The Faculty Lounge

Eighteenth Century Building Trivia

I've been focused of late on work and family and have not had much to say in the faculty lounge.  This will continue for some time yet, maybe quite some time.  However, I did have the chance to take a picture of an eighteenth century blacksmith shop.  Looks pretty grand for the middle of the eighteenth century, I have to confess, but this supposedly is from the middle of the eighteenth century.  

After I investigated this a little I realized that a subject from one of my first articles -- which was based on a register of hundreds of indentured servants -- may have visited this place.  Actually, now that I'm thinking on this, I want to post pictures of a few other places my subjects may have visited.  I'll get those next summer -- prime among them will be the iron furnaces of southeastern Pennsylvania.

Does anyone know where this blacksmith shop is?

Star Trek Copyright Infringement Claim Settles

I usually try to keep my geekery off the blog, but I've been watching the recent litigation involving the AXANAR (Star Trek fanfiction) film with interest in recent weeks. After the District Court for the Central District of California found on January 3 that the fanfiction film could not avail itself of the fair use defense to copyright infringement, the case went on to settle last week. The settlement reportedly includes the stipulation that the defendant adhere to a new set of fanfilm guidelines put forth by Paramount (which owns the relevant copyrights). These guidelines will likely affect future fanfilms. Presumably, if you adhere to the guidelines, you're working under a license from Paramount and won't have infringed copyright. The guidelines state that fanfilms have to be less than 15 minutes long and cannot use "Star Trek" in the title, among other things.

In some ways, it's actually helpful to fans when copyright holders set out guidelines like this, to make it clear precisely what fan activities are allowed with the copyright works. The Kindle Worlds program set up by Amazon a couple of years ago takes a similar approach to promulgating guidelines set out by the copyright holders of works included in the program to allow fans to make their own fanworks without infringing copyrights i.e., effectively under license from the copyright holders.

The downside is that it's possible, and indeed likely, that many of the guidelines now being put forth by copyright holders about fanfiction are actually more restrictive than, say, the fair use defense to copyright infringement might allow, but with the guidelines in place, many fans may take the path of least resistance (resistance is futile?) and comply with the guidelines for avoidance of doubt.

Creators of fanworks have not had much clear guidance from the law about when, and whether, their works are fair use - it's very difficult to make such determinations in the abstract and copyright law really requires these issues to be decided on a case by case basis. Several law professors (notably Rebecca Tushnet) have done a lot of extremely useful scholarly work over many years on fanfiction and copyright infringement, but we still have a long way to go in educating fan creators about their rights and obligations.

What kind of impact might the Star Trek infringement settlement have on the scope of fanfiction and fair use, if any? Or are we just seeing more of the same in the battle between content owners and fans?

Case Western VAP Announcement

Case Western Reserve University School of Law invites applications from entry-level or lateral candidates for a visiting assistant professor of law position beginning in the 2017-2018 academic year. Areas of focus include business law and tax, including Business Associations, Mergers & Acquisitions, Business Planning and Corporate Tax. This is a one-year visiting position with the possibility of a one-year renewal at the end of the contract term based on Law School needs. In employment, as in education, Case Western Reserve University is committed to Equal Opportunity and Diversity. Women, veterans, members of underrepresented minority groups, and individuals with disabilities are encouraged to apply. Interested candidates should send a CV and cover letter to, Professor Jonathan H. Adler, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, 11075 East Boulevard, Cleveland, OH 44106.

Extreme Petting (Flying While PAKISTAN - Part 4)

Parts 1 and 2 and 3 in this continuing series can be found here and here and here.

The past few days of protests at U.S. airports around the nation have been deeply moving and inspiring, but they also beg a fundamental question:  Where were these protestors during the ordinary racism of the Obama administration’s doubling-down on brown, black, and Muslim travelers to the United States over the past several years?  The Trump administration has certainly introduced a new level of chaos into the administration of U.S. Airport Law, but this set of legal conventions and practices has been deeply awful for many years now.  Moreover, this body of law’s problems will not be resolved by the kinds of ad hoc habeas corpus petitions, or even attempts for class action certifications, that we are witnessing in real-time.  To my mind, what is needed is something akin to the prison abolition movement, reframing airports away from being spaces of incarceration, to places of sympathy, hospitality, and justice.  To be sure, the past few days’ protests in airports—the fact that many of these protests have actually been happening within airport arrivals and baggage collection areas—have been nothing less than inspiring, transforming these places into spaces of (nascent) democratic dissent and debate.  But so much more is required—indeed, not only a dismantling of the Trump ‘customs and border protection’ project, but also the Obama-era airport project too.

