Chiming In

Since everyone else seems to have spoken to the ideological diversity question, I'd just like to add this thought. Democrat/Republican is the wrong measure of intellectual diversity for a law school. This isn't a political convention (though it might be a spawning pool). It would behoove us to be exposed to the most views of the law as possible. As my legislation class has made clear, there's a lot of difference between a Scalia and a Rehnquist (one beats it to the text, the other divines Congressional intent). A similarly marked contrast exists between those Chicago zanies Easterbrook and Posner (textualist and efficiency worshipper). The "liberal" judicial thinkers also show these contrasts. Thurgood Marshall was a stickler for rules and the rule of law, and from my first pass through his cases, I'd consider him a textualist to a degree. Enter Justice Stevens and the mystery of Congressional intent. This is true of older judges too. Cardozo and Holmes dominated legal thought from opposite ends for the first half the century, and look at all the fertile goodness that came out of that!

If my interest were purely for a legal education, my criterion of law school diversity would be a search for different jurisprudential philosophies. So, all of the above, a few jest- err... critical theorists, a healthy dose of quantitative scholars (mmm, I love 'em!), even some guest professors from the evangelical law schools (Liberty for one).

So, as a measure of Boalt's diversity, I would look to our professor's writings. Since that's a tough job, I'll resort to a much cruder proxy (but one that likely still possesses a decent r-squared): who they clerked for.

Now you're curious aren't you? Well, unfortunately for you IP still needs to be read, civ pro reviewed, and intramural basketball starts tonight (now you know where my true interests lay). However, when I get back, I'll look into assembling the data.

QED.