When I got my masters degree 20 years ago, my area of focus was US Constitutional law. Over the years, I've worked to keep current in that field. And while I've not always agreed with him, I've always respected the work of Erwin Chemerinsky. His expertise and competence are beyond question, even if his conclusions are not. That is why I am outraged by the decision to dump him from the position of dean of the new University of California -- Irvine law school.

In a showdown over academic freedom, a prominent legal scholar said Wednesday that the University of California, Irvine's chancellor had succumbed to conservative political pressure in rescinding his contract to head the university's new law school, a charge the chancellor vehemently denied.

Erwin Chemerinsky, a well-known liberal expert on constitutional law, said he had signed a contract Sept. 4, only to be told Tuesday by Chancellor Michael V. Drake that he was voiding their deal because Chemerinsky was too liberal and the university had underestimated "conservatives out to get me."

Later Wednesday, however, Drake said there had been no outside pressure and that he had decided to reject Chemerinsky, now of Duke University and formerly of the University of Southern California, because he felt the law professor's commentaries were "polarizing" and would not serve the interests of California's first new public law school in 40 years.

Whether or not there was political pressure brought to bear, the firing of Chemerinsky by a public educational institution over his political orientation is simply wrong. And just as I would in the case of a conservative legal scholar, I wish to register my disgust with the decision to do so. It is clear that Chancellor Drake, not Professor Chemerinsky, needs to go.

And I'm not alone on the right in registering my opposition to this move. They include Hugh Hewitt, Glenn Reynolds, John Leo, Steven Greenhut, Stephen Bainbridge the esteemed crew from Volokh Conspiracy, B. Daniel Blatt (of GayPatriot), and Ed Morissey. I'm proud to stand in such company

UPDATE -- 9/14/07: Today's Washington Post has an interesting overview of the controversy.