Here's one that probably won't make the UCLA law home page: professor Grant Nelson is leaving to take a position at Pepperdine. Not just any position either: he will become the William H. Rehnquist Professor of Law, an appointment "applauded by the late Chief Justice Rehnquist's family".
Why go to Pepperdine? According to an item in the LA Daily Journal, Grant claims "it's very close" to first-tier status. That may be a bit optimistic: Pepperdine is ranked 87th on US News.
But Pepperdine, like George Mason, is one of a few law schools that's trying to move up the rankings with a Fox News strategy of targeting the conservatives. And that's probably the real reason for Grant's departure: yep, he's a conservative.
UCLA, like most top-tier law schools I'd imagine, has a few conservative professors (and students) but they're greatly outnumbered by liberal profs. But, I think their conservatism is only tolerated, not taken seriously — a kind of academic "don't ask, don't tell".
Professors like Grant Nelson can't be open about their position on social & political issues the way liberal professors can. Which is unfortunate, because conservatism is a legitimate and vital part of legal thinking in the US. And if you want to practice law with a liberal viewpoint, it's important to be able to respond to conservative counterarguments.
Too often, what seems to happen is that the conservative view is dismissed out of hand. It's conservative; therefore it's wrong. Case closed. What ends up happening is that law school liberalism is a special kind of soft, unchallenged liberalism, where people get comfortable being surrounded by folks who share their views, and don't develop the ability to answer hard questions.
When I had Grant Nelson for Property, I remember a number of times where he made a point of refraining from comment on an issue with potential ideological undertones, steering the conversation back to neutral topics (e.g. incorporeal hereditaments). Probably because he'd learned the hard way that outing yourself as a conservative at UCLA is the fast track to trouble. I remember him as an excellent professor. It's too bad we're running him out of town.
18 Feb 07
Our best professor by far and a disasterous loss for Dean Schill. Also interesting is that, as a "conservative," he was elected Professor of the Year by the classes of 2004 and 2005 - maybe the liberal profs that permeate the law school should take some notice. Interesting side note - Professor Nelson agreed to teach Remedies this semester even though he was already teaching Real Estate Finance (with 110 students). After students complained that Remedies (a bar course) was not being offered at all this year he agreed to teach a section in the Spring. How many professors in our school would agree to take on a second large course (which I doubt he is getting paid extra for) when they already have 110 students in another course? Not many. Looking at our schedule of classes we can barely get our professors to teach anything.
Posted by: at February 18, 2007 04:22 PMAnother obvious factor is that these academic Chairs are gilded.
Posted by: at February 18, 2007 10:00 PMThere is no financial advantage, at age 66, for Professor Nelson to stay on at UCLA; the retirement system stops accruing credit for age at 60. However, the advantages of retiring from UCLA and accepting another well-paid position are considerable. I understand he will be returning here to teach RE Finance as an adjunct.
Posted by: at February 23, 2007 08:18 PM