The Faculty Lounge

University of Kentucky Hiring Announcement

THE UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF LAW invites applications for an entry-level tenure-track faculty position beginning in the fall of 2017. The College of Law will be hiring in the following areas: Constitutional Law, First Amendment Law, and Civil Rights Law, although other curricular areas, such as Professional Responsibility, are also of interest. The College of Law is an important part of a major research university and offers a collegial and supportive atmosphere for its faculty, staff, and students. Applicants should have a J.D. or equivalent law degree, a record of high academic achievement, and a demonstrated potential for excellence in teaching and in scholarly productivity. The College of Law is committed to enhancing the diversity of its faculty and particularly seeks applications from women, members of minority groups, and others whose background may add to that diversity. Applicants should send a letter of application and resume to Scott Bauries, Chair, Faculty Appointments Committee, by mail at the University of Kentucky College of Law, 231 Law Building, Lexington, KY 40506-0048, or by email to the administrative assistant for the Committee at amy.kincaid@uky.edu. The University of Kentucky is an Equal Opportunity University.

Epstein on University of North Texas Law School

My former colleague (and mentor) David Epstein has written a defense of the University of North Texas School of Law, entitled "The University of North Texas School of Law is Important."  I have posted it below:

The continued existence of the University of North Texas School of Law (UNT Law) is important to the people of the State of Texas and to legal education. It is a special place that is boldly attempting to meet a pressing need.

I was fortunate to be a part of UNT Law during its first semester. I taught Contracts to both the “day students” and the “night students.”

Earlier, I had the good fortune to teach at the University of Texas Law School and the Dedman School of Law of Southern Methodist University and other law schools and served as dean of the University of Arkansas Law School and Emory University Law School. As a student, teacher or administrator, I have been involved in legal education for more than 40 years at 17 law schools.

What makes UNT Law special are (1) UNT Law people and (2) UNT Law policies. Any list of “special people” should have Royal Furgeson at the top of list. Ask Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson and other people in Royal’s law school class, ask people in El Paso where Royal practiced law and was not only president of the bar association but also president of the United Fund, ask the lawyers and their clients who appeared before him during his 17 years as a federal district judge.

Royal is hardly the only special person at UNT Law. There is also the faculty. The UNT Law faculty have strong academic credentials and meaningful practice experience. But the faculties at all the other Texas law schools also have strong academic credentials. What is special about the UNT Law faculty is their commitment to teaching, and not their “scholarship,” their commitment to their students’ careers, and not their own While I was teaching at UNT Law, the other faculty members were in the building from early in the morning until late at night – helping students’ understand today’s class and working on tomorrow’s class.

But what really distinguishes UNT Law is the UNT Law students. It is hard to put into words how special the students are. It is not just that there are more black and brown faces at UNT Law than at other law schools. Or that UNT Law has more old faces. Or more faces without the expensive coiffures you see at other law schools.

To me, what makes UNT Law students that I taught special was how much many of the students – black, brown, and white - had to overcome to get to law school and how hard they were working to get as much as possible out of law school. They recognize and appreciate that UNT Law is giving them an opportunity not available anywhere else.

I acknowledge, as UNT Law consistently has acknowledged, that many of these students are also “special’ in that they have comparatively low LSAT scores and comparatively low grade point averages. UNT Law students know this. UNT Law students know that reliable predictors indicate that they will not pass the bar. UNT Law students are anything but naïve, and UNTLaw is anything but exploitive. UNT Law repeatedly makes these risks clear to applicants and again to admitted students. What is atypical of law school deans (but completely “in character” for Royal Furgeson) is Dean Furgeson’s meeting with each student for a one on one conversation during that students’ first semester. A big part of these conversations is Dean Furgeson’s reminders about the challenges that particular student faces in passing the bar.

And, at UNT Law, unlike the other 16 law schools that I have been part of, students get regularly feedback from their professors as to how they are doing. The general law school norm is a single graded exam at the end of the semester. The UNT Law norm is weekly, if not more often, graded work. Students know how they are doing and can make an informed decision about continuing to incur the costs of a legal education.

I am not suggesting that everything at the UNT Law is perfect and that there is no basis for concern by the five person ABA accreditation team that visited UNT Law. For example, I am concerned about the number of students academically dismissed during the first year – that number may well should be higher. If that proves to be a problem, it is fixable. It is not a basis for the Texas Bar denying all UNT Law graduates the opportunity to take the Texas. And, it is certainly not a basis for the American Bar Association withholding PROVISIONAL accreditation. It is PROVISIONAL so that fixable problems can be fixed.

Texas does not need more lawyers who want to represent the people living in Highland Park1, more lawyers who want to represent the investment group trying to buy the Rosewood Mansion on Turtle Creek restaurant2. Texas does need more lawyers who want to represent the people living in Oak Cliff3, more lawyers who want to represent the first generation Americans trying to transition from working as a waitress to buying a food truck. The continued existence of UNT Law is important to the people of the State of Texas and to legal education.

Drake Law School Hiring Announcement

Drake University Law School invites applications from entry level and lateral candidates for a tenure-track or tenured position beginning in the 2017-18 academic year.  We are especially interested in candidates with demonstrated interest or experience in Wills and Trusts or Taxation. Qualifications include: a record of academic excellence, substantial academic or practice experience, and a passion for teaching. Appointment rank will be determined commensurate with the candidate’s qualifications and experience.

Drake University Law School sustains a vibrant intellectual culture, and Des Moines has been recognized as the Best U.S. City for Business (MarketWatch), the Best Place for Young Professionals (Forbes), and as the city with the Highest Median Income (US News/The Today Show).The Law School features innovative and nationally-recognized programs in agricultural law, constitutional law, intellectual property, and practical training. Our location in Iowa’s capital city also offers opportunities to participate in the synergy of law and politics.

Drake is an equal opportunity employer dedicated to workforce diversity. We strongly encourage women, people of color, and others who would enrich the diversity of our academic community to apply. For more information on the law school and its programs, see www.drake.edu/law. Interested candidates should send a letter of interest, a CV, and a list of references to Professor Andrew Jurs, Chair, Faculty Appointments Committee, Drake Law School, 2507 University Ave., Des Moines, IA 50311 or submit by email to andrew.jurs@drake.edu.

