No Comment — September 15, 2007, 9:33 am

The Michael V. Drake Affair

The politically controversial chancellor of the University of California at Irvine, ophthalmologist Michael V. Drake, is now the center of a storm of controversy as a result of his decision first to hire and then to fire Erwin Chemerinsky as dean of the nascent UCI law school. Chemerinsky is an eminent figure in legal studies, and as an academic star clearly several magnitudes brighter than Drake. The decision to fire him thus provoked an immediate firestorm in the academic world. But adding insult to injury, Drake then proceeded to trash Chemerinsky in what was clearly intended as a posterior-covering op-ed run in the Los Angeles Times:

I made a management decision–not an ideological or political one–to rescind the offer to Professor Chemerinsky . . .

That claim is certainly untrue and is exposed by Drake’s other explanations—which all point to politics—and by his inability to articulate what “management” factors controlled the decision. Moreover, just one day earlier, in an interview with the Washington Post, Drake was slippery but not engaged in the rank deceit that marked the Los Angeles Times op-ed. He stated:

Chemerinsky’s accessibility to the media made [Drake] uneasy “because my feeling was, if we had a problem–as the last couple of days show–that it would be huge.”

So there you have it: the problem was Chemerinsky’s media prominence as a legal affairs commentator with a liberal perspective, critical of the administration. Of course other law schools around the country work feverishly to place their faculty members as credible experts commenting on such public affairs matters—it’s a critical indicator of success. So Drake’s comment is, from a management perspective, irrational. . . unless the concern is indeed not about Chemerinsky’s appearance but the content of his views.

And to whom is Drake pandering? Current public opinion polls suggest that roughly 70% of the American public believe that the Bush Administration has undermined the nation’s rule-of-law traditions, so Chemerinsky reflects a critical posture which has extremely deep and broad acceptance among the American public. He also reflects views, such as opposition to the death penalty, which are “substantial minority” positions. Chemerinsky’s political views have never been disguised. In fact he is a public figure and well known because of them—and in particular because of his representation of CIA covert operative Valerie Plame, who was the victim of a career-ending criminal act (disclosure of her covert status at the CIA) which, in the view of Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, was orchestrated and directed by Vice President Cheney. And on those points, too, roughly 60-70% of public opinion lines up with Chemerinsky.

So how did Chemerinsky get taken down? He was the target of a quiet political vendetta of a kind now practiced with increasing frequency and effect. And thanks to the Associated Press, we now know in some detail just how it was carried out:

A conservative Los Angeles County politician asked about two dozen people in an e-mail last month how to prevent the University of California, Irvine from hiring renowned liberal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky as its founding law school dean, a spokesman for the politician said Friday. Making Chemerinsky the head of the law school “would be like appointing al-Qaida in charge of homeland security,” Michael Antonovich, a longtime Republican member of the county Board of Supervisors, said in a voicemail left with The Associated Press.

He was not available for further comment on why he was getting involved in the situation at a campus located outside his jurisdiction in Orange County. Antonovich’s e-mail “expressed his dismay with the choice for the dean of the law school and suggested that this was the wrong decision and it should be changed,” said Tony Bell, a spokesman for the supervisor.Antonovich, a local GOP stalwart, was first elected in 1980. He is a staunch conservative who has supported crackdowns on illegal immigrants, and voted against tax increases and HIV-prevention programs that distribute free syringes.

He clashed with Chemerinsky in the past when the professor supported the removal of a cross from the county seal. The Antonovich e-mail was disclosed after UCI Chancellor Michael V. Drake withdrew an offer earlier this week to appoint Chemerinsky to the law school post. Chemerinsky, a frequent legal commentator who represented exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame, has repeatedly said Drake told him he was out because he was “too politically controversial” due to his liberal activism.

The dismissal outraged UCI’s faculty members, who launched an online petition urging Drake to reconsider his decision. By Friday, more than 350 faculty, students and alumni had signed the petition. Some were calling for Drake’s resignation. Faculty on the dean selection committee also warned that the opening date of the law school, set for 2009, might be delayed because of the time needed to find a new candidate. “What’s happened here is so outrageous, it’s beyond anything that anybody could have imagined happening,” said Mark P. Petracca, chair of the political science department.

But the career trajectory of Michael Drake also involved politically controversial stances. If Drake is known for one thing it is his staunch opposition to California’s Proposition 209. Approved by California voters in 1996, Proposition 209 prohibited discrimination based on race, ethnicity or sex—it was pushed to impede traditional affirmative action programs.

Drake’s views were politically controversial. Drake suffered no adverse consequences for this in his political career; indeed, he clearly benefited. There’s nothing wrong with that. What’s wrong is penalizing a person for political views, particularly based on a perception that he is somehow out of step with the mainstream.

Actually, Chemerinsky’s views are clearly to the left of center, but not far from the center, particularly by the libertarian standards of California. But why should this matter? What should count is his scholarship, his administrative capabilities, his potential as a leader for a new institution.

But this is about something else. It is not the content of Chemerinsky’s political and social views. It is the claim of some right-wing kooks to exercise a veto power over academic appointments, a claim to which Drake has very foolishly acquiesced. In doing this, Drake has fundamentally betrayed his duties to the two communities he serves—the community of students and scholars which constitute the university, and the broader society with which they interact and which they serve.

