Unbridled academic arrogance

The University of California is preparing to ignore the recommendation of the statutory body charged with passing on proposals for expansion of state-funded higher education, and press ahead with an unneeded new law school, for the University of California, Irvine. According to the Newport Beach Daily Pilot:
A state commission has voted against supporting the planned law school at UC Irvine, but university officials said they expected the ruling to have little consequence.

The California Postsecondary Education Commission, an advisory group, last week voted not to support UCI's proposal largely because the members felt that California had enough law schools. The UC Regents, however, voted to accept the law school in November, and UCI spokeswoman Christine Byrd said the Regents' decision would likely stand.

[Note: the correct timetable is as follows -

In September 2006, the CPEC staff concluded its Report that found against the law school at UC Irvine for several reasons, and the issue was placed on the September 2006 CPEC Agenda for a vote by the CPEC Commissioners.
Priot to the September CPEC Meeting, UC asked CPEC to withdraw the item from the Commissioners' agenda so that UC Irvine might submit more information to CPEC.
At the November 2006 Regents' Meeting, the UC Regents voted in favor of the UC Irvine law school.  The Irvine Chancellor assured the Regents that any differences between CPEC and UC Irvine could be easily remedied.
In March 2007, after evaluating Irvine's old and new information, the CPEC staff's Report against found against the Irvine Law school.  And on March 20, 2007 the CPEC Commissioners, representing various California higher education segments, voted against the UC Irvine Law school by 8 to 3.]

"Everything's still moving forward," she said. "The dean search is ongoing. The school was approved."

The commission voted against UCI's law school in September as well, but UCI went ahead and won approval from the state.
American Thinker has been covering this proposed squandering of taxpayer funds on a law school that seems destined to become a left wing stronghold, providing highly paid sinecures for activists who are "experts" in the field of "public interest" law, and providing cheap student interns for lawsuits aimed at favorite left wing goals.

Other voices are also being heard, but the University is likely to get its way, meaning a large front-end expenditure on setting up the school, and a continuing flow of millions and millions of dollars a year to fund the production of lawyers California doesn't need. There is NO demonstrable shortage of lawyers in California.

The Democrat-dominated legislature is friendly to both lawyers and higher education, as these are two of the biggest donor groups to Democrats. Only a veto by Governor Schwarzenegger could obstruct the school, but the Governator of late has shown a willingness to compromise with the left on all sorts of issues.

Only a public outcry - unlikely because the media is burying this story - is likley to cause the Governor to stand up to the legislature with a veto of appropriations to fund the new school.

The University of California is preparing to ignore the recommendation of the statutory body charged with passing on proposals for expansion of state-funded higher education, and press ahead with an unneeded new law school, for the University of California, Irvine. According to the Newport Beach Daily Pilot:
A state commission has voted against supporting the planned law school at UC Irvine, but university officials said they expected the ruling to have little consequence.

The California Postsecondary Education Commission, an advisory group, last week voted not to support UCI's proposal largely because the members felt that California had enough law schools. The UC Regents, however, voted to accept the law school in November, and UCI spokeswoman Christine Byrd said the Regents' decision would likely stand.

[Note: the correct timetable is as follows -

In September 2006, the CPEC staff concluded its Report that found against the law school at UC Irvine for several reasons, and the issue was placed on the September 2006 CPEC Agenda for a vote by the CPEC Commissioners.
Priot to the September CPEC Meeting, UC asked CPEC to withdraw the item from the Commissioners' agenda so that UC Irvine might submit more information to CPEC.
At the November 2006 Regents' Meeting, the UC Regents voted in favor of the UC Irvine law school.  The Irvine Chancellor assured the Regents that any differences between CPEC and UC Irvine could be easily remedied.
In March 2007, after evaluating Irvine's old and new information, the CPEC staff's Report against found against the Irvine Law school.  And on March 20, 2007 the CPEC Commissioners, representing various California higher education segments, voted against the UC Irvine Law school by 8 to 3.]

"Everything's still moving forward," she said. "The dean search is ongoing. The school was approved."

The commission voted against UCI's law school in September as well, but UCI went ahead and won approval from the state.
American Thinker has been covering this proposed squandering of taxpayer funds on a law school that seems destined to become a left wing stronghold, providing highly paid sinecures for activists who are "experts" in the field of "public interest" law, and providing cheap student interns for lawsuits aimed at favorite left wing goals.

Other voices are also being heard, but the University is likely to get its way, meaning a large front-end expenditure on setting up the school, and a continuing flow of millions and millions of dollars a year to fund the production of lawyers California doesn't need. There is NO demonstrable shortage of lawyers in California.

The Democrat-dominated legislature is friendly to both lawyers and higher education, as these are two of the biggest donor groups to Democrats. Only a veto by Governor Schwarzenegger could obstruct the school, but the Governator of late has shown a willingness to compromise with the left on all sorts of issues.

Only a public outcry - unlikely because the media is burying this story - is likley to cause the Governor to stand up to the legislature with a veto of appropriations to fund the new school.