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.

Posted by: Greg at 02:13 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 265 words, total size 3 kb.