In light of the handling of the Chemerinsky hiring, there is only one conclusion.
The University of California at Irvine clearly has misdirected its search efforts. It has been looking for a law school dean. But what it really needs is a new chancellor.
Now for all I take issue with Scott Horton's "right wing kooks" assertion in the paragraph before his conclusion, it is beyond doubt that he is correct in his conclusion. But I wonder -- would Horton be so ready to leap to the defense of a conservative scholar whose politics were opposed by "left wing kooks"? Or more to the point, as so often happens on campus, by left-wing faculty members (many of whom might reasonably be described as kooks)? Is it only the right wing which Horton believes should not have a veto? Or is it his belief that no political interest group should be permitted a veto in academic matters?
And would Horton care to engage in a little bit of intellectual honesty and note that many of us "right wing kooks", including some of the most respected voices on the right side of the blogosphere, who spoke out in defense of Chemerinsky?
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, The Populist, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, , Conservative Cat, Jo's Cafe, Stageleft, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, and The Pink Flamingo, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
 |
Trackback Information for What UC-Irvine Really Needs
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/224800Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'What UC-Irvine Really Needs'.
Comments on What UC-Irvine Really Needs
I believe that a large number of serious scholars of liberal, conservative and moderate political orientation have spoken out on this matter. I wouldn't call any of them right-wing kooks, nor do I consider conservatives to merit that label. It applies to those on the right who have a pathological intolerance for opposing views. And there are people on the left, particularly in ideologically oriented groups, who suffer the same short-sightedness. The issue is whether scholars who are admired for their scholarship, and administrators who competently manage things should suffer job discrimination for their particular views. Academia has and benefits from people with a wide variety of perspectives on political and social issues--they contribute to an atmosphere of robust discussion which is conducive to the learning environment.
|| Posted by Scott Horton, September 16, 2007 01:54 PM ||I'm curious, Scott -- what do you think about the cancellation of Larry Summers' speech by the UC system at the insistence of left-wing "scholars" who considered him inappropriate because of his offense against PC?
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, September 16, 2007 02:09 PM ||I am a big fan of Larry Summers and don't approve of the way he was driven out of Harvard. And I certainly don't approve of efforts to chase away visiting eminent scholars because people dislike their politics. One of my most vivid recollections from college was trying to go see one of my heroes, Friedrich von Hayek, speak and watching him leave the hall because of some juvenile thugs whose protests prevented him from being heard. A university works when a wide range of ideas can be entertained; without that, it's not a university.
|| Posted by Scott Horton, September 16, 2007 09:17 PM ||Agreed.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, September 17, 2007 03:12 AM ||Post a comment