The Faculty Lounge

MarkelFest 2017

From Howard Wasserman comes this announcement:

PrawfsBlawg is sponsoring the annual MarkelFest! Happy Hour at AALS. It will be at 9 p.m. on Wednesday, January 4, at Romper Room, 25 Maiden Lane in Union Square, about a 10-minute walk from the conference hotel.

Workshop for Untenured Profs

To be held at Albany Law School on February 3 and 4, per this announcement from Sarah Rogerson:

Hoping to publish a law review article in the new year? Resolved to incorporate some new teaching methods in your class? If so, the “Sharing Scholarship, Building Teachers” Workshop is for you! At this unique Workshop, emerging law teachers and scholars have the opportunity to network with similarly situated peers to exchange scholarship and teaching ideas. Now in its 7^th year (alternating biannually with co-host New England School of Law │ Boston), the workshop will take place February 3^rd and 4^th. We time the event to be most helpful to those seeking to publish in the Spring or Fall of 2017. If you have already earned the distinction of tenure – congratulations! Please feel free to pay it forward and pass this invitation along to potential interested colleagues. If you know anyone looking to break into the teaching market, this is a FREE networking and informational opportunity. The Workshop has consistently resulted in law review placements and teaching innovations. We seek to continue this rich tradition. Although our untenured faculty run the program, anonymous senior scholar review by our tenured faculty is available to participants who request it.

Additional information can be found below and at this website: www.albanylaw.edu/events/facultydevelopment Registration deadline: January 14, 2017.

Joyce Appleby (1929-2016)

I am very sorry to hear (via Karin Wulf's twitter feed) that the distinguished historian Joyce Appleby has passed away.  Dr. Appleby was a professor emerita at UCLA -- and the author of many challenging works on eighteenth century history.   I read her Capitalism and a New Social Order: The Republican Vision of the 1790s  (NYU 1984)  in Rick Beeman's course on the American Revolution and it struck me then as a really persuasive argument about the emergence of capitalism in the wake of the Revolution.  (Though I might now say that those ideas were with us for a long time before, but I recognize that they began to exert themselves in forceful and new ways in the 1790s -- and really gained steam in the nineteenth century.) Later in life I benefited mightily from her Economic Thought and Ideology in Seventeenth Century England (Princeton 1978) when I was working on law, economy, and politics in the seventeenth century in graduate school -- back in the days when I thought that I would spend my life working on the colonial era. And more recently I have enjoyed very much Inheriting the Revolution : The First Generation of Americans (Harvard 2000).  I remember fondly her support of my early work on proslavery thought in the old South and her work with the History News Network, which for many years helped historians write and distribute op-ed pieces that linked their knowledge of history with contemporary events. Joyce Appleby was a fabulous scholar and a supportive and gracious mentor to many, many newer scholars.  We should say about her, as was said of John Hope Franklin in 2009, someone noble has passed from the earth.

Northwestern Law Review Institutes "Exclusive Submission" Option

In a positive development for legal scholarship, the Northwestern University Law Review will accept "exclusive submissions" from now through January 28, 2017.  Authors are guaranteed a response by February 17, on the condition that the article is submitted nowhere else in the meantime.  Authors must also commit in advance to accept an offer of publication if given.

This approach moves the NU Law Review more into line with scholarly journals in other fields, with the added bonus of a quick response.  It is also timed to allow authors to submit to other journals during the spring window, in the event that their articles are not accepted by NU.

The full announcement is below:

Submissions | Northwestern University Law Review

Exclusive Submission Track

We are accepting exclusive submissions for Volume 112 through January 28, 2017 11:59 PM Central Time. For all pieces submitted in accordance with the instructions outlined below, the Law Review guarantees Articles Board consideration and publication decision by February 17, 2017. Furthermore, articles receiving a publication offer via the exclusive submission track will be published in one of the first two Issues of Volume 112. 

In exchange for this prioritized and timely consideration, participating author agrees to withhold the article submitted through our exclusive submission track from submission to any other publication until receiving a decision back from us. Authors not receiving publication offers are free to submit elsewhere after February 17, 2017. 

Please note that by submitting an article via the exclusive submission track, the author agrees to accept a binding publication offer, should one be extended. 

