HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » A public law school faces...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 02:23 PM

A public law school faces trial over liberal bias

Source: Associated Press

A public law school faces trial over liberal bias
RYAN J. FOLEY, Associated Press | Saturday, October 13, 2012 | Updated: Saturday, October 13, 2012 12:42pm

IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) Praised by colleagues as smart, friendly and passionate about the law, Teresa Wagner was a leading candidate when two jobs came open to teach writing at the University of Iowa law school. An alumnus, she was already working part-time at its writing center and received positive reviews from students and a key committee.

But after she interviewed with the faculty in 2007, one job went to someone without teaching experience and the other wasn't filled. She was passed over for other jobs in the coming years. She now says she was blackballed because of her legal work against abortion rights and will take her complaint to a jury this week in a case that is being closely watched in higher education because of longstanding allegations of political bias at left-leaning law schools.

Conservatives have maintained for years that they are passed over for jobs and promotions at law schools because of their views, but formal challenges have been rare, in part because of the difficulty of proving discrimination. Wagner's case is considered the first of its kind.

"This will put a spotlight on a terrible injustice that is being perpetrated throughout American higher education," said Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, who says he routinely hears from rejected conservative professors. "What makes Teresa Wagner's case so extraordinary is she came up with the documentary evidence of what was really going on."




Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/article/A-public-law-school-faces-trial-over-liberal-bias-3945615.php

24 replies, 4425 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 24 replies Author Time Post
Reply A public law school faces trial over liberal bias (Original post)
Judi Lynn Oct 2012 OP
Lightbulb_on Oct 2012 #1
AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #2
Tigress DEM Oct 2012 #4
1monster Oct 2012 #3
SheilaT Oct 2012 #15
Andy Stanton Oct 2012 #5
AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2012 #8
jerseyjack Oct 2012 #9
leveymg Oct 2012 #6
Crow73 Oct 2012 #7
Darth_Kitten Oct 2012 #10
jerseyjack Oct 2012 #11
and-justice-for-all Oct 2012 #12
24601 Oct 2012 #13
sulphurdunn Oct 2012 #16
24601 Oct 2012 #20
sulphurdunn Oct 2012 #21
llmart Oct 2012 #14
Ash_F Oct 2012 #17
ronnie624 Oct 2012 #22
ronnie624 Oct 2012 #23
alphafemale Oct 2012 #18
PD Turk Oct 2012 #19
KamaAina Oct 2012 #24

Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 02:33 PM

1. While she may be right...

 

.. and I suspect she is, I don't know that she will be able to prove that her political views were the reason she was passed over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #2)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 02:54 PM

4. Had to educate myself. What precisely IS Legal Analysis? Wonder WHY she wouldn't teach it?

Too much like science or likely that she'd have to allow people to submit their own opinions rather than just tell them WHAT to think?

http://userwww.sfsu.edu/dlegates/URBS513/howtodoa.htm

<snip>
Follow these steps:

1. State the issue(s) in the case;

2. Describe what the law is based on the holdings of cases you have read for the course. Cite the cases by name and restate its holding;

3. Apply the law to the fact situation, stating the probable outcome of the case;

4. Describe differences between the fact situation you are analyzing and the fact situation in the cases you cited which might lead to a different outcome than what you indicated in step 3;

5. Discuss the fundamental nature of the legal conflict, the public policy issues involved and what you feel the law should be. Here is an example of a fact situation and a legal analysis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 02:42 PM

3. But what of all the conservative efforts to get liberal pedagogues off the staff of

colleges and univeristies?

If even it is her conservative views that kept her from getting a position there? And how does this work anyway. Is there a law that says who should and should not be hired? Is there a law that the most qualified must be hired even if that person, despite his/her own perceptions of his/her own qualifications, is not the best fit?

There are many cases where who gets the job is not made based only on paper qualifications. Personality interactions probably count a huge amount on hiring, otherwise, why have an in person interview at all.

And if she wins this case, does that mean that conservative leaning institutions will have to hire flaming pinko liberals?