Peking U. School of Transnational Law Seeks Tenured and Tenure Track Faculty and VAP's

This just in from Peking University School of Transnational Law in Shenzhen.  I would add that STL is a very interesting school with great students - and of course, the curriculum is taught in English.  This opportunity is well worth a look for those willing to travel a bit in search of a good teaching gig.

Peking University School of Transnational Law (“STL”) invites applications for entry-level and lateral tenure track scholars of U.S. and Comparative Constitutional Law, Innovation Law and Policy, Intellectual Property, Law and Biotechnology, Energy Law, and any area of China law and legal history. If the fit otherwise was extraordinary, we would consider other areas of scholarly interest. Inquiries for two-year Visiting Assistant Professor appointments also are welcome. STL is located in Shenzhen, China, minutes from Hong Kong. Shenzhen is renowned as China’s “Silicon Valley,” home to information and biotechnology start-ups and such innovative giants as Tencent, Huawei, BYD, and DJI Drones. Together, Shenzhen and Hong Kong form the core of the world’s largest single metropolitan area, China’s Pearl River Delta, where Chinese and Western legal and commercial traditions are meeting and merging in ways likely to preview future legal developments throughout China and the rest of the world as China’s global economic influence grows. STL is the only law school in the world to offer an integrated dual degree curriculum that includes an American law J.D. and China law Juris Master (J.M.). STL also offers an LL.M. for international students with a first degree in law. Inquiries should be addressed to Professor Ray Campbell, Chair, Faculty Appointments Committee, at raycam@gmail.com or campbellr@stl.pku.edu.cn. 

 

An Appalling Episode in ME/CFS Research

Some readers will recall my earlier posts about the serious flaws in the PACE trial, in which a group of British psychiatrists purported to show the ME/CFS was best treated through Cognitive Behavior Therapy and exercise (thus implying that the illness is psychological rather than biomedical).  The approach of the PACE trial was soundly rejected by a committee of the U.S. Institutes of Medicine -- which found conclusively that ME/CFS is a biomedical disease -- and its methodology was later exposed as thoroughly unreliable by a series of posts on the Virology Blog of Dr. Vincent Racaniello at Columbia University.  Nonetheless, the authors of the publicly funded study have resisted all efforts to make their underlying data public, or to allow reexamination by independent researchers.  In the latest episode, which is now approaching cover-up proportions, The Lancet, which published the original study, has refused even to publish a critical letter that was submitted by 43 highly credentialed U.S. researchers, physicians, and scientists.

I find this development so shameful that I am including Dr. Racaniello’s most recent post in full below.  I urge everyone to read it, and I note that the legal process under the U.K.’s Freedom of Information Act is likely to succeed in revealing the problems in the study, even though the psychiatrists have thus far refused:

Once Again, Lancet Stumbles on PACE

VIROLOGY BLOG

29 AUGUST 2016

Last February, Virology Blog posted an open letter to The Lancet and its editor, Dr. Richard Horton, describing the indefensible flaws of the PACE trial of treatments for ME/CFS, the disease otherwise known as chronic fatigue syndrome (link to letter). Forty-two well-regarded scientists, academics and clinicians put their names to the letter, which declared flatly that the flaws in PACE “have no place in published research.” The letter called for a completely independent re-analysis of the PACE trial data, since the authors have refused to publish the results they outlined in their original protocol. The letter was also sent directly to Dr. Horton.

The open letter was based on the extensive investigative report written by David Tuller, the academic coordinator of UC Berkeley’s joint program in journalism and public health, which Virology Blog posted last October (link to report). This report outlines such egregious failings as outcome thresholds that overlapped with entry criteria, mid-trial promotion of the therapies under investigation, failure to provide the original results as outlined in the protocol, failure to adhere to a specific promise in the protocol to inform participants about the investigators’ conflicts of interest, and other serious lapses.

Virology Blog first posted the open letter in November, with six signatories (link to letter). At that time, Dr. Horton’s office responded that he would reply after returning from “traveling.” Three months later, we still had not heard back from Dr. Horton–perhaps he was still “traveling”–so we decided to republish it with many more people signed on.

The day the second open letter was posted, Dr Horton e-mailed me and solicited a letter from the group. (He did not explain where he had been “traveling” for the previous three months.) Here’s what he wrote: “Many thanks for your email. In the interests of transparency, I would like to invite you to submit a letter for publication–please keep your letter to around 500 words. We will then invite the authors of the study to reply to your very serious allegations.”

Dr. Horton’s e-mail clearly indicated that the letter would be published, with the PACE authors’ response to the charges raised; there was no equivocation or possibility of misinterpretation. In good faith, we submitted a letter for publication the following month, with 43 signatories this time, through The Lancet’s online editorial system (see the end of this article for a list of those who signed the letter). After several months with no response, we learned only recently by checking the online editorial system that The Lancet had flatly rejected the letter, with no explanation. No one contacted me to explain the decision or why we were asked to spend time creating a letter that The Lancet clearly had no intention of publishing.

I wrote back to Dr. Horton, pointing out that his behavior was highly unprofessional and requesting an explanation for the rejection. I also asked him if he was in the habit of soliciting letters from busy scientists and researchers that his journal had no actual interest in publishing. I further asked if the journal planned to reconsider this rejection, in light of the recent First-Tier Tribunal decision, which demolished the PACE authors’ bogus reasons for refusing to provide data for independent analysis.

Dr. Horton did not himself apologize or even deign to respond. Instead, Audrey Ceschia, the Lancet’s correspondence editor, replied, explaining that the Lancet editorial staff decided, after discussing the matter with the PACE authors, that the letter did not add anything substantially new to the discussion. She assured us that if we submitted another letter focused on the First-Tier Tribunal decision, it would be “seriously” considered. I’m not sure why she or Dr. Horton think that any such assurance from The Lancet is credible at this point.

The reasons given for the rejection are clearly specious. The letter for publication reflected the matters addressed in the open letter that prompted Dr. Horton’s invitation in the first place, and closely adhered to his directive  to outline our “serious allegations.”. If outlining these allegations was not considered publication-worthy by The Lancet, it is incomprehensible to us why Dr. Horton solicited the letter in the first place. Perhaps it was just an effort to hold off further criticism for a period of months while we awaited publication of the letter, unaware of the journal’s intention to reject it. It is certainly surprising that The Lancet appears to have given the PACE authors some power to determine what letters appear in the journal itself.