To submit, please email your article manuscript, a cover letter, and CV to Moon Hee Lee, Senior Articles Editor, at m-lee2017@nlaw.edu. Please kindly title the subject line “2017 Exclusive Submission Track.”

 

 

TFL Impact Factor in Sociology

During my series of posts last year on Alice Goffman's On the Run, I attempted to obtain a copy of her dissertation in the hope that it might clear up a major inconsistency between the book (in which she reported participating in an armed manhunt for the killer of her friend because she wanted the man "to die") and her subsequent response to my critique (in which she claimed that it had been only an elaborate mourning ritual).  I figured that her dissertation might shed some light on the obvious contradiction.  

To my surprise, however, I discovered that the dissertation had been "permanently embargoed" at Princeton, and had never been deposited in any of the usual scholarly data bases.  And although it had been given the annual best dissertation award by the American Sociological Association, it was likewise unavailable from the ASA.  As explained to me by then executive director Sally Hillsman:

I regret that the ASA is not able to provide you with a copy of Professor Alice Goffman’s PhD dissertation. Copies of dissertations are provided annually to the ASA for the sole purpose of being reviewed by the ASA Dissertation Award Committee so it might select each year’s ASA award recipient. All dissertations submitted to us are the property of the authors; the manuscript you seek, therefore, is Professor Goffman’s intellectual property and ASA has only a limited license to use it for the award review process. Only she can provide you with a copy.

This was baffling.  What was the point of honoring a dissertation that no one would ever be allowed to see?  It could not serve as a model for future graduate students, it could not be held up as an example of outstanding scholarship, and it could not be a reference for researchers.

I was recently pleased to learn that the ASA has changed its position.  As of March, 2016, all award recipients must agree to archive their dissertations on a public website.  The new provision specifies:

To be eligible for the ASA Dissertation Award, candidates' dissertations must be publicly available in Dissertation Abstracts International or a comparable outlet. Dissertations that are not available in this fashion will not be considered for the award.

The successful motion to institute the rule was drafted by Prof. Philip Cohen of the University of Maryland, following my inquiries about the Goffman dissertation (which were posted on The Faculty Lounge here and here).

After many inquiries and requests, a copy of the dissertation was also deposited in Princeton's Mudd Manuscript Library, although under serious lock and key, with special permission required just to read it.

It turned out that the manhunt episode had been omitted entirely from the dissertation, and it was never reported to anyone at Princeton, even though it concerned the murder of one of Goffman's subjects during the course of her graduate work. According to her adviser, the events "were not known to me or other members of the dissertation committee until Dr. Goffman's book was written."

In any case, I am pleased to have played a part in revising the ASA policy on its dissertation award. One small step for transparency in academia.

 

 

 

First Annual Movie Review -- La La Land

Today being Christmas, my wife and I of course went to see a movie (we skipped the Chinese restaurant, however, in favor of dinner at home).  The film we chose was La La Land, which has gotten phenomenally good reviews and seven Golden Globe nominations, including best script, best director, best lead actor and best lead actress.  In brief, it is the musical story of the romance between Mia (Emma Stone), an aspiring actress, and Sebastian (Ryan Gosling), a jazz pianist, and the difficulties they encounter reconciling their ambitions with their relationship.

As virtually everyone has observed, the film is beautifully made, moving seamlessly from the musical numbers to the plot and back again.  The colors are gorgeous, the sets are terrific, the chemistry between the stars is unmistakable, and there is an unanticipated twist at the end.  It is easy to appreciate the film as a nearly perfect exemplar of the Hollywood art form.

For all of that, however, it left me empty.  It seemed more like an exercise -- look here, see what we can do! -- than a meaningful story.  The singing and dancing are impressive in the sense that no one expected that of Stone and Gosling, who are known for their acting more than their musical skills. But let's face it, they are not Fred and Ginger, or even close.  The songs themselves are pleasant but not memorable.  There was really only one scene with any gravitas -- an argument over the dinner table over halfway through the film.

I don't require profundity from movies.  I can enjoy comedies, musicals, and even action films, as well as dramas.  But in this case, I think the film has been over-hyped.  It is a paean to Hollywood craft, but there is not much more to it than that.  If you are a fan of direction and production values, by all means go see La La Land.  If you are looking for something more, I suggest trying something else.

