Cyberspaces.org

Diversity Hiring in Law Schools: v. 2

30 March '06 - 09:56. Category: default

As noted in my post yesterday, on Tuesday, March 21, Rutgers-Camden Law School tax professor Michael Livingston posted an article he titled "Diversity, the ABA, and the law schools" on his blog criticizing diversity within the faculty hiring process.

After his initial post, Professor Livingston posted a response to some of his critics. Professor Livingston responded to two critical themes that he drew from his critics; one theme focused on Rutgers, the other on a critique concerning a logical fallacy in Livingston’s argument - - namely, that the argument is circular.

The focus of my post is in on the latter critique as it roughly follows one of my original concerns with Professor Livingston’s argument.

Professor Livingston clarifies his position by rejecting the argument that his argument that diversity damages a law school primarily “reveal[s his] own prejudices rather than making a genuinely rational analysis” of the harmful effects of diversity because “the problem with diversity is not that women and minorities somehow make bad law professors, but that people, including themselves, will tend to doubt that they are the best professors because they are chosen for reasons other than their ability, and further that diversity distorts the hiring and promotion process in ways that ultimately reduce the quality and performance of everyone, regardless of their race and gender, at the institution concerned.” I am unsure how this restated position is any less circular than Professor Livingston’s original post.

The argument that diversity in faculty hiring is the equivalent of hiring women and minorities “for reasons other than their ability” - - rather than for reasons in addition to ability - - contains unstated premises that beg the question asked in thoughtful debates on affirmative action. What are the best ways to hire faculty of high quality and performance? Affirmative action proposes one answer. Professor Livingston’s critique of affirmative action is essentially that it is not the best way because it is not the best way. Surely, if we agree that the best way to hire law school faculty is worth pursuit, then the debate must begin with some agreed understanding of what the standard should be. Perhaps Professor Livingston has concluded that the best way to hire faculty of high quality and performance is to use the criteria many are most familiar with such as publications and pedigree, but that conclusion is no more persuasive as logical argumentation than saying “it’s my way or the highway.” Rational discourse requires more than Professor Livingston provides.

Cyberspaces.org

http://www.cyberspaces.org/webzine/

Diversity Hiring in Law Schools: Again

29 March '06 - 09:40. Category: default

Under attack again is the commitment by some law schools that attempt to consider diversity as a factor in law school faculty hiring.

On Tuesday, March 21, Rutgers-Camden Law School tax professor Michael Livingston posted "Diversity," the ABA, and the law schools on his blog criticizing diversity within the faculty hiring process. In response, on the lawyer's blog, blackprof.com, a poster notes: "Soon after the post, another Rutgers-Camden law professor, Dr. Imani Perry, sent an email to Professor Livingston". Professor Perry, who joined the faculty at Rutgers-Camden in 2002, directly responds to Professor Livingston's post.

Professor Livingston argues that when the law school faculty hiring process uses racial diversity as an "objective" factor in hiring race inevitably moves from being a "partial factor in hiring decisions to being the only factor that really counts." I suspect that Professor Livingston is being intentionally provocative. What troubles me most about the affirmative-action debate is why so many find it difficult to (or, chose not to) present controversial positions in an offensive manner. Certainly, Professor Livingston was not unaware that his post needlessly would offend many of his fellow academics. Although he asserts that diversity hiring chills free expression or civility among certain faculty, his post and much of the discussions that follow it fully undermine both points.

The fact that some urge that we are in a post-PC era seems to provide many with license to be offensive or uncivil as a matter of free expression. Yet, the overreach of political-correctness notwithstanding, someone familiar with the socratic method - as is true of many law professors - - ought to be well-acquainted with the idea that emotional arguments against affirmative-action lack the persuasive force of arguments grounded in logic. If some are so angry that they cannot withold an uncivil tongue, then I suppose we have to live with the arguments of those who imply that race creastes a real or virtual division between those who are qualified and those who are not.

If affirmative-action in higher education is to be genuinely debated, however, - - and I see no reason why it should not - - then those who argue against affirmative-action must abandon the empty rhetoric that equates diversity with lower standards. At bottom, affirmative-action raises the question concerning what the standard should be. Consequently, arguments that affirmative-action lowers the standard currently favored is a fallacy of logic that assumes that what the standard currently is or has been is the standard that should be. Surely, a number of law students at many law schools have paid to attend classes taught by law professors who were lousy teachers regardless of the so-called objective criterion of race. It follows, perhaps, that the prevailing standards for selecting law professors may not be "lower" by diversity, but improved. My point is this: affirmative-action raises the question of what the standard should be and any argument that will advance the debate on faculty hiring, student admissions, or similar affirmative-action issues must address the standard-qua-standard issue.