There are several dimensions to such a dismantling effort but, for one, we must do something about the practice of Secondary Review, including its reintroduction of Colored Waiting Rooms into the experience of U.S. travel.  In previous blog-posts, I’ve described the spooky and racist Secondary Review process that thousands of (almost exclusively) non-white travelers are subjected to every day in U.S. airports.  It’s not enough that most people get released from these ‘special’ rooms; their segregated existence—architectural and racial—itself is a fundamental problem.  Their existence alchemizes John Fitzgerald Kennedy into Jim Fucking Krow.

Concerning JFK (in either formulation), I also believe that we need to be bringing critique not only to the overtly racist aspects of U.S. Airport Law, but also its sexual—and sexually violent—aspects.  The use of naked scanners in U.S. airports is certainly one aspect of all this, as is the TSA's fascination with touching African-American hair at airport security checkpoints, but so is what goes on in the secluded and segregated interrogations in U.S. airports and about which we rarely hear about.

I’m writing from Pakistan presently, where I’m spending the second half of a sabbatical.  When news of Trump’s recent executive order reached here, there was both surprise and shock that Pakistan had not been included in the initial list of countries subject to the travel ban.  (And if there is any explanation for this, other than clerical error, it has to somehow involve the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons.)  But then came the unsurprising word that, while not being formally banned, Pakistanis were going to be subject to what has been termed ‘extreme vetting,’ or what I think we might more accurately call—à propos Trump—‘extreme petting.’

I say this not in jest.  My last post in this series ended with me reentering the United States, at San Francisco airport, at the end of 2014.  I was re-entering the country after spending a year away, first in Germany on a research fellowship, and then as a Visiting Professor at the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS).  After navigating my second Secondary Review on my voyage from Lahore to Saint Louis—one infused with both racism and homophobia—and then a gauntlet of dogs at baggage collection, I was then detained again by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for a thorough examination of and questioning about the contents of all my luggage.  As I approached the counter where this happened, a portly middle-aged white man was assigned to go through my junk, and my exhausted heart skipped a beat.  In my life, I have often faced the most scrutiny of and skepticism about my interest in Pakistan from other white people—characterized by them as either hopelessly clueless about the threat that Pakistan threats to Western civilization (such as it may be) or, alternatively, as a kind of race traitor.  These sentiments have been expressed by academics and family alike, each invested in enforcing their own kind of anti-miscegenation norms.

As it happens, this CBP officer appeared to be suffering from his own form of exhaustion.  After he cursorily examined the contents of my two very large and heavy suitcases, as well as my overstuffed travel backpack, I decided to push my luck by asking him why I was being treated like this.  After he got me to promise that I wouldn’t publicize his name, he looked at his computer, and remarked:  “So I am not permitted to tell you why you are being flagged for this kind of scrutiny, but I can tell you that it is bullshit.”  He then proceeded to express frustration with having to go through the belongings, week after week, of regular and recognizable business travelers that passed through SFO. 

Perhaps suffering not only from jet-lag, but my own version of Stockholm Syndrome, I thanked him (?), and then quickly got the hell out of there.  Flashing through my mind were images of how it could have been much worse and, indeed, had been much worse—mental images not based on conjecture or third-person narratives but my own experience of being threatened with anal rape by a CBP officer at Detroit Metropolitan (DTW) airport on December 31, 2011.

Some Minor Edits to President Trump's Recent Executive Order on Immigration

Here is an excerpt from Section One of President Trump’s Executive Order entitled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.”

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

With a few minor edits, I was able to capture my feelings about this Executive Order, and turn it into some general advice.  My substitutions are in italics.

Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the President of the United States.