Last Christmas, we saw Birdman, which was much better.  Our offices are closed tomorrow, so we are going to see Fences -- but don't worry; I am not planning to post another review until this time next year.

Best wishes for the New Year.

 

American Journal of Legal History, December 2016

I'm pleased to report that the December 2016 issue of the American Journal of Legal History is out -- and for a limited time, the entire issue is ungated at Oxford University Press' website.  The table of contents is as follows:

Forum: Second Amendment

Douglas Walker, Jr., Necessary to the Security of Free States: The Second Amendment as the Auxiliary Right of Federalism

William G. Merkel, Response to “Necessary to the Security of Free States: The Second Amendment as the Auxiliary Right of Federalism”

Nathan R. Kozuskanich, Rethinking Originalism: Bearing Arms and Armed Resistance in Pennsylvania

 

Articles

 

Thomas Murray, Contesting the Commonwealth: The Life and Social Legal Thought of Clemens France

 

Joseph Kary, Judgments of Peace Montreal’s Jewish Arbitration Courts, 1914-1976

Book Reviews

Kimberly Welch reviews Jonathan M. Bryant, Dark Places of the Earth: The Voyage of the Slave Ship

Tabatha Abu El-Haj, reviews Kevin Butterfield, The Making of Tocqueville’s America: Law and Association in the Early United States

Judy Kutulas. reviews Donna T. Haverty-Stacke, Trotskyists on Trial: Free Speech and Political Persecution Since the Age of FDR

Sanford V. Levinson reviews David Cole, Engines of Liberty: The Power of Citizen Activists to Make Constitutional Law

This marks the completion of the first volume of the journal's re-launch, as we moved from Temple Law School, who had published the journal since its founding in 1957, to Oxford.  It's been a huge pleasure working on the relaunch with co-editor Stefan Vogenauer and the rest of his team at the Max Planck Institute in Frankfurt.  Our book review editors Roman Hoyos and Frederic Audren have been terrific; the book reviews have been some of the most exciting and readable parts of the journal -- and of course our authors have produced the terrific content.  We are especaially grateful to our referees who've spent an enormous amount of time and energy to read and help improve submissions.  

If you missed it, you might be particularly interested in our inaugural issue back in March 2016, in which we asked members of our editorial board -- and a few other distinguished legal historians -- to speculate on the future of the legal history.  We're all looking forward to 2017; we have expanded our page budget and have a series of articles in the pipeline that I am extremely excited about.  Some of the March 2017 issue is already up on the advance access section of our website.  The rest of the March 2017 issue will be up soon.

Don't Say I Didn't Warn You, Charlotte

By now, TFL readers are surely aware of the DOE's action to block Charlotte School of Law from receiving federal students loans. The latest development in this saga is this story in Above the Law about the class action lawsuit filed by students against the Charlotte School of Law for fraudulent misrepresentations.  Loyal readers of TFL may recall that I warned of this eventuality nearly two years ago (January 4, 2015, to be exact) in this post, in response to a nonsensical column by Dean Jay Conison about black boxes.  Here is an excerpt: 

Dean Conison’s black box analogy brings to mind another kind of black box -- the flight data recorders that are recovered after an aircraft accident. When Charlotte School of Law and its sister schools finally crash and burn, and InfiLaw is forced to reveal its internal data in response to the subsequent class action lawsuit, what will the data inside the black box say about the cause of InfiLaw’s downfall?  Based on Dean Conison’s posts on The Faculty Lounge, one factor that will be difficult to rule out is “pilot error.”

I am certainly sympathetic to the many law students who were duped into attending, or remaining at, Charlotte School of Law by the school's dishonest and unethical practices. To find out such news over the Christmas semester break is undoubtedly extremely upsetting and stressful.  I wish these students and their attorneys all the best in their efforts to hold Charlotte School of Law and InfiLaw accountable for all the damage they have caused.  