Dr. Tuller’s investigation, based on the groundbreaking analyses conducted by many savvy patients and advocates since The Lancet published the first PACE results in 2011, has effectively demolished the credibility of the findings. So has a follow-up analysis by Dr. Rebecca Goldin, a math professor at George Mason University and director of Stats.org, a think tank co-sponsored by the American Statistical Association. In short, the PACE study is a sham, with meaningless results. In this case, the emperor truly has no clothes. Dr. Horton and his editorial team at The Lancet are stark naked.

Yet the PACE study remains in the literature. Its recommendation of treatments that are potentially harmful to patients–specifically, graded exercise therapy and cognitive behavior therapy, both designed specifically to increase patients’ activity levels–remains highly influential.

Of particular concern, the PACE findings have laid the groundwork for the MAGENTA study, a so-called “PACE for kids” that will be testing graded exercise therapy in children and adolescents. A feasibility study, sponsored by Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, is currently recruiting participants. It is, of course, completely unacceptable that any study should justify itself based on the uninterpretable findings of the PACE trial. The MAGENTA trial should be halted until the PACE authors have done what the First-Tier Tribunal ordered them to do–release their raw data and allow others to analyze it according to the outcomes specified in the PACE trial protocol.

Today, because of the urgency of the issue, we are posting on PubMed Commons the letter that The Lancet rejected. That way readers can judge for themselves whether it adds anything to the current debate.

Please note that the opinions in this blog post are mine only, not those of any of the other signers of the Lancet letter, listed below

Vincent R. Racaniello, PhD
Professor of Microbiology and Immunology
Columbia University
New York, New York

The list of signatories to the Lancet letter can be seen after the jump.

Restrictive Covenant Trivia

Today is the first day of classes for me, so I thought that I'd start the new year off right with a trivia question.  This is going to be difficult, I suspect -- unless you were reading this blog very closely many years ago and are obsessed with property.  The building at right overlooks the practice field of a very famous college football team.  When it was built, a restrictive covenant was placed on the condos that overlook the field that prohibit taping of practices.  Where is this building?

CFP: Applied Feminism and Intersectionality

From colleagues at the University of Baltimore:

CALL FOR PAPERS
APPLIED FEMINISM AND INTERSECTIONALITY:
EXAMINING LAW THROUGH THE LENS OF MULTIPLE IDENTITIES
 
The Center on Applied Feminism at the University of Baltimore School of Law seeks paper proposals for the Tenth Anniversary of the Feminist Legal Theory Conference.  We hope you will join us for this exciting celebration on March 30-31, 2017.

This year, the conference will explore how intersecting identities inform -- or should inform -- feminist legal theory and justice-oriented legal practice, legal systems, legal policy, and legal activism. Beginning in 1989, Kimberlé Crenshaw identified the need for law to recognize persons as representing multiple intersecting identities, not only one identity (such as female) to the exclusion of another (such as African American). Intersectionality theory unmasks how social systems oppress people in different ways.  While its origins are in exploring the intersection of race and gender, intersectionality theory now encompasses all intersecting identities including religion, ethnicity, citizenship, class, disability, and sexual orientation. Today, intersectionality theory is an important part of the Black Lives Matter and #SayHerName movements. For more information, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/09/24/why-intersectionality-cant-wait/.

We seek submissions of papers that focus on the topic of applied feminism and intersecting identities.  This conference aims to explore the following questions: What impact has intersectionality theory had on feminist legal theory?  How has it changed law and social policy? How does intersectionality help us understand and challenge different forms of oppression?  What is its transformative potential? What legal challenges are best suited to an intersectionality approach? How has intersectionality  theory changed over time and where might it go in the future?

We welcome proposals that consider these questions from a variety of substantive disciplines and perspectives. As always, the Center’s conference will serve as a forum for scholars, practitioners and activists to share ideas about applied feminism, focusing on connections between theory and practice to effectuate social change. The conference will be open to the public and will feature a keynote speaker. Past keynote speakers have included Nobel Laureate Toni Morrison, Dr. Maya Angelou, Gloria Steinem, Senators Barbara Mikulski and Amy Klobuchar, NOW President Terry O’Neill, EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum, and U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner.

To submit a paper proposal, please submit an abstract by Friday October 28, 2016 to ubfeministconference@gmail.com. Your abstract must contain your full contact information and professional affiliation, as well as an email, phone number, and mailing address. In the “Re” line, please state: CAF Conference 2017. Abstracts should be no longer than one page. We will notify presenters of selected papers in November. About half the presenter slots will be reserved for authors who commit to publishing in the annual symposium volume of the University of Baltimore Law Review. Thus, please indicate at the bottom of your abstract whether you are submitting (1) solely to present or (2) to present and publish in the symposium volume. Authors who are interested in publishing in the Law Review will be strongly considered for publication. For all presenters, working drafts of papers will be due no later than March 3, 2017. Presenters are responsible for their own travel costs; the conference will provide a discounted hotel rate as well as meals.

We look forward to your submissions. If you have further questions, please contact Prof. Margaret Johnson at majohnson@ubalt.edu. For additional information about the conference, please visit law.ubalt.edu/caf.

Missed Opportunities in Internationalizing U.S. Legal Education

One of the more puzzling aspects of the decline in fortunes of U.S. law schools is the inability of many of these law schools to innovate their way out of financial misfortune.  While some schools have increased their online educational efforts, or initiated masters of law offerings, from what I have been able to see, there are some very low-hanging financial fruit that remain largely unrealized.  Moreover, one of these—the internationalization of student bodies and curricula—is not even particularly innovative or daring, given that it has been the norm at hundreds of undergraduate and masters programs for some time now.  In other words, it wouldn’t take a genius law dean, or law faculty, or educational consultants—or impatient university administration—to realize the benefits of this tack.  Yet, in large part, this internationalization does not appear to have happened.  So one question emerges:  Why the inability, unwillingness, and/or resistance on the internationalization front in U.S. law schools?

