A group of liberal law school professors are apparently banding together to oppose the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions for the position of Attorney General of the United States. It’s not that this should come as a big shock. Coming in the days of Facebook and fake news you can probably find outrage for things as mundane as going to 7/11 or walking in the park, as we’ve become a nation of the offended.
But today, there’s a bunch of people offended at Senator Jeff Sessions:
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
The Honorable Dianne G. Feinstein
United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein:
We are 1330 faculty members from 177 different law schools in 49 states across the country. We urge you to reject the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions for the position of Attorney General of the United States.
In 1986, the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee, in a bipartisan vote, rejected President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of then-U.S. Attorney Sessions for a federal judgeship, due to statements Sessions had made that reflected prejudice against African Americans. Nothing in Senator Sessions’ public life since 1986 has convinced us that he is a different man than the 39-year-old attorney who was deemed too racially insensitive to be a federal district court judge.
Some of us have concerns about his misguided prosecution of three civil rights activists for voter fraud in Alabama in 1985, and his consistent promotion of the myth of voter-impersonation fraud. Some of us have concerns about his support for building a wall along our country’s southern border. Some of us have concerns about his robust support for regressive drug policies that have fueled mass incarceration. Some of us have concerns about his questioning of the relationship between fossil fuels and climate change. Some of us have concerns about his repeated opposition to legislative efforts to promote the rights of women and members of the LGBTQ community. Some of us share all of these concerns.
All of us believe it is unacceptable for someone with Senator Sessions’ record to lead the Department of Justice.
The Attorney General is the top law enforcement officer in the United States, with broad jurisdiction and prosecutorial discretion, which means that, if confirmed, Jeff Sessions would be responsible for the enforcement of the nation’s civil rights, voting, immigration, environmental, employment, national security, surveillance, antitrust, and housing laws.
As law faculty who work every day to better understand the law and teach it to our students, we are convinced that Jeff Sessions will not fairly enforce our nation’s laws and promote justice and equality in the United States. We urge you to reject his nomination.
Sincerely,
There’s 1300 or so law professors on it. And one comes from South Dakota, USD Associate Professor of Law Sean Kammer.
Unfortunately, if you do the least amount of googling on the professor, your eyes will start rolling, as he comes off as yet another example of yet another college professor who is allowed the luxury of promoting his liberal views on the taxpayer’s dime. As noted directly on his blog, you’ll find such enlightening articles as “Go Home, Gun Nut. You’re Drunk,” where he opines that owning guns is not safe. And another where he claims that “Trump’s base sees him as restoring to America Jesus’s compelling message of fear, hatred, and violence.”
or tweets like this..
Not hard to tie #Trump to white ethno-nationalism. His candidacy is manifestation of it, his campaign now headed by one of its leaders.
— Sean Kammer (@SeanKammer) August 25, 2016
Ugh.
Interestingly enough, this liberal professor who calls people who own over a certain number of guns as “gun nuts” – and the other liberal USD School of Law professor who was recently advocating for a worldwide ban on trophy hunting, are drawing attention to themselves at a time when the state Board of Regents have their hands out asking for $1.2 million to keep the state’s only law school afloat because of declining quality, and the need to make up the income loss from cutting a number of students from the program:
USD Law School Analysis by Pat Powers on Scribd
For reference, here’s whe passage where it was requested as part of the Governor’s budget:
Here is my proposal of where these dollars can be invested….
University of South Dakota Law School – $1.2 million to be used over the next three years. We have seen a nationwide decline in applicants for law school which is leading to smaller class sizes at the law school. This will help the law school meet curriculum and library requirements for the next three years.
So, we keep hearing about these liberal law school professors’ goofy views at the same time the Governor is asking for money to maintain the program. 1.2 Million dollars to help the school continue to maintain what they have right now, in the face of fewer students
And we have to listen to the school’s ambassadors in the arena of public discourse call gun owners “gun nuts,” and another who wants to ban hunting.
Not exactly selling points for the law school to conservative Republican legislators. Especially when they’re going to be asked to pinch every penny they can starting next week. The first question that’s likely to be asked is “if they’re cutting students, why are we giving them 1.2 million? Shouldn’t they also cut staff?”
I’m sure legislators will be able to think of two they could send into private practice right off the top of their heads.
Just a thought.
I don’t think that their appropriation had much chance before this and I think it has no chance now. We are successful at throwing leftists out of government. Its time to throw them out of academia too.
Although I don’t agree with it, I don’t think the letter is that outlandish. It’s very possible that Sen. Rand Paul, for example, will vote against Sessions for reasons expressed in the letter.
I also do not care what law school professors do in their own time in their own name, for example on twitter.
However, I do have trouble with people holding themselves out as faculty of any school when they sign politically charged letters. By signing it as a professor from the University of South Dakota Law School, in my view, it is putting the imprimatur of the state on it, or at least the School of Law on it. I don’t think that is right.