Bryan Garner May Be Running Out of Tips

I strongly recommend Bryan Garner's Usage Tip of the Day, which is almost invariably interesting and sometimes quite helpful.  Now and then, however, he seems to be straining the definition of "usage" (in the sense of things that may actually be used).  Here is his latest, which resolves an orthographic dispute that was last alive over 200 years ago:

witenagemot,

witenagemot, the historical term referring to the Anglo-Saxon council of nobles and officials who advised the king on administrative and judicial matters, has been predominantly so spelled since about 1800. The variant spelling *witenagemote flourished for a time in the 18th century but hasn’t been widely used in print sources since then. Whatever the spelling, the word is pronounced /wit-әn-ә-gә-moht/ or /wit-әn-ә-yә-moht/      To complicate spelling matters, a member of this council was called a witan, from the Old English verb of the same spelling (witan = to know). Note that the fourth character is an a, not an e as in the longer compound. Hence the council term was also sometimes spelled *witanagemot, but this form of the word never became standard.

You can find a subscription link at the bottom of this page.

 

Antisemitism Awareness Act Dies in the House of Representatives

It was a bad idea, so let's hope that it is not reintroduced in the next session.

More Objectionable Anti-BDS Coercion

Academic boycotts of Israel are discriminatory, counter-productive, and antithetical to academic freedom, but some anti-boycott tactics are also deeply objectionable.  First among these is the unfortunate effort to squelch the BDS movement through litigation. 

The latest salvo in this battle was delivered by the Louis D. Brandeis Center (LDB), which recently demanded that the Modern Language Association discontinue consideration of its own boycott resolution on the ground that it is beyond the organization's "proper authority."  According to the LDB press release, 

The corporate mission of the MLA, as set forth in the MLA Constitution, is “to promote study, criticism, and research in the more and less commonly taught modern languages and their literatures and to further the common interests of teachers of these subjects.” (MLA Const. art. II.) LDB’s letter informed the MLA President and Executive Director that the “boycott resolution is clearly unrelated to promotion of the study, criticism, and research of modern languages and literature. Indeed, it does not even purport to be intended to further the field of modern languages.”

As I have explained before, this approach is wrong legally, strategically, and politically.

It is legally wrong because a non-profit organization's purposes are generally interpreted quite broadly, and ultra vires findings are rare. In this case, the MLA's purpose includes furthering "the common interests" of teachers, which is capacious enough to cover promoting the perceived rights of colleagues in Israel and Palestine.  The "common interests" provision is conveniently omitted from the conclusory sentence of the above paragraph, which refers only to the "promotion of study, criticism, and research."  However, it is ordinarily up to the members of an organization to determine their own interests.  

Here is a sentence from the preamble of the actual boycott resolution:

 Whereas these violations include the systematic denial of academic freedom and educational rights for Palestinian scholars and students;

This is undoubtedly a one-sided partisan political judgment, and I agree with LDB that it is not in the actual interest of the MLA to boycott Israel.  But that decision is not ours (or a court's) to make, and the purported issue of "educational rights" for Palestinians can easily be made to fit under the "common interests" of MLA members.

The demand is strategically wrong because the MLA could in any event change its constitution to broaden the organization's purpose, so even a successful lawsuit would be temporary at best.

Most of all, however, the demand is politically wrong.  The strongest and most successful argument against boycott resolutions is that they constrain academic freedom.  Coercive measures such as lawsuits and legislation undermine this argument, because they in turn constrain the freedom of the academic associations to set their own policies.  Obsessive hostility toward Israel is not going to be remedied by obtaining an injunction or threatening an organization's 501(c)(3) status, as per the LDB press release and letter to the MLA:

Where a corporation acts outside of its power or capacity, as set forth in the corporate mission, the act is ultra vires and subject to injunction, liability, or both under Maryland Code, Corporations & Associations § 1-403.

The MLA’s leadership owes it to the MLA’s members, supporters, state of incorporation, and the Internal Revenue Service to do what it says it will do in the association’s charter, IRS filings, and in other corporate and taxation documents.

The LDB letter also argues that 

The boycott resolution harms study and research by dividing the membership, and excluding academics along political lines based on ethnic and national associations, thereby undermining the values that the MLA works to advance.

As true as that may be, it is a value judgment for the organization itself, and not for the courts.