Of the comments I have recently read by bloggers, I like this idea most: "I think there is some (though not necessarily equal) merit on all sides of the AA debate, and the issue should be debated openly and honestly." - posted on the Volokh Conspiracy

Update: in my original post, I forgot to mention that a couple of years ago I was a visiting assistant professor at Rutgers Law School - Camden, and have a high regard for that school.

Does ICANN represent Internet users globally?

17 March '06 - 17:56. Category: default

During March 2006, a Public Policy Group, on behalf of ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), will begin collecting comments and views from Internet users and global stakeholders in Internet governance issues on the performance of ICANN's policy-making activities relating to generic Top Level Domains (gTLD), which is usually carried out by the Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO). Do not let the techno-babble scare you off, take a look at what they do and make your views known. They are seeking views on:

* How well the GNSO represents Internet users worldwide;
* How effectively the GNSO translates global views into policies;
* How transparent and open is the GNSO in its work; and
* What are the main challenges for the GNSO in the next few years?

Former judicial nominee arrested

13 March '06 - 15:37. Category: default

Claude Allen, an ex-Bush aide, was recently arrested and charged with 25 counts of retail fraud based on allegations that he stole nearly $5,000 of merchandise from retailers like Target in Maryland. President Bush is reported to have expressed disappointment and shock over the recent arrest of Claude Allen, who President Bush had attempted to appoint to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2004.


The former senior White House advisor, who happens to be African-American, apparently purchased items from Target and Hecht stores in Maryland, returned to those same stores without the item, but with his receipts, took identical items off store shelves, and demanded refunds for those items.

Claude Allen had been nominated by President Bush to the 4th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals after serving only 7.5 years as an attorney.

At the time of his nomination, Allen was serving as Deputy Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. When Bush withdrew the judicial nomination, he appointed Allen as a $161,000-a-year domestic policy adviser at the White House, until Allen resigned. Allen says he is not guilty of theft.

Newsweek says that whatever Allen's defense might be it could be a "tough sell to a jury" since the "alleged thefts were captured by store surveillance cameras."

Allen was once a member of the staff of former Senator Jesse Helms.

An Ultramobile PC

09 March '06 - 17:49. Category: default

If you have not adjusted to using your thumbs to input data on your Treo cell phone, you'll get another chance to use your thumbs on your notebook PC. DialKeys is the name of a thumb-based text input system that allows you to enter data on your notebook using your thumbs. If you're thinking why thumbs, then you missed Microsoft's announcement of a new PC called the ultramobile PC?

Microsoft’s Origami project is a hardware reference design for the devices now called the Ultramobile PC. These PCs are actually small tablet PCs with touch scren functionality.


The small Tablet PC will play back music and video, and let users do other computer tasks, such as e-mail and Internet searches. Microsoft is expecting UMPCs to retail between $599 - $999 depending on the hardware options installed on the unit. Is this device off the mark? Sales will tell the full story, but, aside from those who love gadgets, consumers are awfully tentative and fickle about mobile technology.

China's Internet domain name system

03 March '06 - 10:10. Category: default

It is very difficult to get a handle on what really is happening with China and the Internet these days. A number of bloggers are reporting that China is introducing a number of changes to second level domains under .CN that ostensibly create a Chinese root server administration. Although China is implementing its changes - - whatever they are - - to ostensibly allow Chinese character recognition and use in the domain name system, there are fears that a hidden agenda is at work. It is undeniable that China devotes considerable resources to blocking access to websites it finds unfavorable. This type of censorship is troublesome enough, but using the cloak of an IDN or Chinese character recognition system to implement a constructive alternate root system could do more than enable China to more effectively censor the Internet, China could break the Internet.

Few would argue that alternate roots are problematic as a fundamental matter, but China's implementation is not likely to be the type of competing root system that results in the favorable outcomes of genuine competition. China's "root system" seems to be about control, not competition.

There is an interesting thread on CirleID.com debating the adjustment to China's Internet domain name system.

Alabama Judge Declares War

03 March '06 - 08:56. Category: default

Tony Mauro's piece for the Legal Times reported on law.com is an interesting read on Judge's like Alabama's Judge Tom Parker.

"Sitting calmly in his impeccably neat office at Alabama's Justice Building, state Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker does not look like a man at war with the U.S. Supreme Court."

The irony of Judge Parker's complaints about the U.S. Supreme Court is so conspicuous it is not easy to miss. Mauro notes that "...Parker wrote an op-ed in The Birmingham News, attacking the high court's "blatant judicial tyranny." The case that had gotten him roaring was the outcome in 2005's Roper v. Simmons, which tossed out the death penalty for inmates who were under 18 at the time of their crimes."

for more...click here for law.com






Judge Parker criticizes the U.S. Supreme Court for issuing "unconstitutional" opinions (i.e. opinions he does not agree with) by urging state court judges in Alabama to ignore the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court that they determine are unconstitutional (i.e. that they disagree with). From which law school did Judge Parker learn this version of constitutional law-based judicial activism?