As a comparativist, I’ve always been aware of the provincial limitations of U.S. legal education—at the vast majority of law schools whether they be rich or poor, identify as liberal or conservative, or have smart students or not-so-smart students—yet my thoughts on this all were again sparked by seeing this recent hiring announcement from the University of Akron’s law school.  How interesting, I thought, to see this relatively bold hiring announcement in the midst of a retracting and increasingly reactionary legal educational market.  (NB: Akron folks, kudos to you!)  Moreover, I thought:  Why aren’t we seeing more of this kind of internationally-focused curricular renovation and hiring going on?  Why are U.S. law schools so focused on being experts on an often supremely weird, one-hit-wonder legal jurisdiction, or even limiting themselves to serving a saturated local Bar?  Even when it comes at the risk of their basic survival?  I’m not aloof to the possibility of very good answers, but I also don’t think this set of questions is asked often enough.

In many ways, I’ve always thought that the declining legal educational market in the United States resembles not so much the earlier decline of U.S. dental schools but, rather, the decline of the U.S. auto industry in the ‘80s.  As a Michigander, I remember well the bizarre xenophobic narratives and strategies that seemed to be at the core of that industry at that time.  In many ways, the U.S. auto message seemed to be:  “We are going to keep car customers by making the best goddamn American car ever made in America, and if foreigners don’t like it, they can just go without cars.”  The kinds of repudiation—latent or otherwise—of internationalization initiatives or global vision in the retracting U.S. legal education industry seem not so different.

What would internationalization look like or entail?  While there are many different answers to this question, at its heart it would involve redesigning U.S. legal education to both enable U.S. students to work in a wider variety of international locations and careers, while also attracting foreign students to U.S. law schools with the goal of proving a world-class education that would allow them to get jobs both outside and inside the U.S.  Right now, however, the curricula at the vast majority of U.S. law schools (of all types) might as well have a ‘U.S.’ prefix attached to every single course title.  Alas, it’s not clear how a 1L curriculum (for example) filled with courses like U.S. Torts, U.S. Contracts, or U.S. Constitutional Law can be very attractive to globally-minded individuals.

To be sure, the revamping of curricula would also require the revamping of faculties.  There are not many amongst this country’s current constitutional law faculty who would be able to teach Islamic Constitutionalism, much less Canadian Constitutional Law.  Large numbers of non-Americans would have to be hired at U.S. law schools in the short-term yet, over time, American graduates of less provincial U.S. law schools could take their place.  Bar passage is also, admittedly, a significant concern, yet some schools have always had high bar passage rates despite having students and faculty with ‘non-core’ legal interests.  Conversely, it doesn’t seem that a ‘return to basics’ (or even a remedial turn) at many U.S. law schools is helping out much with bar passage—arguably it might even be inhibiting students’ ability to understand ‘the big picture’ which is often important to understanding how legal systems and law work.

I’d love to hear others’ thoughts on how to make U.S. law schools truly global institutions.  Not just have centers, study abroad programmes, or the like but, rather, have at their core the ability to both send U.S. law graduates to work in the world, and to attract students from around the world.

Comments will be moderated for relevance, brevity, and other virtues.

Hiring Announcements: Nebraska

From an email message which I received recently.  Please note that this posting includes TWO announcements.

The UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA COLLEGE OF LAW invites applications for entry-level and lateral candidates for a tenure-track faculty position to direct and teach in its Legal Research and Writing Program. The position may also include teaching a classroom law school course depending on the candidate’s interest and experience.

Minimum Required Qualifications: J.D Degree or Equivalent, Superior Academic Record, Demonstrated Interest in Relevant Substantive Areas. Title of Asst/Assoc/or Full Professor will be based on qualifications of applicant. General information about the Law College is available at https://law.unl.edu/.  Please fill out the University application, which can be found at https://employment.unl.edu/postings/50662, and upload a CV, a cover letter, and a list of references. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln is committed to a pluralistic campus community through affirmative action, equal opportunity, work-life balance, and dual careers. See https://www.unl.edu/equity/notice-nondiscrimination. Review of applications will begin on August 26, 2016 and continue until the position is filled. If you have questions, please contact Associate Dean Eric Berger, Chair, Faculty Appointments Committee, University of Nebraska College of Law, Lincoln, NE 68583-0902, or send an email to lawappointments@unl.edu.

 

The UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA COLLEGE OF LAW invites applications for entry-level and lateral candidates for one or more tenure-track or tenured faculty positions. Our needs include courses related to

• Business Law (e.g., Business Associations; Corporate Finance, Corporate Governance, Insurance Law,
• Bankruptcy, Corporate Restructuring, Nonprofit Organizations, Risk Management / Compliance, or White Collar Crime)
• Criminal Law (e.g., Federal Criminal Law or White Collar Crime, Criminal Procedure 2, Post-Conviction Remedies, or Criminal Sentencing);
• Health Care (e.g., Federal Regulation of Health Care Providers, Health Care Finance, Torts, Administrative Law, Medical Malpractice, Privacy Law, Law and Medicine, Public Health Law, Bioethics and the Law, and the Law of Provider and Patient);
• Litigation Skills and Related Courses (e.g., Trial Advocacy, Civil Rights Litigation, Pretrial Litigation or other litigation skills courses, Conflicts of Laws);
• Family Law;
• Education Law; and
• Election Law.

Minimum Required Qualifications: J.D Degree or Equivalent, Superior Academic Record, Demonstrated Interest in Relevant Substantive Areas. Title of Asst/Assoc/or Full Professor will be based on qualifications of applicant. Please fill out the University application, which can be found at https://employment.unl.edu/postings/50660, and upload a CV, a cover letter, and a list of references. General information about the Law College is available at https://law.unl.edu/. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln is committed to a pluralistic campus community through affirmative action, equal opportunity, work-life balance, and dual careers. See https://www.unl.edu/equity/notice-nondiscrimination Review of applications will begin on August 25, 2016 and will continue until the position is filled. If you have questions, please contact Associate Dean Eric Berger, Chair, Faculty Appointments Committee, University of Nebraska College of Law, Lincoln, NE 68583-0902, or send an email to lawappointments@unl.edu.

In Defense of Judge Turner (sort of)

I have this oped in the Chicago Tribune, about a local judge who's gotten into a lot of trouble (and who has drawn national attention):

Judge Valarie Turner, of the Circuit Court of Cook County, is a very smart person who appears to have done a very dumb thing. While presiding over her call in a Markham courtroom, she allegedly turned her robe and gavel over to a lawyer, who then took the bench and adjudicated a couple of traffic tickets.