Professors' Letter Opposing Jeff Sessions

This just in from a concerned reader:

To interested law faculty:  

The nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions as Attorney General presents a very real threat to civil rights and civil liberties, to underrepresented groups and people of color, and to the core of our founding principles. If you agree, please consider opposing Senator Sessions’ nomination by signing this letter written by a group of fellow law professors: https://goo.gl/sTw78a.

Review of The "Colored Hero" of Harper's Ferry in the American Historical Review

The current issue of the American Historical Review has a very favorable review of my book, The "Colored Hero" of Harper's Ferry: John Anthony Copeland and the War against Slavery.

Here is a sample:

Lubet valiantly explores one of history's unknowns, John Anthony Copeland, a black freedom fighter who joined John Brown's infamous invasion of Harper's Ferry. While Lubet does not fully rescue the black Oberlinite from the deep shadow of this event or its central protagonist, the author's efforts to illuminate one of Brown's virtually unknown compatriots are heartening and thought provoking.

You can read the whole review here.

Why and How Law Schools Should Engage With Students About Social Media and Blogging

I recently attended a swearing-in ceremony for newly-minted lawyers who passed the July 2016 bar exam. The ceremony was nice, complete with several speakers, introductions of numerous city and state bar group leaders, and a reception afterward. During the ceremony, an accomplished lawyer provided remarks about professionalism and the practice of law. Among her remarks were some strong sentiments about internet usage – she encouraged each new lawyer to cultivate a strong presence online through blogging, active engagement on social media, and other public legal writing. I immediately wondered whether this was the first time these new lawyers had gotten this advice. I also wondered how law schools currently educate and advise students about curating content in their online profiles, and whether law schools should do this at all. 

Writing publicly online, whether through social media, blogs, or otherwise, plays a role in how lawyers interact with both the public and each another. Above the Law reported recently that a majority of Americans – 54 percent – say they would be likely to hire a lawyer who is active on social media. Among Americans aged 18-44, this number increases to 69 percent. A U.S. News article has suggested that law students use social media for career development because of the rapidly changing legal landscape.

The legal profession was initially skeptical of the internet and social media, but this has changed in recent years. The American Bar Association's 2016 Legal Technology Survey Report indicates that nearly 90 percent of law firms have a website. Since 2013, roughly 26 percent of law firms have maintained a blog, though this number is much higher for larger firms. Among lawyers who maintain a law-based blog, 42 percent say that they have had clients retain them because of their blogging.

Source: ABA 2016 Legal Technology Survey Report

 

A Tweet for Victoria

I guess I struck a nerve with at least one reader with my recent column Highlights and Lowlights of the 2016 ABA Standard 509 Reports.  An anonymous commenter, with an e-mail address that suggests that her name is Victoria, wrote, regarding me:

The author of this post applied for jobs at two of the law schools attacked in this post. In fact, he had callback interviews at no less than two of the law schools attacked in this post (and perhaps more of which I am unaware). He is a failed academic with a bone to pick, using Faculty Lounge in much the same way our President-elect is using a Twitter account.

As readers of TFL well know, I was thrown out of my Dean interview at Florida Coastal, and I also once had a callback at LaVerne, but didn't get an offer, so Victoria's observation is quite right.  I don't mind being called a failed academic, but comparing me to the President-elect is really beyond the pale.  I mean, I don't even have a Twitter  account!  But if I did, I would respond to Victoria with this tweet:

@bonetopick - 

The difference between Trump and me
is apparent for all to see.
Trump told lies and got elected
I told the truth and got ejected.

 

Early Nineteenth Century Public Building Trivia

I've been very quiet this fall, as I've been attending to lots of other business -- teaching, scholarship, and otherwise -- and I'm guessing this will continue well into 2017.  Still, I had the chance recently to take a picture of a building that I've had my eye on for some time.  So I thought that I'd post a trivia question about it.  This is an early nineteenth century public building.  I'm not thinking this was a courthouse, but it was used for other public purposes.  Sorry I don't have a better image of this; I had a very limited amount of time that day and couldn't wait for the sun to get into a better position.  One of these days maybe I'll have a chance to go back there and dig into the county court records, especially the probate records from this place.  I'm certain there are some gems in there.

And let me say happy new year to everyone.

