As a committee of South Carolina's Commission on Higher Education considers whether to approve InfiLaw's acquisition of Charleston School of Law, a large number of faculty members have now weighed in opposition is here.
A letter from the tenured faculty and a letter from a local attorney representing other faculty who wish to remain anonymous due to fear of retribution are here. In the letters, faculty members state that they "do not wish to see the Charleston School of Law mirror the admission practices, attrition rates, transfer rates or educational programs of the InfiLaw consortium schools."
This public opposition is, at minimum, problematic for InfiLaw. If it does complete the deal, people will no doubt be watching to see if Infilaw actually exacts punishment on faculty members.
My impression is that these faculty members believe that the acquisition, per se, would afflict some sort of punishment.
One wonders how many of the anonymous objectors have gone on the FL and other sites to berate anonymous commenting. Good bet at least one.
And, one wonders to what these anonymous objectors truly object.
Low admission standards? Not likely. Take a look at the pitiful admission standards at unranked law schools, across the country. Faculty outcry there? Hardly.
Attrition and transfer rates? Same. Several law schools come to mind here. Silence from the faculty. Worse. Reflexive defense of the status quo, no matter WHAT the objection to it.
"Educational programs"? Oh, this one is rich. Really rich. One would love to see the specifics on this objection from these anonymous faculty members. Fun!!!
One suspects the true source of these objections lies elsewhere. Speaking of "lies," (sorry, couldn't resist) c'mon folks. Just once. No spin. Tell it like it is.
Do the stated grounds ring true as to the true and predominant reasons for faculty objections here?
Posted by: anon | May 14, 2014 at 08:46 PM