Hot for Teacher
Barack Obama was on Letterman the other night (video: Part 1 and Part 2). For some unexplained reason, the Republican National Committee used this as an opportunity to launch an early attack on Obama. For additional unexplained reasons, they put the attack in the form of a Top 10 List entitled “Obama’s Top 10 Fabrications.” The list is here. A couple of my favorites from the list: (8) Obama was fluent in Indonesian as a child; (2) Obama had heated discussions with a high school friend named “Ray” about racial issues; (1) Seeing a photograph in Life or Ebony Magazine changed Obama’s life.
So, was this really a fabrication? Was Obama wrong to claim that he was a law professor? In actual fact he was not a Professor of Law, in the technical sense of the term. He was not tenured or a full-time faculty member, as during the time he taught his primary job was either with a plaintiff’s law firm or as an Illinois State Senator.
Despite this, I have no problem with Obama calling himself a law professor. First, we refer to nearly anyone who teaches law as Professor, regardless of whether that person is tenured or a practitioner. Perhaps this is just colloquial speech, or perhaps it is just polite, but I doubt that many of us mind if the many practitioners teaching at Boalt call themselves Professors. It would be quite disrespectful, in fact, if we insisted on sharp distinctions between “Professors,” “Lecturers,” and “Practitioners.” Second, Obama taught constitutional law for around a decade. If Obama had only delivered a few lectures his use of “law professor” would be questionable. But he taught Constitutional Law, a core law school class, for many years. I should think that a decade of Con Law entitles one to be called “Professor.” Third, Obama did not directly claim the title of “Professor.” The Top 10 list quotes him as saying “I was a constitutional law professor” (emphasis added). That is true, in the sense that one of his students at the time would have said, “My Con Law professor is Obama.” Were Obama attempting to delude people into thinking he was a full-fledged Professor of Law, he would have used the present tense. Using the past tense implies that he was the Professor for particular Con Law classes, not that Professor was his occupation and official title.
Although this is a minor issue, Obama’s campaign seems somewhat cognizant of it, as his website mentions his teaching only once, and is careful to say only that “he returned to
One more thing: I’m in no way belittling the hard-work of Professors of Law who dedicate their entire lives to teaching. I understand being full-time staff is different than part-time, but it still doesn’t change my opinion about Obama saying he was a law professor.
Labels: Legal Culture, Rabid Liberals
8 Comments:
I don't see Obama's quoted use of "professor" as being deceitful at all, and see the attack as being strictly partisan. But it does show that adversaries can pore over your documents and will attack you for giving your credentials even the slightest "up-tweak," even if it wasn't really an up-tweak or was done without bad intent. So just get in the habit of being very precise about your credentials.
As for the "professor" thing, there's a lot of variation in the use of the term, but I think the term ought to be used with some precision to refer to people who truly hold that title. Pretty soon after I started teaching, all three schools where I've taught (Boalt, Stanford, Santa Clara) took pains to eliminate "professor" and emphasize the "Lecturer," for practitioner teachers. "Lecturer" is my official title at Boalt, so that's what I always try to use. Sometimes "instructor" is used. But students don't approach after class and say, "Lecturer Steele, I have a question." So I will answer to "professor" when students use it. And older practitioners all tend to use the now-outdated term "adjunct professor," so I will answer to that as well.
Another term with different uses is "faculty." When I arrived at Boalt in '97, there were documents that listed me as "Adjunct Faculty," but that usage seemed to disappear around the time that the term "Lecturer" kicked in. At that time, Boalt listed the practioner-lecturers' bios on the school's Faculty Profiles web page. But they've been removed. One school even had a form letter emphatically instructing lecturers never to refer to themselves as "faculty." So I don't. "Faculty" ought to be used with the same precision as "professor," since it's an earned designation. At the same time, some schools (e.g., Hastings) still list practitioner-lecturers as "Adjunct Faculty," and some still give them the title "Adjunct Professor." I'm not hung up on the titles at all and try to use the titles exactly as the school define them.
A question in response to John Steele's comment above: when terms such as "adjunct professor," "lecturer," "adjunct faculty," etc. were in use, was there a recommeded way to directly address a person holding any of the above titles instead of calling him or her "professor so-and-so"?
In my experience at Boalt, most practitioners have insisted on not being called "professor" and have instead suggested that we address them using their first name. I suspect that being on a first-name basis with your professor has something to do with the uniquely relaxed environment at Boalt, and I admit that I was never quite comfortable with this practice. I don't come from a background with rigid academic formalities, but I feel that addressing a law lecturer by his first name fails to demonstrate due respect.
I don't know if there's a formal rule about addressing profs and non-profs. I just respond to whatever the students use -- which is almost always "professor" when I first deal with them. It's often "John" if they're 3Ls and I've worked with them on something like trial ad. But one former student who's been practicing several years still won't use "John" no matter how many times I've asked him.
One the topic of puffing credentials, here's an interesting decision out of Massachusetts, which is instructive albeit an extreme case:
***************
BOARD OF BAR OVERSEERS
IN RE: ALEX SOUFFLAS
Decision Date: April 19, 2006
ORDER OF TERM SUSPENSION
This matter came before the Court, Cowin, J., on an Information and Record of Proceedings with the Vote and Recommendation of the Board of Bar Overseers filed by the Board on April 7, 2006. Upon consideration thereof, and the parties having assented to the six months suspension voted and recommended by the
Board of Bar Overseers, it is ORDERED that:
1. ALEX SOUFFLAS is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for a period of six months. In accordance with S.J.C. Rule 4:01, sec. 17(3), the suspension shall be effective thirty days after the date of the entry of this Order.
