50.6%) on the July Bar, for a 2018 total of 50/107 (46.7%) in Florida.  Barry and FAMU had very similarly weak entering classes in 2015: 150/146/144  3/29/296/2.64 for Barry and 149/146/144  3.29/3.00/2.72 for FAMU. 

These five examples demonstrate (once again) that when law schools admit high percentages of very high and extremely high risk students, these classes are virtually certain to have very low bar passage rates.  Put another way, no law school has figured out a magic formula to take students with very limited aptitude for the study of law, as demonstrated by their LSAT scores and college grades, and turn them into bar passers.   All the law schools that have closed in the last couple of years (or are in the process of or in peril of closing), including Whittier, Indiana Tech, Charlotte, Arizona Summit, Valparaiso and Thomas Jefferson, amply demonstrate this point.  Although the overall decline in demand for legal education played some role in the downfall of these schools, it was their decision to lower admission standards to an unethically low level that started the vicious cycle of dropping bar pass rates, declining reputation, decreasing applications and increasing transfers that ultimately doomed them.

Anti-Semitism Has Consequences

I have this piece today in The American Prospect. 

Anti-Semitism Has Consequences

STEVEN LUBET

NOVEMBER 5, 2018

The massacre in Pittsburgh has a lesson for progressives.

Hours before he murderously stormed into Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life Synagogue, Robert Bowers posted a chilling message on the dark web, declaring that the “powerful Jews are my enemy.” He vowed to pull “the cover off of that Satanic Jew,” and threateningly added “I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through.”

Oh wait. That wasn’t Robert Bowers. It was Louis Farrakhan, head of the Nation of Islam, speaking at Saviour’s Day last February, while thousands cheered his every word. Although he has spouted anti-Semitism, homophobia, and misogyny for decades, Farrakhan is still accepted in some quarters of the American left, welcome in polite company, and rebuked, if at all, only in the mildest terms. After a leader of the Women’s March was seen on the dais at the Saviour’s Day rally, for example, the organization itself issued a bland statement explaining only that “Minister Farrakhan’s statements about Jewish ... people are not aligned with the Women’s March Unity Principles.”

As should be obvious, Farrakhan and Bowers are purveyors of the same poison. On the web platform Gab, Bowers actually wrote that “Jews are the children of Satan,” inveighed against “the filthy EVIL Jews,” and blamed HIAS, the Jewish agency helping refugees, for bringing “invaders to the United States.” Compare that to Farrakhan’s years of references to “Satanic Jews” and his statement that “when you want something in this world, the Jew holds the door.”

The main difference is that Bowers also hates Muslims, while Farrakhan hates gay people. Thus, Bowers believes that Jewish-inspired Muslims are slaughtering his people, whereas Farrakhan finds Jews “responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out and turning men into women and women into men.” They are otherwise as one in their evocation of classic anti-Semitism, in which Jews are blamed for all the ills of the world.

Caravan

Duke Ellington and Juan Tizol (1952) 

 

Wake Forest University

Job Description Summary

Wake Forest University School of Law seeks a Professor of the Practice to teach courses in Professional Responsibility.

 

The Loco-Motion

The Loco-Motion was written by Gerry Goffin and Carole King. Originally intended for Dee Dee Sharp, who turned it down, it became a #1 hit for Little Eva (who had been Goffin and King's babysitter). Uniquely, The Loco-Motion was a top five hit for three different artists in three successive decades: Little Eva, Grand Funk, and Kylie Minogue. Then be sure to watch the last clip.

Little Eva (1962)

Seeking Chapter Proposals for "Lawyering Skills in the Doctrinal Classroom"

This just in:

Call for Chapter Proposals

Lawyering Skills in the Doctrinal Classroom: Using Legal Writing Pedagogy to Enhance Teaching Across the Law School Curriculum

Lawyering Skills in the Doctrinal Classroom will explore how pedagogical methods used in legal writing courses can be (or have been) adapted for use in traditional doctrinal courses in order to provide a more robust learning experience for law students. Chapter topics may include:

• Incorporating writing and research assignments into doctrinal courses;
• Techniques for making student conferences more productive;
• The use of “scaffolding” to enhance learning – and how to do it;
• How to incorporate team-based learning and/or problem-based learning to increase student engagement;
• The importance of providing formative assessment in doctrinal courses and how to do it in a timely and efficient manner;
• Unique ways of providing students with feedback that they can use
• Any other pedagogical method typically used in legal writing courses that could be of use in other courses
Proposals should include:
• The author’s name, institutional affiliation, and courses taught
• A brief description of the proposed topic (no more than 500 words)
• A brief description of why the author is qualified to write on this particular topic (no more than 300 words)
• An approximate word count (chapters should be at least 3,000 words and no longer than 8,000 words)
Deadline: December 14, 2018.

Submit proposals to Tammy Pettinato Oltz at tammy.pettinato@und.edu with the subject line, “Chapter Proposal.”