That was not quite as crazy as it sounds. The lawyer, whose name is Rhonda Crawford, won the recent Democratic primary in her judicial subcircuit, and she is running unopposed in November for a seat on the court. She was apparently "shadowing" Turner on the fateful day in order to learn more about the job of judging. It would not have been out of line for Crawford to try on Turner's robe, or even to sit on the bench for a bit. But ruling on cases, even if they were only minor traffic offenses, turned the situation into a fiasco.

The story of the faux judge eventually reached the office of Chief Judge Timothy Evans, who issued an order temporarily removing Turner from all judicial duties, pending further investigation. He also suspended Crawford from her current job as a staff attorney for the court.

Evans did the right thing by taking quick action on Turner and Crawford, but the real question is what will happen next.

Assuming that the allegations are true — neither Turner nor Crawford has issued a denial — the two of them violated a slew of ethics provisions that govern both lawyers and judges. They engaged in "conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice" that involved "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." The defendants on the two tickets were denied the "right to be heard according to law," and might now have to return to court to have their cases reheard by a real judge.

There are separate disciplinary bodies for lawyers and judges in Illinois. Lawyers are governed by the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission while judges are subject to the Judicial Inquiry Board. I believe it is safe to assume that both organizations already have initiated official investigations, and that some penalty is all but certain to follow. The potential range of sanctions runs from formal reprimands to disbarment of Crawford and removal of Turner from the judiciary. Which one should it be?

There is no defense for a judge who turned her bench over to a lawyer, and no excuse for a lawyer who pretended to be a judge, even if only briefly. Nonetheless, I do not think that these offenses should be career killers. Neither Turner nor Crawford acted for personal gain, manifested bias, demeaned litigants or witnesses or otherwise intended to hurt anyone. Although they do appear to have inconvenienced two traffic defendants, they did not commit a grave injustice.

Even thoughtful, hardworking people can make boneheaded mistakes on the spur of the moment, but that does not make them unqualified ever to do their jobs again. If disbarment and removal from the bench were imposed in this case, what would be left for the judicial miscreants — whom we have seen all too often in Illinois — who take bribes, abuse defendants, commit perjury or exploit and harass court staff? There needs to be some calibration in meting out lawyer and judicial discipline, and that means imposing penalties that fit the harmfulness of the offense, even if that does not correspond to the outrageousness or novelty factor.

Judge Turner has served honorably since 2002, without any previous hint of misconduct. Her reassignment from judicial duties — sometimes called commitment to "judge jail" — has already humiliated her. I believe a reprimand, or at most a short formal suspension, would be more than enough to get the point across and to make sure that nothing similar will ever happen again.

Attorney Crawford's position is trickier, as she will be subject to attorney discipline (currently) and judicial discipline (if she wins in November). Unlike Turner, she does not have an extended record of public service, so there is no good way to evaluate her long-term sensibility. Was the recent episode an aberration, or does it tell us something important about her judgment? Her ultimate discipline probably ought to correspond to Turner's — meaning at most a short suspension from the bar, during which time she could not serve as a judge, even if elected — but the voters can also have their say by getting behind someone for a write-in campaign.

What Turner and Crawford did was head-shakingly wrong; it cannot be ignored or excused. But this is not a case that demands an end to their legal careers.

Hiring Announcement: Dayton

From an email message which I received earlier today:

The University of Dayton School of Law invites applications for two tenure-track Assistant Professor positions to begin during the 2017-2018 academic year.  Our curricular needs are diverse, so we will consider outstanding candidates in any field.  Applicants must have a J.D. from an ABA-accredited law school.  Preferred qualifications include: an outstanding academic record; a history of scholarship and publication; prior successful experience in law teaching or the demonstrated potential to be an outstanding teacher; a perceived potential to successfully mentor underrepresented minority students; demonstrated and successful experience working with people from diverse backgrounds; prior experience in law practice; excellent communication skills; effective interpersonal skills with various constituencies; and an expressed willingness to engage with Catholic and Marianist educational values. The University of Dayton, founded in 1850 by the Society of Mary, is a top ten Catholic research university.  The University seeks outstanding, diverse faculty and staff who value its mission and share its commitment to academic excellence in teaching, research and artistic creativity, the development of the whole person, and leadership and service in the local and global community.  To attain its Catholic and Marianist mission, the University is committed to the principles of diversity, inclusion and affirmative action and to equal opportunity policies and practices.  As an Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Employer, we will not discriminate against minorities, females, protected veterans, individuals with disabilities, or on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Applications will be reviewed beginning August 15, and continue until the position is filled. Applications must be submitted through the University of Dayton electronic employment site:  https://jobs.udayton.edu/postings/20602  Inquiries may be directed to Professor Tracy Reilly, Chair of the Faculty Recruitment Committee, at treilly1@udayton.edu. 

A Gray Hair Reflects

    I have had the privilege of being a member of the legal community since the early 1980s and of legal academia since the early 1990s. It used to be that I would look around at a conference and note that a majority of the attendees were peers of approximately my age. Well, that era has ended. Unless there is far more use of cosmetic surgery and hair dye within our community than I would guess, legal academia has moved to the next generation. As I have spent the day listening to presentations at IPSC, my optimism about the next generation’s custodianship of the Academy is reassured.

    When I was a pup, the raging intellectual battle in my field was how could we possibly deal with this new thing: computer software. For some, programs required a radical transformation of the law because now “things are completely different.” For others, programs were nothing but a new way to write down information, so “nothing needs to change.” By the 1990s, two things became clear: (1) both sides of the debate were wrong but (2) the debate itself was critical for determining which analogies in the existing law would work for software and where the underlying concepts required modification to adjust the system to the new innovation.

    Well, now the debate in my field has moved to artificial intelligence. If a computer generates a new invention, who owns the patent rights? It is not that this debate first came up this year as several of us have written about the area or the related copyright question years ago. The difference is that what could be predicted as technologically possible twenty years ago has become real. Computers are generating things that are outside of the scope of the programmer’s abilities and intellectual property protection for the innovations is being sought.