In order to protect Americans, the citizens of the United States must ensure that those admitted elected to lead this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The citizens of the United States cannot, and should not, admit elect those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent personal ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit elect those who encourage or engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, disability, political affiliation, national origin, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation.

Two Quotes from the New York Times Sunday Review

First, from "A Crime in the Cancer Lab," by Theodora Ross:

Only after gathering real evidence did we discover the truth. One good experiment (videotaping the event) was worth more than all the guesses -- all of which turned out to be wrong.

We need to test what we believe, not trust it.

Second, from "When Mrs. May Met 'Mr. Brexit,'" by Jonathan Coe (quoting Henry Fielding):

A very wholesome and comfortable doctrine, to which we have but one objection, namely, that it is not true.

Both quotes address the centrality of provable facts in law, social science, journalism, history, and other evidence-based disciplines.

 

The Anti-Abortion Movement and "Alternative Facts"

My daughter has this oped in The Hill today.

Here is the gist:

Defending patently false statements made by the administration, Conway stated on national television last week that they were simply offering “alternative facts.” It didn’t take long after that for sales of George Orwell’s novel 1984 to skyrocket . . . .

 

One doesn’t need to look to 1984 to imagine what an “alternative fact”- filled administration might produce. Dangerous "alternative facts" have been the norm in anti-abortion advocacy for decades.

 

An Update on the Charlotte Law School Faculty Firings

In my last post, I incorrectly reported that up to two-thirds of Charlotte Law Faculty had been terminated, based on early reports from other media sources.  I have now had the opportunity to gather more reliable information, and can report that just under half of the instructional faculty were terminated, in what the school has described as a “reduction in force.”

In all, it appears that 18 of 39 teaching faculty members were terminated.  In addition, the Associate Dean of Library & Information Services and the Director of Academic Success were axed. Disturbingly, for a school comprised almost entirely of high risk students and with an extremely poor and declining bar passage rate, two of four academic success lecturers were terminated, and two of three bar passage lecturers were also fired.   The firings were across all ranks, including two of four full professors, four of ten associate professors, and seven of sixteen assistant professors.  The school also fired three full-time clinical faculty members, denying their requests for a reasonable opportunity to wind down their many active cases, placing them in a difficult ethical position.

The faculty is not only much smaller now, but is substantially less diverse, as the firings fell disproportionately on women and minority members of the faculty.  Of the 18 members of the faculty fired, fully half were minorities and 11 were women. Overall 9 of the 18 faculty members of color were fired (50%) and 11 of the 18 women faculty members were fired (61%), while just 3 of 14 white men were fired (21%).  Dean Jay Conison, another white male, did not fire himself, either.

As disturbing as these numbers are, the way in which the firings was carried out is perhaps even more disturbing.  The fired faculty members, including some with up to four and half years remaining on their employment contracts, were given less than two weeks notice until the termination of their pay and benefits, and were reportedly offered only one month’s pay, with no benefits, in severance, even for professors with many years of service to the school. The receipt of this severance was conditioned on the signing of a general release of all claims against the school and agreeing to a non-disparagement clause and other terms designed to prevent the faculty members from airing the school’s dirty laundry (and there is plenty of it, trust me).

Charlotte School of Law has characterized the firings as a reduction in force, but multiple faculty members have reported to me that the administration did not comply with the contractual requirements for declaring a reduction in force, making the legality of the terminations questionable, to say the least.

Many of the faculty members are consulting with counsel and weighing their legal options.  Expect multiple lawsuits by the faculty in addition to the multiple lawsuits already filed by students.

University of Arkansas, Torts Lateral

The University of Arkansas School of Law, Fayetteville, has a current opening for a tenure track Associate or Full Professor of Law. The law school is focused on hiring an individual with experience teaching first-year Torts and associated upper level classes. Other duties will include scholarly research and service activities for the School of Law. Minimum qualifications include a JD degree or international law degree, tenure track teaching experience, and a distinguished academic record. Preferred qualifications include holding a law license and having two years of practical legal experience. The law school is hoping to find a candidate to begin either in the Fall of 2017 or Spring of 2018.