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.

Share
Single Page

More from Scott Horton:

Conversation August 5, 2016, 12:08 pm

Lincoln’s Party

Sidney Blumenthal on the origins of the Republican Party, the fallout from Clinton’s emails, and his new biography of Abraham Lincoln

Conversation March 30, 2016, 3:44 pm

Burn Pits

Joseph Hickman discusses his new book, The Burn Pits, which tells the story of thousands of U.S. soldiers who, after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, have developed rare cancers and respiratory diseases.

Context, No Comment August 28, 2015, 12:16 pm

Beltway Secrecy

In five easy lessons

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

December 2017

Destroyer of Worlds

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Crossing Guards

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“I am Here Only for Working”

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Dear Rose

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Year of The Frog

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Dead Ball Situation

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Destroyer of Worlds·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In February 1947, Harper’s Magazine published Henry L. Stimson’s “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.” As secretary of war, Stimson had served as the chief military adviser to President Truman, and recommended the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The terms of his unrepentant apologia, an excerpt of which appears on page 35, are now familiar to us: the risk of a dud made a demonstration too risky; the human cost of a land invasion would be too high; nothing short of the bomb’s awesome lethality would compel Japan to surrender. The bomb was the only option. Seventy years later, we find his reasoning unconvincing. Entirely aside from the destruction of the blasts themselves, the decision thrust the world irrevocably into a high-stakes arms race — in which, as Stimson took care to warn, the technology would proliferate, evolve, and quite possibly lead to the end of modern civilization. The first half of that forecast has long since come to pass, and the second feels as plausible as ever. Increasingly, the atmosphere seems to reflect the anxious days of the Cold War, albeit with more juvenile insults and more colorful threats. Terms once consigned to the history books — “madman theory,” “brinkmanship” — have returned to the news cycle with frightening regularity. In the pages that follow, seven writers and experts survey the current nuclear landscape. Our hope is to call attention to the bomb’s ever-present menace and point our way toward a world in which it finally ceases to exist.

Illustration by Darrel Rees. Source photographs: Kim Jong-un © ITAR-TASS Photo Agency/Alamy Stock Photo; Donald Trump © Yuri Gripas/Reuters/Newscom
Article
Crossing Guards·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Ambassador Bridge arcs over the Detroit River, connecting Detroit to Windsor, Ontario, the southernmost city in Canada. Driving in from the Canadian side, where I grew up, is like viewing a panorama of the Motor City’s rise and fall, visible on either side of the bridge’s turquoise steel stanchions. On the right are the tubular glass towers of the Renaissance Center, headquarters of General Motors, and Michigan Central Station, the rail terminal that closed in 1988. On the left is a rusted industrial corridor — fuel tanks, docks, abandoned warehouses. I have taken this route all my life, but one morning this spring, I crossed for the first time in a truck.

Illustration by Richard Mia
Article
“I am Here Only for Working”·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

But the exercise of labor is the worker’s own life-activity, the manifestation of his own life. . . . He works in order to live. He does not even reckon labor as part of his life, it is rather a sacrifice of his life.

— Karl Marx

Photograph from the United Arab Emirates by the author. This page: Ruwais Mall
Article
The Year of The Frog·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

To look at him, Sweet Macho was a beautiful horse, lean and strong with muscles that twitched beneath his shining black coat. A former racehorse, he carried himself with ceremony, prancing the field behind our house as though it were the winner’s circle. When he approached us that day at the edge of the yard, his eyes shone with what might’ve looked like intelligence but was actually a form of insanity. Not that there was any telling our mother’s boyfriend this — he fancied himself a cowboy.

“Horse 1,” by Nine Francois. Courtesy the artist and AgavePrint, Austin, Texas
Article
Dead Ball Situation·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

What We Think About When We Think About Soccer, by Simon Critchley. Penguin Books. 224 pages. $20.

Begin, as Wallace Stevens didn’t quite say, with the idea of it. I so like the idea of Simon Critchley, whose books offer philosophical takes on a variety of subjects: Stevens, David Bowie, suicide, humor, and now football — or soccer, as the US edition has it. (As a matter of principle I shall refer to this sport throughout as football.) “All of us are mysteriously affected by our names,” decides one of Milan Kundera’s characters in Immortality, and I like Critchley because his name would seem to have put him at a vocational disadvantage compared with Martin Heidegger, Søren Kierkegaard, or even, in the Anglophone world, A. J. Ayer or Richard Rorty. (How different philosophy might look today if someone called Nobby Stiles had been appointed as the Wykeham Professor of Logic.)

Tostão, No. 9, and Pelé, No. 10, celebrate Carlos Alberto’s final goal for Brazil in the World Cup final against Italy on June 21, 1970, Mexico City © Heidtmann/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images

Minimum square footage of San Francisco apartments allowed under new regulations:

220

A Disney behavioral ecologist announced that elephants’ long-range low-frequency vocal rumblings draw elephant friends together and drive elephant enemies apart.

The judge continued to disallow the public release of Brailsford’s body-cam footage, and the jury spent less than six hours in deliberation before returning a verdict of not guilty. The police then released the video, showing Brailsford pointing his AR-15 assault rifle at Shaver while a sergeant asked him if he understood that there was “a very severe possibility” he would “get shot.”

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today