Andy Borowitz Is Wrong

Andy Borowitz is saying untrue things about Donald Trump, including his latest claim that Vladimir Putin is going to sing at the presidential inauguration:

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—After having difficulty persuading prominent entertainers to participate at the event, the Trump transition team announced on Sunday that the Russian President Vladimir Putin would sing at Donald J. Trump’s Inauguration next month.

In a brief statement from the Kremlin, Putin said, “I will be most delighted to perform for my comrade.”

The choice of Putin raised eyebrows in Washington, since the Russian, while famous for invading neighboring countries and imprisoning political opponents, is not particularly well known as a singer.

In fact, Russian President Putin is a very talented and well-known vocalist:

 

The Overlooked Bar Passage Denominator

    As I discussed in an earlier post, to understand bar passage problems requires more than a consideration of the preparation of the applicants for admission. If the exam becomes more difficult or its grading becomes stricter, the bar passage rate will decrease even if the quality of the applicants stays the same. Even David Frakt acknowledges this. See Some Thoughts on the California Bar Exam. Between the two of us, we have raised concern that both Florida and California have done exactly that—made the bar examination more difficult.

    The purpose of this post is to add at least one additional state to this list: Colorado. Professor Scott Johns has posted an article on SSRN that compares the results students from his school, the University of Denver, have seen on the Colorado bar exam over the last years. See Scott Johns, Testing the Testers: The National Conference of Bar Examiners' LSAT Claim and a Roller Coaster Bar Exam Ride. After a particularly strong presentation about the statistical methodology he used in his study, he showed that the results on the Colorado bar demonstrate that it has become harder. The basic fact established in his study is that the students entering the University of Denver have become stronger on the objective measurements (particularly the LSAT) over the last years, but their bar passage rates have nevertheless declined. As he states:

        As a law school that serves in a U[niform] B[ar] E[xamination] jurisdiction, we have a unique opportunity to evaluate the N[ational] C[onfrence of] B[ar] E[xaminers]’s primary claim that recent lower first-time bar passage rates are the consequence of declines in LSAT scores in contrast to more successful bar passage years. Based on empirical evidence, we do not find statistical support for the NCBE’s claim with respect to LSAT scores because those scores have remained relatively consistent (or slightly better) since 2008 (and since advent of the UBE in Colorado in 2012), and, yet, first-time bar passage rates have fallen for our law school. Simply put, the NCBE’s claim is unfounded, based on our empirical evidence.

Id. at 1.

    The fact that Colorado is a Uniform Bar Examination state is significant. It is not an unfair assumption that the declining success among applicants taking the UBE around the country (now, half of the states plus D.C. use the UBE) has a source that is in addition to changes in the student population being admitted to U.S. law schools. Some of the declining percentage of success on bar exams must be attributed to the denominator changing as bar exams have become more difficult to pass.

Highlights and Lowlights of the 2016 ABA Standard 509 Reports

The 2016 ABA 509 reports are out and there are some interesting things to report:

Let's Start with the "Hall of Shame" headed up, not surprisingly, by InfiLaw's three law schools: 

1.  Charlatan Law, I mean Charlotte Law, just placed on probation by the ABA, still doesn’t get it.  Their 2016 entering class profile is 148/144/141  3.07/2.80/2.48.  This is after their bar pass rate has come down from 62% in 2013 to 58% in 2014, to 46% in 2015 to somewhere in the low 40s for 2016 (in North Carolina, they had a 34.7% rate in February and a 45.2% rate in July).  Yet the school still admitted 1416 students and matriculated 343 students, an even larger class than last year’s entering class of 309, when what they should have done is cut the class size in half and tried to get to 151/149/147 3.2/3.0/2.8 to get back to some semblance of respectability.   Clearly, Dean Conartiston  decided to milk maximum profits out of the school for one more year.