A complete position announcement may be viewed at the University Human Resources' job portal: http://jobs.uark.edu/postings/18286

The University of Arkansas-Fayetteville, located in the northwest corner of the state, is the flagship campus of the University of Arkansas. The University of Arkansas is an equal opportunity, affirmative action institution. The University welcomes applications without regard to age, race/color, gender (including pregnancy), national origin, disability, religion, marital or parental status, protected veteran status, military service, genetic information, sexual orientation or gender identity. Persons must have proof of legal authority to work in the United States on the first day of employment. All applicant information is subject to public disclosure under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act.

Applicants with questions may contact Professor Steve Clowney, Chair, Faculty Appointments Committee, at sclowney@uark.edu.

 

Holocaust Scholars' Letter to the Senate about President Trump's Nominee for Ambassador to Israel

 

The letter below is being circulated among Holocaust scholars for presentation to the Senate.  I thought it would be of interest to law professors and legal historians:

 

Dear Senator,

As scholars specializing in study of the Holocaust, we strongly object to the way President Donald Trump’s nominee to be US ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, has distorted and misused events during that tragic period in order to advance his own political goals.

In approaching the Holocaust, we believe that one must show scrupulous respect for the facts as well as respect for the victims in all their humanity. We must also acknowledge the unique nature of the tragedy we are describing. To do otherwise is to dilute the moral and historical significance of this subject in human history.

We are especially troubled that Mr. Friedman has repeatedly compared fellow members of the Jewish community whose views on Israel differ from his own to “kapos” or even “worse than kapos.”

The historical record shows that kapos were Jews whom the Nazis forced, at pain of death, to serve them in the concentration and extermination camps. These Jews faced terrible dilemmas, but ultimately were made into unwilling tools of Nazi brutality. To brand one’s political opponents, members of one’s own community, as kapos, merely for engaging in legitimate debate, is historically indefensible and is a deeply disturbing example of the abuse of the Holocaust and its victims for present political gain.  

Mr. Friedman also trivialized the murder of six million Jews in the Holocaust in an effort to discredit women who accused Donald Trump of sexual assault.  At that time, he declared, “While the revelation of Mr. Trump’s demeaning comments caught on tape some 11 years ago brought him, as one would expect, widespread negative attention, The New York Times ran with the story with all the journalistic integrity of the worst gossip rag. If only the Times had reported on the Nazi death camps with the same fervor as its failed last-minute attempt to conjure up alleged victims of Donald Trump, imagine how many lives could have been saved.”  

Reporting on the Holocaust as it occurred is a complex historical question Friedman oversimplified for the sake of politically expediency.  Coverage of the serious allegations against President Trump is wholly unrelated to the Holocaust.  We reject the use of the Holocaust to reinforce contemporary political messages and view this tactic as grossly trivializing the historical reality of the death and concentration camps.

These examples show a callous disregard for history and for the suffering of the victims of Nazism.  As such, they are unbefitting of one who would become a diplomatic representative of the United States and call into serious question his capacity to serve the United States honorably and successfully in this role.

We hope that you will keep Mr. Friedman’s disrespectful and politically cynical use of the Holocaust in mind as you consider his nomination to serve as our ambassador to Israel.

** All signatories are signing as individual scholars and do not necessarily represent the views of their institutions.

 

 

 

Fellow, Stanford Center for Law and History

The Center: 

The Stanford Center for Law and History, directed by Professor Amalia Kessler, brings together faculty and students from across Stanford University’s many schools and departments (and beyond) to participate in a broad range of conferences, workshops, and lectures devoted to examining the multifaceted interrelationships between law and history (without geographic, temporal, or other subject-area limitations). 

The Goal:
This fellowship is intended for people who have completed (or will soon complete) their training in law and history and who seek to pursue an academic career at the intersection of the two fields. 

The Fellowship:
The Stanford Center for Law and History is a residential fellowship that provides an opportunity to conduct research in the dynamic environment of Stanford University.  We prefer two-year fellowships to help the fellow complete a significant body of independent scholarship, but we are willing to consider one-year terms.  We expect that fellows will dedicate most of their time to pursuing their proposed research projects but will also devote some time to organizing and implementing other Center activities, including an ongoing workshop series and an annual conference.  Fellows are encouraged to become part of a lively law-school-wide community of individuals with an interest in academia by attending weekly faculty lunch seminars and by participating in activities with the other fellows at Stanford Law School to learn more about one another’s scholarship and about academic life more generally.  In addition, fellows are encouraged to attend and participate in the broad range of lectures and workshops available within the broader university, including inter alia, the History Department and the Stanford Humanities Center. 

