The Most Corrupt Man in California?

Earlier this weekend, liberal commentator and USC Law professor Susan Estrich criticized UCI Chancellor Michael Drake for his recent decision to fire Erwin Chemerinsky; calling him the most corrupt man in California. Interestingly she highlights his willingness to defend the academic freedom of Muslim radicals and anti-Semites, while at the same time allow for the silence of UCI's college Republicans and the mistreatment of a Jewish lawyer who was supposed to become the inaugural dean of the nascent Bren Law School .

In defense of Drake, his predispositions are neither racial, religious, or political. As he explains in his recent op-ed in the Times, there are many leftists who hold senior academic and administrative positions in his school. I am definitely not surprised. Drake's inadequacy in leading a major academic institution is defined by his indebtedness to his highest bidders and his buckling to his most vociferous coercers as illustrated in his appeasement of the MSU (Unfortunately conservative and Jewish groups weren't as effective at warranting the Chancellor's attention).

It wasn't until LA County Supervisor Mike Antonovich and a group of GOPers formed opposition to Chemerinsky's hiring that he rescinded his initial offer. Now that Drake is receiving backlash from conservatives and liberals alike by mishandling the appointment of a qualified academic who would bring instant credibility to an OC law school does he decide to re-negotiate.

In his op-ed, Drake defended his initial decision:

It was a culmination of discussions -- with many people over a period of time -- that convinced me that Professor Chemerinsky and I would not be able to partner effectively to build a world-class law school at UC Irvine. That is my overarching priority.

Chancellor Drake, be specific and tell us what was the nature of these discussions. Why couldn't you build a world-class law school with someone as revered as Chemerinsky?

Feel free to comment or talk with us. We’d like to hear your side of the story.

Comments

[Concerned]

You need to be careful about using this unsubtle label -- 'intellectually corrupt' might be more appropriate as it's doubtful he's stolen anything (except UCI's reputation which was pretty much in the toilet anyway).

Drake does need to go.

[Jonathan Constantine]

Concerned,

I was only questioning Susan Estrich's assertion that he is. Her article was entitled, The Most Corrupt Man in California.

[Mark Cohen]

I hope Chancellor Drake will reconsider his firing of Erwin Chemerinsky. Yes, he is way left, but I have heard him on Hugh Hewitt's radio show and he seems to be a fair man, a decent man, and a scholar. I can't stand his views most of the time, but I think he would be a fine choice to lead UCI Law and a fair leader.

[Brett Nemeth]

Drake is morally bankrupt. His refusal to speak out against the anti-semetic muslim group on campus should be reason enough to terminate him.

Chemerinsky is exceptionally qualified despite my polar opposite political views. He may have not been the best decision for UCI, but he made the decision at the time. Hopefully, this will bring additional pressure on him which may encourage his removal. I doubt that will happen but I wish it would.

[t]

We don't need pro-abortion radicals like Chemerinsky in our law schools.

Estrich has the biggest mouth in California.

t Speaks

[t]

Drake should stick with his original decision to can this liberal, and not now succumb to pro-abortion whiners. I don't want my tax dollars financing a pro-abortion chump like Chemerinsky.

[Jim]

Let me be perhaps the only actual UCI alum to come out against hiring or re-hiring Erwin Chemerinsky. He's an over-rated leftist windbag whose legal positions are politically dependent. Besides, doesn't he already have a day job working for that mattress store with all the radio ads?

Chancellor Drake made a courageous decision to rescind this hiring. I am sure he knew the backlash he would be getting, I'm sure he gave it much consideration and still proceeded with the reversal of the committee decision to hire Chemerinsky.

UCI is in the "heartland" of conservatism in Orange County. To pick the most liberal icon in the country to run the new law school would have been a bad decision. UCI has flagrantly waved stem-cell research and Jimmy Carter on the front page of the OCR in recent months. What have they waved in support of conservatism?

UCI is currently engaging in a capital campaign to raise millions of dollars and this is a conservative county...so ... let's think about this for a minute....who has most of the wealth in this county? Why the Repulicans of course. And, the donors that UCI has enjoyed during the recent years have given tops in cash $20 Mil from Samueli; $20 mil from Bren, etc. So they are most likely tapped out. Where do you go for long term money? For future donations? To the MAJORITY of course.

So, as a Republican, would I donate $$ to a law school with Irwin C. as the leader. Probably NOT. Maybe someone like John Eastman, oh, sorry, he's taken at Chapman; but someone with a broader view of conservatism than Irwin is definitly needed to get UCI's law school off the ground.

When in Rome?

[Jonathan Constantine]

Your telling me that the a UCI Law School can't find donors anywhere else than Orange County?

Most big law schools will find donors from all over the country from all points of the political spectrum.

big news...Drake is on a plane to re-negotiate with Irwin.....

Now that things have settled down, what are the lasting implications of this event for UCI? First, it demonstrates that Drake is not yet ready for prime time. He went from an bureaucratic post at UCOP to chancellor, without serving in a major administrative post at a full scale university. In addition, he has been unwilling to fully explain his actions, which allows people like Chemerinsky and Estrich to define the issue. This event showed his lack of experience. He should be replaced, but UC doesn't have the courage to fire him.
Second, a more troublesome sign is the politicization of the university. What is one more liberal at UCI--adding one more bee to the hive. Instead of trying to be balanced in teaching and research, the university is allowing itself to be a forum for only half of America. This is done under the banner of academic freedom, but it is anything but.