Alabama's Dean Ken Randall To InfiLaw, And Other Reflections

There has been some blog discussion about Dean Ken Randall's departure from the University of Alabama after 20 years at the helm.  He shared some details about his plans for the future, his view of legal education, and his ongoing relationship with Alabama.  From an email:

We all are still working on the margins of traditional education with distance ed; it is high time to create economies of scale industry-wide; to bring law to non-lawyers; to create hybrid models of brick-and-mortar and technology-based programs; to train lawyers to deliver legal services in the new technology-based ways clients demand; and to train law students for jobs that don't require a bar license. We need inclusive education, that breaks down geographical and other boundaries.

The InfiLaw System offered a special opportunity, supporting me to lead a new venture, InfiLaw Ventures, both to create new content, and to deliver existing content in ways that expand markets and serve student learners who otherwise might be left out of education....We will joint venture with schools nationally and internationally. I've been involved in traditional legal education.  But the ABA rules on distance education need updating. We need the accreditors and educators and innovators coming together to meet the new realities of legal education.

I deaned at Alabama for 20 years; in fact I smile when asked about the timing of my retirement; the question should be how does one person stay so long.....And even this Fall, the Alabama President has asked me to help with Alabama's ABA inspection

Comments

[Infilaw]

And for another take:

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/07/does-your-conscience-bother-you#comments

[campos]

Not to pile on, but -- http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/06/04/58183.htm

[curious]

Infilaw (or campos),

Where does Alfred talk about Randall working for Infilaw? The post you link to reads like Alfred is endorsing Infilaw in some way.

[harold]

Alfred's reference to Infilaw as 'other mountains to climb' makes it sound like a noble undertaking as opposed to what it actually seems to be.

[curious]

Harold,

Alfred mentioned Infilaw ... where in his post?

[anon]

The reference to Leiter's post is equally misleading, coming before the announcement about Infilaw. Like Brophy's post, it's got nothing to do with InfiLaw. Dog bites man, and Campos lies, what else is new?

[Paul Campos]

Still waiting to hear the first word from the authors of these various fulsome tributes about whether their views on Randall are affected at all by his decision to sell his name to an outfit like Infilaw.

I'm not holding my breath.

[Paul Campos is still waiting?]

I take Paul Campos's comment as a concession that Alfred et al. actually didn't say anything about Randall joining Infilaw.

[Paul Campos]

That they didn't and haven't said anything about Randall joining Infilaw was precisely the point, which anyone who wasn't desperate to miss that point would immediately recognize.

In fairness, I should note that this afternoon Paul Horwitz at Prawfs posted some reservations about his former boss's career move. Tepid as those observations are, they're practically Zolaesque in comparison to the (non) reactions of Brophy, et al.

[anon]

PCISW: you misunderstand, PC expects everyone to 'jump' when he says 'jump.' The fact that he lies about other people's posts, indeed the fact that he lies about Randall's new job, that's neither here nor there. PC has no future, except in cyberspace.

[Paul Campos]

Speaking of cyberspace, few things are more predicable in that space than Brian Leiter's pseudo-anonymous temper tantrums. In a classic case of compulsive projection, he loves to accuse others of exactly those vices which he exhibits on a continual basis. (In its most amusingly preposterous form, this takes the shape of accusing other people of being publicity hounds).

As for whether I'm "lying" about either Randall's new job or the (non) reactions within legal academia to it, the record speaks for itself.

[there you go again]

anon, you're correct.

Paul Campos is changing how he characterizes his post. Surprising, isn't it. From the original post: "I would have thought that defending the “Infilaw System” and its lamentable progeny would have been beyond the pale for putatively respectable legal academics..." Now he says he didn't imply that Alfred et al. defended Randall's move to Infilaw. Right.

Did people read Campos as saying that Alfred et al. were defedning Randall's move? Of course they did. See Harold's comment in this thread.

[DB]

It is funny that Paul thinks that Leiter is the only person who would have any reason to criticize him. Does he not realize how widely hated he is by his colleagues?

[Sturmphan]

Yes, Paul is hated by his colleagues, but certainly not by law students.