For the 2017-2018 fellowship, we will provide a workspace, a competitive salary, and a generous benefits package.  Applicants who have completed (or are soon to complete) both a J.D. and a Ph.D in history are strongly preferred. 

The Application Process:
All applicants should apply through the Stanford Careers website, Job Number 73767: https://stanfordcareers.stanford.edu/job-search?jobId=73767, and should include the following: (1) a CV; (2) a sample of academic writing; (3) a research proposal of no more than five double-space pages (briefly outlining past work but focused primarily on research to be undertaken during the fellowship); and (4) official transcripts of all academic work pursued in college, as well as in graduate programs.  In addition, (5) applicants should provide two letters of recommendation, to be emailed directly by the recommenders themselves to Molly Pahkamaa at mpahkama@law.stanford.edu. 

All applications should be submitted no later than Tuesday, February 28, 2017.

SUNY Buffalo Lecturer in Law Job Posting

The University at Buffalo School of Law invites applications for the position of Lecturer in Law in its Legal Analysis, Writing, and Research (LAWR) Program. The LAWR Program provides intensive skills training to first-, second-, and third-year law students with a strong emphasis on small-group and individual learning. This position involves a full-time 12-month University appointment for an initial period of two years, beginning in the summer of 2017, with an assumption that at least one subsequent three-year appointment will follow. The possibility of renewing these appointments after the initial five-year period also is assumed. One or two positions will be filled, at a salary of $60,000 per year. Applications will be accepted until the position or positions have been filled.

Barnard and Slavery

Amidst all the excellent discussion of Columbia University and slavery, it may be time to talk about Barnard College's connection to slavery.  This connection is more oblique -- because Barnard was founded after the Civil War.  Barnard is named for Frederick Barnard, who before the War was a professor at Alabama and later Chancellor of the University of Mississippi.  While at Mississippi, he expelled a student who had attacked one of his female slaves. There's more to this story in University, Court, and Slave.

Freedom of Speech for Fordham Students?

Fordham University recently denied an application from Students for Justice in Palestine to form an official campus organization. As reported by Inside Higher Ed, the dean of students gave the following explanation:

While students are encouraged to promote diverse political points of view, and we encourage conversation and debate on all topics, I cannot support an organization whose sole purpose is advocating political goals of a specific group, and against a specific country, when these goals clearly conflict with and run contrary to the mission and values of the University.

There is perhaps no more complex topic than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it is a topic that often leads to polarization rather than dialogue. The purpose of the organization as stated in the proposed club constitution points toward that polarization. Specifically, the call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions of Israel presents a barrier to open dialogue and mutual learning and understanding.

As a private institution, Fordham is not bound by the First Amendment, but the restriction on students' associations certainly seems to violate general principles of academic freedom, including the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students, which has been endorsed by the AAUP, Association of American Colleges and Universities, the National Student Association, and other organizations, and which provides:

Students bring to the campus a variety of interests previously acquired and develop many new interests as members of the academic community. They should be free to organize and join associations to promote their common interests. . . .

Students and student organizations should be free to examine and discuss all questions of interest to them, and to express opinions publicly and privately. They should always be free to support causes by orderly means which do not disrupt the regular and essential operation of the institution. At the same time, it should be made clear to the academic and the larger community that in their public expressions or demonstrations students or student organizations speak only for themselves.

 Members of the Fordham faculty have submitted a petition seeking revocation of the decision and immediate approval of the SJP application.  Of particular significance is this paragraph:

Those of us signing this petition have a range of opinions on issues related to Israel and Palestine, and on the best approach to addressing those issues. Some of us firmly oppose the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS); some of us strongly support it; some of us hold other views. But we all agree that this decision violates basic principles that are essential to the kind of university Fordham purports to be. Students' freedom of speech and freedom of association, including the freedom to advocate for a cause, are central to academic freedom. And academic freedom is a value we treasure as faculty members.