All that said, the Law School appropriation should pass or fail on its merits. One wrong professor shouldn’t prevent it policy from passing. However, no doubt this is bad timing.
Amen! It shouldn’t be about two professors, it needs to be about the institution itself.
The law school has alumni. Hitting up alumni for money is a time honored tradition and the law school should try it and leave the uneducated taxpayers alone
Uneducated?
This legislation will need to be veto proof. Lame…
I haven’t read everything the professor has written, but I don’t necessarily agree with the content just from the tweet and headlines, but I think you singling him out is contrary to the doctrine of free speech that conservatives like you who supposedly support amongst an environment run amok with political correctness. At any institution of higher education there will be differing viewpoints, and we should encourage differing viewpoints. With all due respect, I profoundly disagree with you and this is yet another put down with little substance. Don’t bring the law school’s funding into question regarding this issue. If the law school doesn’t get this essential, one-time funding, they’ll lose certification. Why would lawyers want to go to USD and stay in state upon graduation if the only law school in the state is unaccredited? Shame on you, Pat. You’re a grown man – you need to start acting like it. And yes, I would agree that I am profoundly concerned about the apparent freedom of liberals in academia to promulgate their opinions while conservatives and evangelical Christians who share their views are looked upon with disdain. We need to foster an environment that doesn’t censor free speech. But don’t condemn the law school and I would also invite you to dialogue with the professor and see where he’s coming from before shunning him.
You must be new here.
I went to law school with Sean and I disagree with him in almost all things political. We argue on FB weekly. In particular his position on the 2nd amendment is less than mainstream, to put it politely. However, he’s a principled guy and the 1st amendment gives him the right to sign that letter. Don’t be like the liberals who want speech they disagree with punished by the state: be a principled conservative.
I applaud USD School of Law in trying to maintain the quality of its programs. In light of its current 50 percentage bar passage rate, I hope it’s not late to the party.
I recently graduated from the University of South Dakota School of Law, and I’ve taken two courses from Professor Kammer. While I often disagree with Professor Kammer as to political issues, he is a dedicated and effective law professor.
FYI – I quit visiting this website because of smear articles like this.
Welcome back, Mr. Shanor. We greet you with superior intellect and fatter wallets than most USD Law School grads end up with.
I don’t think you were missed.
A few years back the law school was admitted more students than it should have in order to collect the tuition etc from the students, but then there were too many lawyers and a lot of them had difficulty finding jobs. Maybe that is why enrollment is down now. This seems to happen with many professions.
Are the professors in the law school each teaching enough classes to justify their salaries? If the numbers of students are down, could the number of professors be cut too? If only 50% pass the bar on their first attempt, maybe this is a reflection on the quality of the professors; why not address that before simply asking Joe taxpayer for more money? How does tenure figure into this? How much of the budget for the law school goes to actual classes etc and how much to new buildings etc?
The law school classes have been much smaller the past few years. I believe a lot of that has to do with the economy.
The bar passage rate in South Dakota consistently was in the 80-90 percentile. In 2014 changes were made to the bar and passage dropped to 72%. In 2015 the passage rate plummeted to 56%. For 2016 from what I’m hearing it is below 50% (still waiting for scores to be released).
The reason for the decline in the bar passage rate has a lot to do with the changes made to the SD bar in 2014 and 2015. For example, the multiple choice section, the passing score was raised 5 points. The ethics portion was raised by 10 points. The multiple choice and essay sections were separated, requiring passage for each section. In February 2015, an additional subject, civil procedure, was also added into the mix for the multiple choice portion.
What is very disheartening is some of these kids (some with over $100,000 in student loans) are failing the test sections by 1, 1 ½, 2 points and not getting any feedback on how they can improve or learn what they did wrong. Many other states have an appeals process for students to utilize or an opportunity to review their tests. South Dakota lacks the transparency and student feedback.
It is my understanding this predicament has or potentially can put the law school’s accreditation in jeopardy.
While I don’t have the exact numbers, when I was a 3L in 2015-2016, the 1L class was the largest class USD has had in a very long time. I believe it was around 80-90 students. We only graduated in the mid 50’s.
One of the bar examiners explained to me that the bar was raised minimally to get us out of the lowest (easiest) state to pass the bar. I understand that’s at least in part to stop being the place where people who just need to pass some state’s bar (federal employee issue) take the bar. Should get a bar examiner to explain this, so at least the facts are out there, when there is a legislative hearing.
Would be nice to have a conservative on the faculty speak up, rather than just reading about the two with the unusual (polite for anti-hunting- among other extreme perspectives) thought process. The strange ones put the Dean in a tough spot
Agreed.
Yes, South Dakota had a very high passage rate. Now it’s at the bottom of the barrel. South Dakota ranks #45 for % of students passing the bar exam.
