Hire him back. Apologize. Avoid a law suit—and then put up with his occasional editorializing. We have too many law schools as it is, so a new one at Irvine does not need to offer instant proof of why we don’t need another.

Hewitt, Powerline, David Horowitz, Instapundit, Volokh, Beldar, GP, others…. that’s a veritable avalanche of libertarian-conservative support for Chemerinsky. Noting it, because I know that 3 months from now, some sophomoric leftie will try to say “And look how they didn’t even defend Chemerinsky blah blah blah…”

I also note that Chemerinsky, although a law professor at Duke, pointedly stood aloof from Duke’s “Group of 88″.

From what I have read in the WSJ, it would appear that the Chemerinsky appointment drew serious heat from conservative benefactors. No one need act the coquette when it comes to the power of founding money.

Somewhere an advisory panel gave the hiring go-ahead and now the school-in-the-making is spotlighted in the unflattering pose of frantic back-paddling. It is hard to guess which is more damaging: a political lightening rod or a Keystone Kop organizing group?

There’s no doubt EC is a bright scholar and a gifted commentator with a keen sense for getting his soundbite into the broadcast, but that doesn’t mean he’d be a good Dean of a new L school. I’ve known 5 L school deans and the best ones are not animated by the attention EC seems to crave. The biz of any Dean is quiet leadership, raising money, playing on your connections to attract major speakers, and advancing the institution even at the expense of your own ego gratification. EC still strikes me as a man who would fail as Dean of new L school… or any major L school, for that matter. Attracting controversy is the LAST thing a UnivPrez wants from his Dean. I’m not sure this is a bad decision made for the wrong reasons… but I wouldn’t go as far as to say courageous either. Just smart.

And you know, I might be a liberal, but were I told my exam was “Scalia-esque” I would take that as incredibly high praise. I might disagree with Scalia or lament some of his views, but his writing is positively brilliant.

The other message I sort of took from this whole situation is that if one (as a liberal) thinks Chemerinsky, an eminent scholar, is going to be too controversial, one is not really willing to put those views to the test in a debate.

I NEVER agree with Erwin, but Irvine, not Erwin screwed up.

If he sues, he’s got a could cause of action, I think. Sad but true.

I’d like to see some balance in the faculty at UCI, but I think this is a miserable way to start.

I wonder if that’s why they ultimately rejected him? Because they wanted someone who would let his political views prejudice his adminstration?