In addition, Palestine Legal has submitted a lengthy letter to the Fordham administration on behalf of SJP, summarizing (in its view) the extended process that led to the denial of recognition. The letter argues that Fordham has "betrayed principles of free speech" and that "the students interested in starting SJP were delayed over a year, interrogated, railroaded and ultimately censored because some students and faculty disagree with SJP’s viewpoint supporting Palestinian rights." It also raises the possibility of litigation under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and consequent loss of federal funding, due to discrimination based on national origin.

There is, of course, a certain irony to SJP's academic freedom claims, given the organization's own commitment to the boycott of Israeli academic institutions. SJP claims the right of "free inquiry" for itself, but it would deny all other Fordham students the right to hear speakers sponsored by, say, Hebrew University or the Technion. And it extends beyond boycott advocacy. SJP chapters at other campuses, including UC Irvine and Loyola Chicago, have been disciplined for disrupting Israeli speakers, which is a tactic that the Fordham chapter has not (to my knowledge) disavowed.

Nonetheless, academic freedom and free speech principles exist for the protection of everyone, including those who do not adhere to the principles themselves. The Fordham SJP chapter ought to have been granted official status without prior restraint. Disruptive conduct, if any, could be disciplined after the occurrence. 

Health Law VAP, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law

The Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law invites applications for a visiting assistant professor position for 2017-18. The position would primarily involve teaching courses in the Health Law curricula and participation in the scholarly and student-centered activities organized by the law school’s Hall Center for Law and Health.

 

Applicants should indicate what Health Law courses they could offer and any additional courses they would be interested in teaching.

 

Please submit a letter of interest, a cv, and a list of three references to: Vice Dean Antony Page, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law at page@iu.edu  and Professor Nicolas Terry, terry@iupui.edu. The closing date for applications is Friday, February 24, 2017.

 

We are committed to achieving excellence through intellectual diversity and strongly encourage applications from persons of color, women, persons with disabilities, the LGBT community, veterans, and members of other groups that are under-represented on university faculties. The law school is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Institution and offers domestic partner benefits. 

 

University of Louisville Dean Finalists

The finalists in the University of Louisville dean search are here.  They are Colin Crawford, Susan Duncan, Wesley Oliver, and Geoffrey Rapp.

Lincoln and Liberty/Rosin the Beau

This post from a few days ago included a video of Ronnie Gilbert singing Lincoln's campaign song, written by the Hutchinson Family Singers, which used the melody from the Irish song Rosin the Beau.  But the Hutchinsons were far from the first to adapt old songs for political purposes.

This song, The Men of the West, is about the Wexford Rebellion of 1798:

 

Law Students Seek Faculty Support Of Letter Opposing Andrew Puzder

This just in:

Resisting Injustice & Standing for Equality (RISE), a new law student organization started at NYU Law, is collecting signatures on a national law student & faculty sign-on letter opposing the nomination of CKE Restaurants CEO Andrew Puzder for Secretary of Labor. The letter will be sent to the members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee, which will hold a hearing on the nomination

The letter explains in detail (with citations) why Mr. Puzder's history and views would make him a Secretary who is actively hostile to working people. Read the letter and then click here to add your name. Affiliations will be listed for identification purposes only.

-Hugh Baran & Eric Phillips, NYU Law '17
Resisting Injustice & Standing for Equality (RISE)
@LawStudentsRISE
hugh.baran@law.nyu.edu & edp294@nyu.edu

The Debacle Unfolds at Charlotte Law School

Over the last 36 hours, Dean Jay Conison has informed the majority of the Charlotte Law School Faculty, perhaps two-thirds or more, that they are being fired.   Yesterday, Department of Education Under Secretary Ted Mitchell sent an e-mail to students informing them that negotiations with Charlotte School of Law had fallen through.  Charlotte had repeatedly informed students that an agreement in principle had been reached and a final deal with the DOE was imminent.  Mitchell's e-mail  confirmed that an agreement had been reached but informed the students:  

Since reaching that agreement with CSL, the department has been working to memorialize the agreement in writing while encouraging CSL to be fully transparent about student options under the agreement. . . CSL, however, has since rejected what it had previously accepted and has informed the department that it will not be accepting the conditions set.