I graduated from USD Law last May, took the bar last July, and opened my own solo practice last October in my home town. I took every class that Professor Kammer offered which would fit into my schedule. I disagree with him on almost everything politics and we every so often go back and forth on social media. At the end of the day, he was one of my two favorite professors. He truly is a great guy. If you want to see why USD Law is struggling and students are failing the Bar in higher numbers than ever before, Prof. Kammer is far, far from that problem. This article makes is seem as if anyone who works for a government entity should not be able to practice their First Amendment Rights. Or they only can when it fits the agenda we want it to. That’s not how it works. Period. And, Pat, you know that. At least, from one (former) journalist to another, I sure hope you do.
Question: If he is exercising his individual speech rights, in the petition why is there a need to identify himself as a professor for USD School of Law? Why not just as a law professor?
My point is that we’re getting this silliness right when the School has their hand out “asking for more” at a time when funds are fairly limited, they’re cutting enrollment, and half of the schools’ graduates are having difficulties passing the bar. Those kind of things tend to flavor how the proposal is viewed in Pierre.
Pat, there is a clear distinction between signing off on behalf of USD School of Law and merely stating where on is employed. The letter itself states that those signing are “faculty members from 180 different law schools.” Hence, the – individual – faculty member is supporting the letter, not the entire Law School. To otherwise imply is simply untrue.
Pat, the Public Employee Speech Doctrine is, as is much of the law, every changing and has a large grey area. However, there is some very solid substance, much of which is laid out by the Supreme Court in Garcetti v. Ceballos, which many consider the most current and controlling case on the matter. However, Ceballos’ predecessor case, Pickering v. Board of Education has facts very similar to what we are looking at here today. Also, to clarify, Cabellos in no way overturned any part of Pickering.
In Pickering, a school teacher wrote a letter to the editor in opposition to the school board’s efforts to pass a bond. Pickering (the teacher) was then fired for writing the letter. The Supreme Court, in Pickering, used a two-part test, stating that “[t]he problem in any case it to arrive a balance between the interest of the teacher, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” The court went on to hold that “a teacher exercise of his right to speak on issues of public importance may not furnish the basis for his dismissal from public employment.” In dicta, the Court in Pickering also states that the language in the letter, some of it known to be false, did not “in any way either impede[] the teacher’s proper performance of his daily duties in the classroom or to have interfered with the regular operation of the schools generally.”
I will say, in Pickering, Mr. Pickering did make a point in his letter that he was not signing this as a teacher. However, it was very obvious that he was and the Court also made no distinction whether he did or did not sign it as a teacher.
What we have is a USD Law professor who put his name and school affiliation on a list, with other legal processors, against the nomination of Sessions. The nomination of Sessions is obviously a matter of public concern. I don’t think there is much of an argument there. So we must focus on whether Prof. Kammer’s speech can or has affected “the efficiency of the public services [USD Law} performs through its employees.” I think it would be a tough case to argue that Prof. Kammer’s name and school affiliation on a letter opposing Sessions nomination would in any way “impede[] [Prof. Kammer’s] proper performance of his daily duties in the classroom or to have interfered with the regular operation of [USD Law] generally.”
If the legislature wants to gut funding for the Law School because one (possibly two) professors have political views that are opposite of theirs, frankly, they don’t belong in the legislature. College campuses, especially law schools, and the State Capitol, are places where differing opinions should be welcomed and not shunned away. We ridicule younger generations for being easily offended when someone has a differing opinion as theirs. And rightfully so. Yet we also want to ridicule a few professors for having differing opinions than ours? How are we as a society supposed to garnish fruitful dialogue and come to the best solution possible if we completely dismiss the other sides views? We can’t.
I understand your argument that Prof. Kammer could have, and possibly should have, simply signed his name on the letter without adding his USD Law affiliation. However, as the law stands, I do not believe he had any legal obligation to do so. If that would be the case, we would need to hold every public officer to the same standard. Therefore, the Governor, Attorney General, Congressmen, so on and so on, shouldn’t be coming out in support of, or against, anyone running for any political office. Yet they frequently do.
Also, Pat, on another note, is it ok if I bill you for my time?
There was supposed be a smiley face behind that last comment. Copy and paste missed that one.
If he wants to sign his name to something, he can go ahead and do that. Its his reputation. But in this case it’s clear that the Professor used his office was a law professor o establish his credibility. I have some problems with that and the Legislature should as well. Good luck with that appropriation. We probably need a law school in this state. But the viewpoints espoused by the professors would make one wonder whether that is the case.
The simple act of publicly condemning anything Trump has done or said backfired every time over the last 15 months. All this negative Sessions talk has really done is solidified his Secretarial role in the Administration. That said as Chairman of the McPherson County Republican Party I certainly have a right to pick my choice and why for both Governor and US House Of Reps without repercussions from the State GOP.