Remember the Hawaiian Day controversy at USD Law School which propelled the Legislative Free Speech Act across the finish line in the state legislature?
Apparently, “Hawaiian Day” is not the only mess coming out of the administration at the USD Law School. The latest item that has many students in an uproar is an attempted takeover of Student Boards by the Administration of USD’s Law School. The Student Boards in question are the USD Law Review, Moot Court, and Alternative Dispute Resolution panels that have been operating under student autonomy since at least 2002, when the prior bylaws governing their operation were put into place.
Three e-mails went out over the course of the day yesterday from the Student Bar Association… And they’re very reminiscent of the mess that gave rise to the Hawaiian Day debacle.
The first e-mail went out from the Student Bar Association to tell Law School Students that they would be voting on changes to the “Law School’s Board Selection Act.”
(You can read the 2002 Act here, and the 2019 proposed changes here.)
Again, that was the first e-mail. But just like the Hawaiian Day mess, a supplemental e-mail was soon sent out to let them know that the Law School Student Body would not be voting on the changes that affect them all:
And just like Hawaiian Day, yet again, even more clarifications came out after that, noting that now, as opposed to getting to choose who sit on those panels, the Student Bar Association is actually just getting pushed out by the administration.
And as opposed to how the boards have operated since 2002, some people are now going to be more equal than others, and operate at the beck and call of the administration:
I’m told that while these emails ARE coming from the Student Bar Association who is running the elections, they were sent at the behest of the school’s administration and these decisions are NOT being made by Student Bar Association. Just like “Hawaiian Day.”
So, if the boards exist at the whim of the Law School Administration, why would they have bylaws in place to govern the process for (at least) the past 17 years?
I’m being told that members of the school administration are trying to strong-arm board chairs into voting on behalf of their entire boards to change the process, handing it off to the administration to hand-pick who they want on the panels. And that this might not be occurring in a very transparent manner. This goes along with overarching concerns of transparency at USD Law School between administration and the students.
If the Board of Regents and the USD Administration actually intend to investigate the mess at the University of South Dakota Law School as they promised earlier this month in the Argus Leader, it sounds as if the Hawaiian Day debacle was not the illness, but just a symptom of a larger problem.
I would think that the USD Law School Administration has more trying tasks than to play favorites, demand political correctness, and to micromanage the law school’s student body.
More to come.
Too bad the law school hired a big liberal named Fulton to run that circus. The law school is swirling the drain, they say.
All you have to do is google Dean Graham at the USD Law School and realize the ship is being steered by an uber-liberal professor right now. Apparently she is an associate dean but sounds to me like she’s stirring the pot on all of this stuff while the law school administration is in transition. Dean Fulton needs to get there as soon as possible.
If you had any idea the things that Dean Graham has put up with, and the very fair-minded positions she’s taken, since starting in her position, you would know that what is allegedly occurring is not coming from her. She has the patience of a saint for everything she has to deal with, and fussing over Hawaiian Day matters is not something she would do.
Dean Wermer couldn’t clear this up.
Why would they change anything until Neil Fulton is there as the new Dean? Dean Geu was placed on “interim” status a year ago while they searched for his replacement. The administration is doing a major disservice to the new Dean if they are making big changes right before he comes in. I hope his first act is to clean house in the administration suite and hire some competent people – maybe even someone who has practiced law in SD!
Give Neal a chance. He’s bright and talented, and South Dakota’s best interest are his only agenda. There does appear to be enough people in place working against those interests. Neal will be busy
I’ve never seen or read this blog before now. Someone told me about this post, so I wanted to check it out. This post is like anything where you take a few emails out of context to stir the pot. Apparently, there was some confusion and miscommunication about who was to vote and approve the Board Selection Act. That was a mistake that it sounds like in hindsight could have been clarified before any announcements were made. Nonetheless, Dean Graham included the Board Presidents and Advisors throughout the entire process (starting in November) in an attempt to make the whole Board selection process more objective and legitimate. I believe there were four meetings seeking input and agreement along the way. I was in those meetings and quite honestly after much discussion, I thought we had all come to an agreement. Personally, I thought a more consistent process across the Boards would simply add credibility to our law school and our Boards. And isn’t that something we all want? To continue to improve…to create the best possible lawyers in South Dakota and in our profession? I am looking forward to the new ideas of our new Dean and the improvements his leadership will bring. But, I also want to go on record saying that I do not think there was any secret agenda by our current administration’s attempt to bring credibility to a process that needs more of it. In fact, my experience was that there was an attempt to be collaborative with the Boards throughout the process.
Interestingly, I’m hearing that many students do not trust the administration to be transparent and fair in the process, hence why they’re pushing back. I’m also being told that there is pressure being brought to bear to force the changes.
When you say “there was an attempt to be collaborative with the Boards throughout the process” that would give one the impression that they aren’t interested in the changes.
Which wouldn’t exactly make it collaborative. It would give one the impression that it’s the opposite.
How many is many?
As a student at USD Law, I disagree with you. As someone who has also been involved in the process, I disagree with you.
Marilyn,
How dare you show up here with your reasonable conclusion reached by actual firsthand experience. How is everyone supposed to whine and cry about the liberal takeover of the college and university system with those pesky facts getting in the way?
WRONG.
Kammer (Yeah right),
How dare you provide any logical input about the article or your firsthand observations from being in on those meetings? How is everyone supposed to discuss anything with your constant useless rhetoric that you bring to comment sections and facebook wasteing their time? Oh wait, typical liberal only discussing the “facts” that support your argument and completely pretending the facts that the other side has laid bare are non-existent. Did this guy get tenure yet?
Graham also caused Hawaiian Night mess didn’t she?
Yes. I’d venture to say that the majority of the law school’s problems have the same person in common….
I was made aware of this “issue” yesterday and read the post on here. As a former journalist and as a former president of the moot court board, I wanted to speak with current board members to see exactly what was going on before jumping to any conclusions. If there are any students feeling like these changes have been pushed upon them by the administration, or if the process has not been transparent, those students are not on the current moot court board. As stated above, this has been an open process with student involvement. Unfortunately, there was a simple error made when sending out the original email in regards to who had the right to vote on the proposed changes to the bidding process.
Pat, I am not sure if you are “hearing” from actual members of one of the three boards affected. If you are only “hearing” from students not on any of the boards, they ultimately have no say in this process anyway. First year law students seeking to get on a board, and current board members are the only people the changes would affect. Any second and third year students who are not on a board are unaffected and have no right to vote on the changes. From what I have heard, from board members, none of what you have written here is the truth. Which is sad.
I was not happy about the Hawaiian day incident and that deserved the attention it got. But this is ultimately much ado about nothing.
Austin – Without disclosing sources, I am hearing from at least one board member of the affected panels. The proposed changes in the boards have at least some students at USD Law fairly unhappy.
I am not overly happy about the proposed changes. As I am sure there are some students who are not happy about them. But that doesn’t mean that the administration is pushing for the changes from the top down and strong arming them into voting for the changes.
I’m being told there is pressure.
And, if that’s the case, I’m not sure why they’re trying to ramrod it through before Neil Fulton, who I think will do a good job, gets there.
As a student, I can say that no one other than about 5 students who are on the moot court and law review boards want this change and feel heard. In fact, there are multiple petitions going around to show that we don’t support this change and have not been given a say. Yes, there are many signatures on each one. Which I myself have signed.