If it's sauce for the goose, it's sauce for the gander.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1monster (Reply #3)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 06:56 PM

15. My thoughts exactly.

The right-wing thinks it's absolutely okay for them to demonize anyone who thinks independently, will refuse to hire or promote them, will go out of their way to support semi-literate graduates of the right-wing "Universities". Then they cry when they are held to objective standards of some kind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 03:03 PM

5. If She Really Has The Evidence

Most of the time when people claim they didn't get jobs because of their politics it's pure BS. But if she has the evidence to prove otherwise, let her show it in court.

Peter Wood is a right-wing ideologue so I wouldn't take anything he says at face value.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Andy Stanton (Reply #5)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #8)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 03:58 PM

9. It is the third part of the showing that will be difficult for her.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 03:10 PM

6. Funny. Such alleged bias doesn't seem to have stopped the Right from taking over the Supreme Court

and packing many of the Circuits and District Courts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 04:01 PM

10. More of that self-righteous, Republican sense of entitlement?

Next...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 04:04 PM

11. If it was me doing the hiring, I wouldn't hire her.

 

Identifying as a conservative already proves she can't think straight. If it can be shown that she also professes a belief in some religion, that would further prove the point.

Suppose for instance, she explains how she comes from a neighboring planet of the planet, Kolob. Would you hire such a person?

All the college has to do is get her to explain Ryan's tax proposal and then watch the court laugh her out the door.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 04:49 PM

12. Ever heard of PRal Roberts University??

that is some biased shit right there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to and-justice-for-all (Reply #12)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 05:49 PM

13. There's a greater duty for the government to be neutral than a private entity. When the

salaries are paid by the taxpayers, diversity of opinion should be the norm, rather than the exception.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #13)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 08:07 PM

16. The idea

that anyone is entitled to work for the public because of his opinions is a position as utterly devoid of merit as would be the people employed at taxpayer expense because of it. It is concept so alien to the principles of public service that it boggles the mind. To posit it in the name of government neutrality is stunning. The only example of it in practice I can recall was the Bush administration's packing of the Department of Justice with unqualified lawyers from Liberty University's 4th tier law school because they lacked normative opinions about justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sulphurdunn (Reply #16)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 08:50 PM

20. Those aren't the words I used - my position is that governments have a greater responsibility

to avoid monolithic thought than do non-governmental entities. There are specific exceptions for policy and supporting positions, e.g. temporary political appointments, including Schedule C civil service. Positions in government-run schools should not be ideologial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #20)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 01:03 PM

21. I agree with your point.

However, I am unaware of ideological litmus tests being used to hire in public schools. A faculty with a large majority of liberals is not a necessary indication of bias. Correlation is not causation at Purdue anymore than it is at the Pentagon even though there are more conservatives at the latter. My problem is with the ironic suggestion that we should have a de facto quota system for conservative educators at public schools and call it diversity, a policy held in contempt by most of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 05:57 PM

14. Why doesn't she just go to work......

for a place like Ave Maria Law School where their sole purpose is to graduate students to overturn Roe v Wade?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 01:17 AM

17. Maybe her legal arguments were flawed?

It's ok to have a different viewpoint but if you don't use logic in your own arguments, I don't see how you can be expected to teach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #17)


Response to Ash_F (Reply #17)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 01:35 PM

23. The fact that she's "pro life", should provide an important clue about her ability to use logic. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 07:59 AM

18. Go the fuck to Liberty University ... twit.

Keep your mental illness and religious insanity out of universities that MATTER.

Fuck OFF!

You want to see these "Right to Work" laws work?

FUCK OFF!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 10:06 AM

19. Bollocks

I'd like to see what would happen if a liberal tried to teach at Liberty or Oral Roberts. Never happen ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 01:46 PM

24. I was not aware that repukes were a protected class under equal opportunity employment laws

And since repukes oppose such laws, it stands to reason that they would not want to be. Except when it might benefit them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread