Law Profs Respond

This is indeed quite a letter.  My reaction after reading it is "how pathetic!"  It is hard to believe that so many law school professors could be so out of touch with common morality and decency.  Maybe lawyers really are the amoral cretins that they're commonly portrayed.

If, indeed, the University administrators are merely victims to be pitied rather than chastised for their admission of lesser qualified students with clout over more deserving students, it would be easier to sympathize if they hadn't acted so much like they were engaged in a criminal enterprise.  If, really, all universities do the same thing, then why not be above-board about it?  Why admit the ones with special clout after the high school academic year, so as to cause less stink from the more highly-qualified who were passed over?

If this really is standard operating procedure, not worthy of the Tribune front page, why wasn't the University upfront about what it does?  It could have put a note in their handbook for applicants:  "Notice, for top priority in admissions, please submit a recommendation from a powerful politician."

It is truly sad to think that the faculty of our law school sets the bar for the ethics of public officials so low.  Of course there is political pressure; always has been, probably always will be.  The issue is how a public official deals with it.  These are public servants we are talking about (bureaucrats if you like) not "...after all academics - mathematicians, philosophers (!), business scholars..." 

Public servants owe the public not only competence and diligence but moral courage.  Part of the job is fending off improper political influence.  It takes a lot of resourcefulness and a clarity about personal ethics to do this.  Isn't that part of why they get paid as well as they do.? Why should we expect less of the Chancellor of a university than we expect of a municipal Zoning Administrator?

The authors claim the "line between proper and improper influence on admissions decisions is a difficult one to draw...".  That is utter rubbish.   There is an established system.  Letters of reference are part of it and it should be fine for anyone to provide one.  Contacts regarding applicants outside of that process are wrong - period.  This is simple ex parte contact and can only serve to undermine a rule guided process for distributing a scarce resource. 

I do agree that anger should also be directed at politicians and especially at the trustees who were involved but that does not let the administrators off the hook by any means.  Is this the best defense these folks have; to point the finger at others?

The larger problem is the whole culture of "constituent service" whereby the pushy feel entitled to call upon politicians when they don't like the way the system works.   What we need to do is build and rebuild a bulwark against this penny ante corruption.  What's at stake is the rule of law. 

I don't understand Herman/White/et al.'s feeling "the pressure" from politicians, the B.O.T., and Chinese governors to admit their preferred students. Does the money donated to the U of I, or voted upon in the legislature, really depend on these "little nudges" in the admit process? Why would Herman and White feel they better go along "or else"?

Couldn't Herman and White have just outted the names of the politicos and big wigs when funding was jeopardized by these "G's"? Or is the electorate too lazy to be relied upon and vote incumbants the heck out for extracting such priviledges?

Or was the Banner computer system, the Global Campus, and the capital building frenzy on the campus for the last ten years have these distinguished administrators more concerned about showing them the money than with academic intergrity? Amission per year is what? 7000 freshmen and 11,000 applications annually get rejected? How can 120 or so clouted students make all the difference whether the U of I can build another gymnasium for the kiddies?

I wonder, too, if the U of I administrators, and admission deans can be held legally liable for out-of-state tuition fees by the qualified students who were rejected at the in-state university in favor of one of Blago's rich-kid scholars. Maybe if Steve Beckett's kid had been forced to select an out-of-state school, or a school of lessor reputation- we might see Herman being served some papers from the law office.

And speaking of legal talent, they should print that letter from the profs on the Law School admission brochure so prospective students can see what the moral ethics are of their teachers: "It's not wrong if everybody does it and alot of money depends on it. Those stupid media people. Boo. Hiss." (Maybe Chapin Rose can get legislation passed that declares all admission records from the tax-supported school be declared private information and not subject to The Freedom of Information Act. That'll solve this mess.)

 There was a funny moment on WDWS today when Steve Kelly, the sports broadcaster, was asked if he knew the admission standards for the college athletes. Steve choked out a polite, "I don't pay attention to the admissions side of the program." If only that big bad Chicago Tribune had minded its own business and did the same.    

I agree that the investigation so far has not focused on the people who are the most at fault, the legislators, donors, and trustees, but Herman never once stood up to any of these folks.  There has been a total lack of backbone in dealing with the poor judgement and bad behavior of the trustees.  There is little excuse for never even attempting to stand your ground. 

I wonder to what extent this extraordinary missive by the Law School faculty derives from a warped sense of academic freedom.  After all universities are supposed to be independent of outside influence (heh).   That implies that "academics" (their word) really ought not to be judged by anyone other than other academics.  These scholars can be held liable for major crimes like plagiarism or uttering an ethnicity or gender insenstive remark but who are we - mere taxpayers - to hold these "academeics" to account for something as trivial as the fair distribution of scarce spaces in the university we pay for.

They are caught in a bind here.  I'm sure they hate this interference with admissions but they also hate being held accountable to anyone outside the university for anything.