    Not surprisingly, today’s battle is the same pattern as the one in the 1980s. The forces of “things are completely different” and of “nothing needs to change” are assaulting each other's castle. It is clear that the proponents of each feel that everything depends on winning the day. The cynical approach would be to predict the ultimate result: the castles of both groups will be destroyed and only rubble will remain, but I am not that cynic. For me it seems clear that the Academy is at it again and out of the battle will come the analytical advances that are necessary to continue moving us forward. In the mean time, for all of you who do not see the clear logic of my side of the argument: watch your flank!

Hiring Announcement: Alabama

From an email message which I received earlier today:

THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA SCHOOL OF LAW seeks to fill entry-level/junior-lateral tenure-track positions for the 2017-2018 academic year. Candidates must have outstanding academic credentials, including a J.D. from an accredited law school or an equivalent degree (such as a Ph.D. in a related field). Entry-level candidates should demonstrate potential for strong teaching and scholarship; junior-lateral candidates should have an established record of excellent teaching and distinguished scholarship. Although positions are not necessarily limited by subject, applications from those who study and teach commercial law (including contracts and sales) or torts (including products liability) are especially welcome; business law, family law, and insurance law are also areas of interest. We welcome applications from candidates who approach scholarship from a variety of perspectives and methods (including quantitative or qualitative empiricism, formal mode ling, or historical or philosophical analysis). The University of Alabama embraces diversity in its faculty, students, and staff, and we welcome applications from those who would add to the diversity of our academic community. Salary, benefits, and research support will be nationally competitive. All applications are confidential to the extent permitted by state and federal law, and interested applicants should apply at facultyjobs.ua.edu; the positions remain open until filled. Questions should be directed to Professor Heather Elliott, Chair of the Faculty Appointments Committee (facappts@law.ua.edu). The University of Alabama is an Equal Employment/Equal Educational Opportunity Institution. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, genetic information, disability, or protected veteran status, and will not be discriminated against because of their protected status.  Applicants to and employees of this institution are protected under federal law from discrimination on several bases. Follow this link to find out more: “EEO is the Law” www1.eeoc.gov/employers/upload/eeoc_self_print_poster.pdf.

Tribe and Trump

When I posted yesterday about the “Goldwater Rule,” I observed that “we would not want to see lawyers disclose confidences” in order to support or defeat a political candidate.  At that point, I had no idea that there was already a controversy brewing over just that issue.  One day earlier, Harvard’s Laurence Tribe had tweeted the following:

I have notes of when Trump phoned me for legal advice in 1996. I'm now figuring out whether our talk was privileged.

Tribe’s tweet was apparently in response to this one from Democratic campaign strategist Robert Shrum

I met Trump once 39 years ago in Paris. He was an amazingly superficial blowhard then. Thankfully never had to deal w him again.

The apposition of the two tweets led many observers to conclude that Tribe was suggesting that he had access to negative information about Trump, learned in the course of a phone call about legal advice, which he was either considering or threatening to disclose.  If so, that would be a breach of legal ethics, as pointed out by Michael Krauss, of George Mason Law School, and criminal defense blogger Scott Greenfield, who went so far as to call for Tribe’s disbarment.

The story was picked up by the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, which obtained this response from Tribe:

The tweet I sent about Mr. Trump having sought my legal advice 20 years ago breached no confidence and violated no privilege. I did wonder whether disclosing my notes of that call would be improper, thought that raising that question in a tweet might help me think the issue through, decided that it wouldn’t be improper in any technical sense but concluded that I wouldn’t disclose the notes in any event.

Here is what I have to say about it:

It was a fair inference that Tribe was hinting at something negative about Trump. The exchange with Shrum was about Trump’s unpleasant personality, and it did seem that Tribe was contemplating the revelation of something similar.  There are other possible inferences, and Tribe has denied that was his intention, but readers of the tweet cannot be blamed for drawing a seemingly obvious conclusion.

Tribe’s communication with Trump about “legal advice” would be covered by Model Rule 1.18, which protects confidential communications from a “prospective client,” and prohibits disclosing such communications “to the disadvantage” of the client. Rule 1.18 was adopted in Massachusetts in 2015, but retroactivity is not an issue because Tribe’s tweet (and potential disclosure) would obviously take place subject to the current rule.

I see no “technical sense” in which disclosure of Trump’s communication would be permissible without his consent.

Even if Tribe did need to “think through” the permissibility of disclosure – which should have been unnecessary, given the obviously confidential nature of the communication – a public tweet was not an appropriate way to do it.

Tribe’s tweet was ill-considered and certainly outside the spirit of Rule 1.18.  His rationalization does not hold up; Trump was entitled to have his confidences respected without having to worry about some later innuendo.   Although this is not a situation, in my opinion, that calls for professional discipline – as Greenfield has claimed – it definitely calls for an apology.

Hiring Announcement: Boston College

From an email message which I received earlier today:

Boston College Law School invites applications for a full-time legal writing faculty position to teach Law Practice 1 and Law Practice 2. Law Practice 1, a graded three-credit course, uses simulated problems to teach professional skills in legal problem solving, including legal analysis, legal research, and oral and written communication. Law Practice 2, a graded two-credit course, focuses on development of legal writing skills.

Candidates must have a degree from an accredited law school, excellent writing and analytical skills, a strong academic record, and experience in law practice or a judicial clerkship. Teaching experience is preferred. The position, which will begin August 1, 2017, may lead to a form of security reasonably similar to tenure. A tenure track appointment may be possible, depending on qualifications and experience of the successful candidate.

Boston College is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, age, religion, ancestry, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, veteran status, or any other classification protected under federal, state or local law. We strongly encourage women, minorities and others who would enrich the diversity of our academic community to apply. To learn more about how BC supports diversity and inclusion throughout the university please visit the Office of Institutional Diversity at https://www.bc.edu/offices/diversity. Boston College Law School, part of a Jesuit, Catholic university, is located in Newton, Massachusetts, just outside Boston.

To apply, please send a statement of interest and resume with three references by email to Professor Mark Spiegel at lrrwsearch@bc.edu. Applications will be accepted until November 1, 2016.

Call for Abstracts: Transparency in Health & Health Care: Legal & Ethical Possibilities & Limits?

My former colleagues at Harvard Law's Petrie-Flom Center have asked me to post the following.

The Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School is pleased to announce plans for our 2017 annual conference, entitled: “Transparency in Health and Health Care: Legal and Ethical Possibilities and Limits.”

Conference Description

Transparency is a relatively new concept to the world of health and health care, considering that just a few short decades ago we were still in the throes of a “doctor-knows-best” model.  Today, however, transparency is found on almost every short list of solutions to a variety of health policy problems, ranging from conflicts of interest to rising drug costs to promoting efficient use of health care resources, and more.  Doctors are now expected to be transparent about patient diagnoses and treatment options, hospitals are expected to be transparent about error rates, insurers about policy limitations, companies about prices, researchers about data, and policymakers about priorities and rationales for health policy intervention. But a number of important legal and ethical questions remain.  For example, what exactly does transparency mean in the context of health, who has a responsibility to be transparent and to whom, what legal mechanisms are there to promote transparency, and what legal protections are needed for things like privacy, intellectual property, and the like?  More specifically, when can transparency improve health and health care, and when is it likely to be nothing more than platitude?

This conference, and anticipated edited volume, will aim to: (1) identify the various thematic roles transparency has been called on to play in American health policy, and why it has emerged in these spaces; (2) understand when, where, how, and why transparency may be a useful policy tool in relation to health and health care, what it can realistically be expected to achieve, and when it is unlikely to be successful, including limits on how patients and consumers utilize information even when we have transparency; (3) assess the legal and ethical issues raised by transparency in health and health care, including obstacles and opportunities; (4) learn from comparative examples of transparency, both in other sectors and outside the United States.  In sum, we hope to reach better understandings of this health policy buzzword so that transparency can be utilized as a solution to pressing health policy issues where appropriate, while recognizing its true limitations.

Information about the call for abstracts after the jump...

 

Professional Ethics in the Age of Trump -- UPDATED

Some supporters of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that her recent condemnation of Donald Trump was a justified departure from the usual standards of judicial ethics, explaining that Trump represents a unique threat to democracy that calls for special measures.  Justice Ginsburg herself reconsidered, however, and retracted her comments after a few days.  “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office,” she said. “In the future I will be more circumspect,”

Now the same set of issues is playing out among psychiatrists and psychologists.

As reported in the New York Times yesterday, some psychotherapists are pushing to reconsider the decades old “Goldwater Rule,” which says that “it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion [about an individual] unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”  The rule was prompted by events during the 1964 presidential election, when more than 1000 psychiatrists called Sen. Goldwater psychologically “unfit for office.” According to The Times, one doctor branded him “a dangerous lunatic.”

The Goldwater Rule was relatively uncontroversial until this year’s election, as Donald Trump has proven to be a “seemingly irresistible” target for some psychotherapists who are appalled at the prospect of his election.  One mental health specialist referred to Trump’s “malignant narcissism,” and over 2000 mental health specialists have signed a Manifesto Against Trumpism. (The Manifesto does not offer a diagnosis.)

According to Dr. William Doherty, a psychologist at the University of Minnesota,” the departure from the Goldwater Rule is justified by the circumstances.  “Yes, for me this is an exception,” he told The Times. “What we have here is a threat to democracy itself.”

This is an unfortunate trend.  As much as I hope that Donald Trump loses the election as thumpingly as possible, I also believe that the Goldwater Rule serves an important ethical principle that should not be compromised.  Remote and second-hand diagnoses are unreliable and potentially harmful, and they are just as likely to be informed by political preferences as by clinical judgment.  It turned out, for example, that Barry Goldwater was quite stable, and he ended his career as a champion of gay rights within the Republican Party.

And of course, the tables can be turned.  Donald Trump has recently challenged Hillary Clinton’s mental health.  Conservative websites, including the Drudge Report, have diagnosed her with everything from depression to Parkinson’s disease, with support from Dr. Mark Siegel of NYU, who watched a videotape of Clinton slipping on some stairs and suggested that she suffers from “post-concussion syndrome.”

And let’s not forget Dr. Bill Frist who, when serving as Senate Majority Leader, diagnosed Terry Schiavo on the basis of a videotape. 

I am not saying that physicians should stay out of politics.  Many have shown significant leadership – from Howard Dean to Rand Paul to Jill Stein.  I just don’t want to see Ben Carson claiming that Hillary Clinton has shown the symptoms of a cerebral aneurism or a subdural hematoma.

Professional ethics exist for reasons that have nothing to do with politics, and they should therefore be respected without regard to partisan advantage.  Once the ethics rules are abandoned – even in what is seen as a compelling case – both sides will feel free to weigh in, and the only result will be damage to the ethics standards themselves. We would not want to see lawyers disclose confidences, or priests violate the sanctity of the confessional, simply because they think a particular election is uniquely important. That is why federal judges need to stay out of politics and doctors need to reserve their diagnoses for people whom they have actually examined.      

The American people are capable of making electoral choices without the extramural political opinions of judges or the second-hand diagnoses of psychotherapists. 

UPDATE:  Paul Horwitz's thoughtful post on the same issue is here.

Hiring Announcement: Suffolk

From an email message which I recently received:

Suffolk University Law School in Boston invites applications for a tenure-track clinical faculty member to direct its Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship Clinic (“IPEC”) starting in the 2017-2018 academic year. We seek candidates with strong academic records and a demonstrated commitment to excellence in teaching and scholarship. Prior experience with clinical teaching is preferred, though not required. Applicants must either be admitted or eligible for admission to the Massachusetts bar.

IPEC is a dynamic inter-disciplinary clinic that collaborates regularly with Suffolk’s Sawyer Business School. It provides free legal services to underserved clients with limited resources on issues relating to new and emerging businesses, with a focus on intellectual property (copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets). Law students supervised by the clinic director provide a broad range of intellectual property and transactional services. Clients include entrepreneurs, inventors, scientists, designers, software developers, online publishers, cloud service providers, artists, authors, filmmakers and musicians and are individuals, for-profit businesses, or nonprofits. This innovative clinic provides students with the hands-on, practical experience needed to navigate the rapidly evolving fields of intellectual property and entrepreneurship.

The ideal candidate will be a self-motivated individual who will “grow” the clinic by developing relationships with alumni, members of the academy and external entities. In addition to teaching a full-year clinic, all clinical faculty teach one non-clinical course in a related field.

IPEC is one of nine in-house clinics in the Clinical Programs and is part of the Intellectual Property Concentration, which integrates doctrinal and experiential offerings. Both the Clinical Program and the Intellectual Property Concentration are nationally ranked.

We encourage applications from women, minorities, and others whose backgrounds will contribute to the diversity of the faculty. To apply, contact Professor Joseph Glannon (jglannon@suffolk.edu), Suffolk University Law School, 120 Tremont Street, Boston, MA 02108-4977. Suffolk University is an equal opportunity employer.

International Law Faculty Position: The University of Akron

The University of Akron School of Law anticipates hiring a tenure-track or tenured faculty member with a particular focus in the areas of international law (public and private) and comparative law to begin teaching in Fall 2017.  Entry-level and lateral candidates are encouraged to apply.  Experience in the areas of torts, criminal law, criminal procedure, environmental law, professional responsibility, and health law are also of particular interest, although other subject matters may be considered.  Also, an interest in the development of international programming would be viewed favorably. The committee is interested in candidates with scholarly distinction or great promise as demonstrated by strong early scholarship and a thoughtful agenda for future work, as well as a commitment to excellence in teaching.

The University of Akron School of Law is a public, mid-size law school of approximately 450 students located in the Akron/Cleveland metropolitan area.  Akron Law offers excellent teaching, relatively low tuition and a commitment to student success, as well as a strong relationship with the local and regional bars.  Akron Law prides itself on outcomes including our high bar passage rate, strong job placement, award-winning clinical programs, national championship trial team program and various areas of excellence.  Akron Law boasts several faculty members who collectively draw upon decades of experience in international law scholarship and practice.  Akron Law has recently enhanced its international initiatives including new collaborative relationships with various institutions in Asia, an accelerated juris doctor program for international students, visiting international scholars, and a new four-week, three-city, two-country study abroad program in Japan and South Korea.

Akron Law is committed to achieving a diverse faculty and staff by including individuals from varied backgrounds and characteristics, including age, gender, religion, ethnicity, disability, national origin, sexual orientation and socioeconomic background.  We are also committed to offering competitive salary and benefits packages to qualified candidates.

The University of Akron is the region's most influential public research university, contributing to the resurgence of the local economy, providing a highly skilled workforce, and known for an innovative approach to higher education.  With nearly 26,000 students and more than 300 associate, bachelor's, master's, doctorate, and law degree programs, UA offers career-focused and experiential learning.  From polymers to psychology, to engineering and integrated marketing communications, to education and choreography, UA brings together various disciplines in ways that provide students with life-long skills, internships and co-ops, opportunities for academic research, study abroad, on-campus student employment and service projects designed for diverse groups of learners, including full-time, part-time and on-line students, veterans, and adults returning to the classroom.

Required Qualifications: Juris doctor or equivalent law degree with international law experience.

Preferred Qualifications:  A demonstrated record of or potential for successful scholarship and teaching.

For complete details and to apply for this position, visit: https://www.uakron.edu/jobs.  Job ID# 9649.  While all candidates are required to submit their applications via this centralized system, please feel free to direct any inquiries to Professor Carolyn Dessin, Chair of the search committee, at cld3@uakron.edu.  For assistance with your application or attachments please call 330-972-8431.  Review of applications will begin immediately.  Anticipated start date: August 15, 2017.

The University of Akron is an equal education and employment institution. It is the policy of this institution that there shall be no unlawful discrimination against any individual in employment or in its programs or activities at The University of Akron because of race, color, religion, sex, age, national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, genetic information or status as a veteran.  The University is also committed to the principles of affirmative action and acts in accordance with state and federal laws.

Criminal Law/Litigation Skills Faculty Position: The University of Akron

The University of Akron School of Law anticipates hiring a tenure-track or tenured faculty member with a particular focus in the areas of criminal law, criminal procedure, torts, trial advocacy, and litigation skills to begin teaching in Fall 2017.  Experience in the areas of environmental law, professional responsibility, and health law are also of particular interest, although other subject matters may be considered.  The committee is interested in candidates with scholarly distinction or great promise as demonstrated by strong early scholarship and a thoughtful agenda for future work, as well as a commitment to excellence in teaching.

The University of Akron School of Law is a public, mid-size law school of approximately 450 students located in the Akron/Cleveland metropolitan area.  Akron Law offers excellent teaching, relatively low tuition and a commitment to student success, as well as a strong relationship with the local and regional bars.  Akron Law prides itself on outcomes including our high bar passage rate, strong job placement, award-winning clinical programs, national championship trial team program and various areas of excellence.  Akron Law’s advocacy program features a Certificate in Litigation, a Summer Trial Academy, and a variety of mock trial, moot court, and clinical experiences. Recently, Akron Law was ranked as the seventh best law school in the nation for educating prosecutors and public defenders.

Akron Law is committed to achieving a diverse faculty and staff by including individuals from varied backgrounds and characteristics, including age, gender, religion, ethnicity, disability, national origin, sexual orientation and socioeconomic background.  We are also committed to offering competitive salary and benefits packages to qualified candidates.

The University of Akron is the region's most influential public research university, contributing to the resurgence of the local economy, providing a highly skilled workforce, and known for an innovative approach to higher education.  With nearly 26,000 students and more than 300 associate, bachelor's, master's, doctorate, and law degree programs, UA offers career-focused and experiential learning.  From polymers to psychology, to engineering and integrated marketing communications, to education and choreography, UA brings together various disciplines in ways that provide students with life-long skills, internships and co-ops, opportunities for academic research, study abroad, on-campus student employment and service projects designed for diverse groups of learners, including full-time, part-time and on-line students, veterans, and adults returning to the classroom.

Required Qualifications: Juris doctor or equivalent law degree with litigation experience.

Preferred Qualifications:  A demonstrated record of or potential for successful scholarship and teaching. 

For complete details and to apply for this position, visit: https://www.uakron.edu/jobs.  Job ID# 9650.  While all candidates are required to submit their applications via this centralized system, please feel free to direct any inquiries to Professor Carolyn Dessin, Chair of the search committee, at cld3@uakron.edu.  For assistance with your application or attachments please call 330-972-8431.  Review of applications will begin immediately.  Anticipated start date: August 15, 2017.

The University of Akron is an equal education and employment institution. It is the policy of this institution that there shall be no unlawful discrimination against any individual in employment or in its programs or activities at The University of Akron because of race, color, religion, sex, age, national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, genetic information or status as a veteran.  The University is also committed to the principles of affirmative action and acts in accordance with state and federal laws.