2.  Florida Costly, that is, Florida Coastal: The September 19, 2016 letter by Florida Coastal Dean DeVito’s, which I wrote about previously, turns out to have been very misleading.  The letter stated, “We have raised our incoming LSAT requirements by five points and plan to raise it two more in the subsequent admission cycle.”  This suggested to me that Florida Coastal had already raised standards for the class that just started in the fall of 2016.  But in fact, they did no such thing.  In fact, they admitted a class almost identical to their sister school, Charlotte Law, with LSATs of 149/144/141 and UGPA of 3.27/2.87/2.57.   This class is also virtually identical to the class they admitted last year, at 148/144/141 3.29/2.88/2.54.   Meanwhile, having completely destroyed their reputation, the number of applications and the class size at FCSL continue to plummet.  Consider that in 2011, Florida Coastal had 5277 applications and matriculated 679 students.  This year, they had 1813 applications and enrollment is down to 235, almost 2/3 less on both counts.

3.  Arizona Plummet, er Summit somehow managed to convince 143 students to matriculate this fall, despite their incredibly dismal record of performance on the bar and in job placement.  The class they admitted is virtually identical to last year’s class in terms of credentials.  Both the 2015 and 2016 entering classes are at 148/143/140 with virtually identical grades as well – 3.34/2.88/2.54 last year and 3.31/2.96/2.54 this year.  Arizona Summit’s bar pass rate has gone from a respectable 72% in 2012, to 69% in 2013 to 52% (more than 21 points below the state average) in 2014, to 42% in 2015 (more than 24 points below the state average) to somewhere around 30% in 2016 (38.1 on the Arizona bar in February and 24.6% in July).  Arizona Summit is likely to be more than 30% below the state average for 2016.  So Arizona Summit is clearly out of compliance with ABA Standard 316 having been more than 15% below the state average 3 years in a row.  And they are clearly in violation of ABA Standard 501, for admitting students who do not appear capable of completing a J.D. and passing the bar.  In fact, the classes of 2015 and 2016 are even weaker than the class of 2013 that just bombed the bar in historic fashion.  The ABA must act immediately to stop this egregious exploitation.

Keith Ellison on Israel -- UPDATED

Rep. Keith Ellison (D. MN) is in the running for chair of the Democratic National Committee.  He has been endorsed by many party leaders -- including Chuck Schumer, Bill DiBlasio, and Bernie Sanders -- but he has also drawn opposition due to his presumed (or imagined) positions on Israel.  It is important for the record to be clear on Ellison, so here is the full text of his recent statement on the issue, as it appears on his website:

Keith Ellison Statement on Support for Israel

 Wednesday, November 23, 2016

Via Press Release

Washington, DC – Keith Ellison released the following statement today on his support for the state of Israel and a two-state solution:

"I support Israel. And I have long supported a two-state solution and a democratic and secure state for the Jewish people, with a democratic and viable Palestinian state side-by-side in peace and dignity.

"As I told Senator Schumer before he endorsed me, as Chair of the Democratic National Committee, I will continue to support the DNC platform, which I voted for as a member of the Platform Drafting Committee. The platform affirms:

Support for a strong and secure Israel, including its right of self-defense

Opposition to the BDS Movement

          Support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”  

Ellison has also been criticized because of his earlier association with the Nation of Island and  Louis Farrakhan (whom he once called a "role model for black youths").  Here is his apology and explanation, taken from his open letter to the Jewish community of Minnesota:

I did not adequately scrutinize the positions and statements of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, and Khalid Muhammed. I wrongly dismissed concerns that they were anti-Semitic. They were and are anti-Semitic and I should have come to that conclusion earlier than I did. I regret that I didn’t.

Ellison is a thoughtful and dynamic political leader who believes in building bridges and alliances among communities.  Like everyone, he has made mistakes.  Unlike many others, he has acknowledged and learned from them.  I don't have a strong opinion about his candidacy for the DNC chair, and there are other good candidates, including Labor Department Secretary Tom Perez.  But it is certainly wrong to oppose Ellison because of his position on Israel, which is absolutely mainstream in the Democratic Party. 

UPDATE:  Ellison also published an oped this month in the Minneapolis Start-Tribune, in which he said:

In my effort to pursue justice for the African-American community, I neglected to scrutinize the words of those such as Khalid Muhammad and Farrakhan who mixed a message of African-American empowerment with scapegoating of other communities. These men organize by sowing hatred and division, including anti-Semitism, homophobia and a chauvinistic model of manhood. I disavowed them long ago, condemned their views and apologized.

You can read the whole thing here.