Today Dean Conison sent an extraordinary announcement to the students attempting to explain why the long-awaited deal with the Department of Education had fallen through.  Dean Conison directly contradicted the DOE's characterization of the events in an e-mail reproduced here in full:

From: Jay Conison 
Date: January 19, 2017 at 11:53:20 AM EST
Subject: Update

Dear Students, Faculty, Staff, and Alumni of the Charlotte School of Law:

In the face of an extraordinary message from the political leadership of the Department of Education, we are writing to assure our students that the School will be open for classes this Monday, January 23 for the start of the Spring 2017 semester. We are continuing to work aggressively to protect our students’ rights.  As we said in our earlier statement, we are not holding our students’ education hostage to these negotiations. 

As you know, on December 19, 2016, the Department of Education decided to abruptly, and without proper cause, justification or the barest semblance of due process, end the Charlotte School of Law’s participation in the Title IV student aid programs.  We believe that the Department’s action, specifically substituting its judgment for that of the American Bar Association, which continues to accredit the School, is contrary to federal law and the Department’s own regulations.

Since December 19, we have been working to protect the interest of our students. In particular, we have been negotiating with the Department to secure the payment of federal loan funds already awarded to many of our students for their education and find a path forward that affords protection and flexibility to all of our students affected by the Department’s reckless action.

Until now, we have avoided public discussion of the details of those negotiations in the hope of facilitating an agreement. However, the extraordinary statement that the Department sent directly to our students yesterday no longer makes that possible. 

Perhaps the Department’s message represents the understanding of some Department officials. However, it does not accurately describe our negotiations, and it does not convey the way in which the Department’s position would deprive our students of the ability to continue their legal education. 

Students who received a Fall 2016 Direct Loan disbursement and are entitled to a second disbursement this Spring will be credited with the anticipated loan proceeds for their tuition and fees.  We intend to vigorously pursue our students’ rights to receive their additional loan disbursements with the new leadership of the Department and to ensure all of our students have the opportunity to complete their program.  

It is very important to correct several points in the Department’s statement that grossly mischaracterize our negotiations. We must also explain the potential impact of the Department’s planned actions on students of the Charlotte School of Law.

The bottom line for the current leadership in the Department is that the School must immediately close. Students graduating in May would receive their Charlotte School of Law J.D. However, every other student would find himself or herself out of school at the end of May. 

3Ls scheduled to graduate in August or December and 2Ls with one year to the completion of their programs would face very, very limited options.  The Department’s intended treatment of our students is not acceptable.  The Department refers to a loan discharge as a benefit for these students, but getting a loan discharge does not give students back their two or three years of hard work. And students would have to give up their hard work since —and this is not mentioned in the Department’s statement—to obtain a discharge a student would have to agree not to use the credits earned at CSL to transfer to another school.

The Department claims that the School of Law accepted this plan, and then reneged.  That is absolutely not true. 

After intense discussions, we accepted a two–page plan provided by the Department’s Office of Federal Student Assistance. Thisplan called for the School to enter into a teach-out with another institution and subsequently “close.” That is typical for a teach-out. But it was only when we received a seven-page proposed agreement from a different unit of the Department that we learned—as we explained above—that the Department’s intention was to allow our students to be taught out only until May, 2017. After that, the teach-out would end, and with it the legal education of most of our students.

As soon as we understood the Department’s position, we vigorously objected. We told the Department personnel with whom we were negotiating that we would not agree to deny our students the opportunity to complete their program. 

We also very clearly informed the Department that its proposed path would not be permitted by the North Carolina agency that licenses non-public institutions of higher education seeking to operate in the state.  In fact, that agency has informed our local counsel in no uncertain terms that the form of teach-out the Department proposed, with Florida Coastal School of Law directly conducting post-secondary activity in North Carolina in place of the Charlotte School of Law, would not be allowed.  The planned teach-out—regardless of duration—could take place only if we remained an active institution, delivering curriculum and awarding degrees under its license and in compliance with agency rules and standards under North Carolina law, albeit under the supervision of the teach-out school, Florida Coastal School of Law. 

