Yale Law Professor Peter Schuck (and author of the very interesting book Meditations of a Militant Moderate) writes:
Elite law schools cherish robust debate, iconoclasm, and arguing issues from all sides, right? Wrong. The dirty little (not-so) secret about these faculties-that they care much more about diversifying their skin colors, genders, and surnames than about diversifying their points of view-has finally come to the attention of the general public.
Now that the truth is out, law school faculties are likely to come under increased pressure to surrender some of their hiring autonomy. But this pressure would be misguided. If these faculties know what is good for them, they will acknowledge the dearth of dissenting voices within them-and work earnestly to correct the problem from within.
Which, it turns out, is precisely what Harvard Law School - of all places - is doing:
?My view of Harvard is that because we are a place that is larger in scale than a lot of other schools, we?ve never been a niche place,? [Harvard Law Dean Elena] Kagan told The Observer. ?We sort of have everything, and that continues to be true in our current hiring. Our current hiring is all across the board from a political-slash- ideological perspective, and that?s exactly what it should be.? ... recent hires have also added to the conservatives? ranks. There is John Manning, 44, an expert on the separation of powers and the structure of government, who advocates for a strict reading of the U.S. Constitution, and 43-year-old Jack Goldsmith, an international-law expert known for questioning the efficacy of the International Criminal Court. (Link)
Both stories make excellent reading for anybody interested in intellectual diversity in law schools. In the meanwhile, if any top 5 law school needs a right-leaning corporate law professor to help promote intellectual diversity on its faculty, I know where they can find one. (As you know who would say, "heh.")
