Why this has morphed into “Dubious University Firings Friday” I don’t know, but here goes…
The University of Arkansas rescinded its appointment of Emily Suski (above), a professor of law and Associate Dean for Strategic Institutional Priorities (whatever that’s supposed to mean) at the the University of South Carolina Joseph F. Rice School of Law, as its new University of Arkansas Law School dean. It had previously announced on January 9 that Suski would become dean on July 1, beginning a five-year contract with a $350,000 annual salary, according to The New York Times. At the time, University of Arkansas provost Indrajeet Chaubey praised Suski’s “extensive experience in leadership roles in legal education and practice” and said she “is an accomplished scholar” who “has also been very successful in establishing medical-legal partnerships in South Carolina to support children’s health and overall well-being.”
Sounds great! Then an Arkansas state senator and others registered their objections to Suski based on her stated support for trans female athletes competing against biological women in women’s sports, and the fact that she was among 850 law professors who signed a letter urging the US Senate to confirm the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court.
In response, university officials announced that they had rescinded Suski’s offer because of “feedback from key external stakeholders.” It appears that the school acted because of veiled threats from Republican state legislators that having such a progressive law dean would endanger the University’s funding from the state. (“Nice little law school you have here…be a shame if anything were to happen to it…”) After all, Arkansas law was the first state in the US to ban “gender-affirming care”—gag!— for minors.
I’m about 85% certain what the right answer to this one is, but out of respect for that 15% of doubt,
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
Ethics Alarms 
If you believe that Jackson was selected because she was an accomplished legal thinker and not a choice based on race then denying her based on signing a support letter would be wrong. If you wonder about Ms Suski’s actual abilities based on her choices of advocacy now that you have been made aware of them then I don’t see rescinding an offer as unethical.
Every employment choice seeks to find the best fit between the prospect and “stakeholders”. In universities stakeholders are just about anyone who touches the university in some fashion. Faculty are major stakeholders and often veto the best hire for the school because they want someone who they can control. In this case, a state senator weighed in. I don’t think one state legislator senator can influence funding at the state level but school officials would rightfully be concerned but if a student group can influence hiring decisions funding sources should also have equal standing
It is a state school. The legislature determines funding. A lot of our state universities are being run as subsidiaries of leftist thought. If the legislature thinks that such a woke Dean cannot serve the students equally, that conservative students might be discriminated against in the Law School, as has been demonstrated elsewhere, then the legislature should let the school know that the state may not feel the need to fund a school that only wants to serve some of the citizens of the state.
Why do state university officials feel they have the right to refuse higher education to state citizens that don’t politically align with the officials?
Nyet! (Bangs shoe on table.)
I believe I have an almost sociopathic ability to compartmentalize. The legal field was the right choice for me.
my firm represents has a large percentage of immigrants clients (both immigration and other things (I have a client who is legal and Hmong)).
I do not practice immigration law; too complex; I would have to specialize; I am proudly a general practitioner.
if everyone here illegally were magically deported tomorrow, I would not be upset, but many of them have legal avenues for relief and my partners help them. And I help my partners help them.
and we also help people come in legally. Coming or going, we help them.
but, we butt heads on the recent ICE enforcement here. We already got smoked out of our offices on lake Street because of George Floyd. I am disgusted by the current unrest.
I have also butted heads with my cousin, who thinks it is deceitful of me to make money off people who I think should not be. I have always maintained that, coming or going, hopefully we can make money. If I can get 1% of the 40 Million people subject to deportation, I could retire on time.
at the same time, ICE is moving people from Minneapolis to Texas within hours of being detained. To me, that is dirty pool. Our non-immigrant side of my practice is ramping up our habeas corpus practice. I am fine with that.
if this dean is as sociopathic as I am, leave her be.
-Jut
Why does this phrase “trans female athletes” always make my head hurt? Isn’t clearer/better to say “men who think they’re women”? Anyway . . .
I don’t know this person and I have no idea about her background or pedigree or leadership skills. Chris, Michael, and Jut make great observations. I am not opposed to a hard leftist as the dean of my law school, as long as that political alignment does not have an impact on course material or school mission.
See, when I was on the pastoral council for our parish, we deliberated supporting a local “advocacy” group (which, oddly, advanced solely progressive causes, one of which was to push an amendment to the local taxing authority charters that would allow for contributing $.01 of every $10,000 of collected property tax revenue to some homelessness slush fund – that doesn’t sound like a lot of cash but when you do the math, it is a huge amount of money). I expressed my disagreement with the group, recommended against funneling any money to it for its programs, and strenuously objected that our parish would be listed as a donor along side Planned Parenthood, which I thought flew directily in the face of parish, diocese, and Church teaching. The final vote was 10 to 2. Yet, my objection was noted and quickly dispatched (perhaps landing me in a few more eons in Purgatory, but hey, at least I’ll know a lot of people . . .).
But, the issue was vetted and the council had the proper vote and the measure carried. Any blowback on the parish could be blunted by the vetting process because it wasn’t just some vote on a Saturday morning, but a vote after many weeks of deliberation by all sides.
All of that is say that, if the law school vetted her, then it should stand behind her. One thing you can say about Bill Clinton and his SCOTUS nominees, he did not withdraw any of them even when he knew they would not pass Senate confirmation. That, to me, was a signe of leadership, someone who was willing to stand behind his actions. This school caved and sent a message far and wide that the Almighty Dollar controls the school’s decisions.
jvb
850 law professors … signed a letter urging the US Senate to confirm the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court.
What did they know and when did they know it? Whew!