We repeatedly reminded Department officials of this critical state law requirement. But instead of respecting the authority of the State of North Carolina to oversee post-secondary education within its jurisdiction, and instead of accepting the plan that was originally put forward by its own Office of Federal Student Assistance, the current Department leadership insisted on pushing on with its goal of precipitously closing the Charlotte School of Law, without regard for the harm that would cause our students. 

Throughout these negotiations, we have sought to ensure that our students would have the best opportunity to complete their program and earn a J.D. from the School. It is regrettable that the Department of Education leadership, in the very last days of its tenure, has chosen to jeopardize the future of all of our students. 

We are very proud of our students. Our graduates pass the bar, get good jobs, serve their communities, help diversify the legal profession and repay their federal student loans. That is why we will be open for the Spring 2017 semester on Monday, and why are working to ensure that our students have the opportunity and the resources they need to continue and to complete their legal education.  And that is why we will continue to fight aggressively for the interests of every one of our students when the new Administration takes responsibility for the Department on Monday, January 23rd.

President Chidi Ogene and Dean Jay Conison

 

In further developments, Charlotte has finally released a class schedule, which included a substantially pared-down list of course offerings.  Dean Conison fired several clinical faculty members as well, so the clinical offerings have been reduced, and there is no plan in place to address the needs of the many clients that the now shuttered clinics were actively representing.

Dean Conison did not respond to a request from Law School Transparency to provide information about the number of students that he expects to register.  Large numbers of students have reportedly transferred to other law schools, but many students who could have transferred chose to remain based on the repeated promises of Dean Conison and President Ogene that they were going to work something out which would enable them to receive federal loan disbursements for the spring.  Many of these students now feel betrayed once again by the school.

Although Charlotte is preparing a teach-out plan to submit to the ABA,  and appears on the brink of closure, sources within the school indicate that Infilaw has not yet given up on the school.  Their current plan is to substantially cut costs and try to ride things out this semester, while appealing to the incoming Trump administration, which Infilaw expects to be more friendly to the for-profit education industry, to reinstate their eligibility for federal loans, since the school remains ABA-accredited.  Meanwhile, the school, which has had four straight years of progressively more disastrous bar results (despite offering significant payments to weaker graduates to defer taking the bar), is bracing for their worst bar results yet this July, as the historically weak part-time entering class of 2013 and full-time entering class of 2014 prepare to graduate this summer.  Incidentally, among those fired by the Dean in the last 36 hours are three of the school's bar coaches.   

Last week, Charlotte Faculty held a vote of no-confidence in the leadership team of Dean Conison and President Ogene.  Apparently, the students were not the only ones who were unaware of the trouble the school was in with the ABA.  The Administration reportedly concealed the extent of the problems from the faculty, and did not seek timely faculty input in how to address the ABA's concerns.   

As always, I will keep you posted on further developments as I become aware of them.

 

 

State Nicknames

An article on Slate includes this "Odd and Obsolete 19th Century Nickname Map of the American States (click on map to enlarge it):

The map was a promotion by H.W. Hill & Co., a livestock supply firm whose products included "Calf & Cow Weaners," and it included still-current nicknames such as Hoosier and Buckeye, as well as now-obsolete nicknames such as Whelp (Tennessee) and Bug Eater (Nebraska).

Rebecca Onion, the author of the Slate piece, refers to the Illinois nickname -- Suckers -- as "unfortunate," but that was not how it was viewed in the 1800s.  "Suckers" is thought to have been a reference to the easily accessible water table on the Illinois prairie, meaning that water could almost be sucked out of the ground (a great advantage in an agricultural society dependent on wells).

Abe Lincoln had no problem calling himself a sucker, and the reference was part of his campaign song, "Lincoln and Liberty," which included this chorus:

We'll go for the son of Kentucky,

The hero of Hoosierdom through,

The pride of the suckers so lucky:

It's Lincoln and Liberty, too.

Here is Ronnie Gilbert's rendition (the music begins at :40):

 

The melody was taken from an old Irish song, Rosin the Beau:

 

[NOTE: This post has been edited by changing the version of Rosin the Beau]