IN RE: ALEX SOUFFLAS
NO. BD-2006-025
SUMMARY[1]
The respondent entered law school in the fall of 1997. During his first year, he achieved a 3.43 GPA, but his grades dropped thereafter. Ultimately, the respondent was graduated from law school with a 2.99 GPA, placing him in the bottom half of his class.
After his graduation in 2000, the respondent worked full-time in the corporate section of a Boston law firm until 2002. In 2002, the respondent was laid off from the firm. In addition to two months'
severance pay, the respondent received out-placement assistance, but he did not find employment.
The respondent hired a placement firm to assist him with his job search. He supplied the firm with a copy of his resume and law school transcript. The resume reflected the respondent's true GPA, and the transcript was an accurate copy of the respondent's law school transcript.
The placement firm sent the respondent's resume and transcript to several law firms, including firms in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The respondent, who was only pursuing employment in the area of corporate securities, received no offers of employment.
In February 2003, in response to a job posting, the respondent sent a resume and a transcript to a firm located in Pennsylvania. In this resume, the respondent intentionally misrepresented that he had graduated "cum laude" with a GPA of 3.52 and that he ranked in the top 11% of his class. The respondent also altered the transcript to reflect a 3.52 GPA by photocopying letter grades from a copy of his actual transcript, cutting and pasting the higher letter grades over his true grades, and then photocopying the altered transcript until the evidence of alteration was removed.
Relying on the falsified resume and transcript, a Pennsylvania law firm interviewed the respondent twice. In April 2003, the firm hired the respondent as an associate at an annual salary of $90,000. This salary was less than the respondent had previously earned at the Boston firm.
Dissatisfied with the salary, the respondent applied in July 2003 for a position at another law firm located in Philadelphia. The respondent again submitted the copies of the false resume and altered transcript. Unbeknownst to the respondent, however, the placement firm he hired had previously sent his original resume and a copy of his true transcript to the same Philadelphia firm.
A partner of the firm received both versions of the respondent's resume and transcript. The partner contacted the respondent and asked for an explanation of the discrepancies. The respondent initially denied knowing how the resume and transcript came to be falsified. The partner then forwarded to the respondent the transcript and resume he had received from the placement firm and the falsified resume and transcript the respondent had sent and subsequently contacted the respondent for an explanation. The partner informed the respondent that he had an ethical obligation to report the respondent's conduct to bar discipline authorities. The respondent then acknowledged that he had falsified the resume and transcript, but urged the partner not to report him to bar authorities. The partner reported the discrepancies between copies of the respondent's resume and transcript to bar counsel.
This matter was tried to a special hearing officer of the Board of Bar Overseers on May 26, 2005. On October 27, 2005, the hearing officer issued his report finding the above facts and concluding that the respondent had violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 8.4(c) and (h) by falsifying his resume and doctoring his transcript and by denying knowledge of the alterations to the partner at the Philadelphia law firm. The hearing officer considered the respondent's use of the falsified resume and transcript on the first occasion to be mitigated by the respondent's financial distress upon the loss of his job. There was no mitigation found in the respondent's use of the falsified documents to obtain a higher paying job.
On April 19, 2006, the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County (Cowin, J.) ordered that the respondent be suspended for six months.
End Of Decision
There are various uses and gradients of the title "Professor" on any faculty. These include Adjunct Professors (still in use in some schools), Assistant Professors, tenured Professors, Endowed Professors (usually with a long donor name preceding the title). I tend to see these uses of the term "Professor" as being the kind with the capital "P". It's a title, and one with many different prefixes. These matter a lot to people within the Academy, as they pursue and advance their careers.
But "professor" with a lower-case "p" is a different kind of title. It's what I call all my teachers in law school, whether they are actually adjuncts, lecturers, or anything else. As a student, when I go to class on the first day, the instructor never really tells me the name of the Endowed Professorship s/he has, or the exact status of his tenure. So "professor" is a great, all-purpose term. "Teacher" or "instructor" might work, but they don't function well as prefix-style titles.
The truth is, "professor" has a lot of distinct meanings (all of them legitimate)- and any dictionary will list them separately. To hold Obama accountable to one definition of the word when he was clearly using another is disingenuous and, ironically, deceitful.
But then, I don't expect that will matter much to those who level such a charge. They don't care about the accuracy of any particular charge - they are struggling to create a "frame", by repetition, in the minds of journalists and others, in which Obama is deceitful. That frame, if established, will set the context for future attacks. See: Kerry, being a "flip-flopper," or Gore being a "robot," or Hillary being "too ambitious". Critics already are assembling a long list of Obama's "deceits" -all of which can be debunked, but none of which matter - because the perceived existence of such a list has more cultural impact than particular facts in individual cases. (Like the so-called "Stella" Awards.)
Hon. Ed Jellen (Bankr. N.D. Cal) taught bankruptcy here this past fall. Scheduling prevented me from taking the course, but I shopped it on the first day. He seemed like a wonderful, unassuming, plain-spoken guy. By way of introduction, he said (I'm paraphrasing, but only slightly): "People never know what to call law school teachers who aren't professors. I'm not comfortable being called 'professor' because that suggests a degree of erudition I haven't earned and don't pretend to. You can just call me 'Judge.'"
I think there's a lot of variation among schools in this matter. UVA, at least for undergrads, has a tradition of referring to everyone as "Mr." or "Ms." (well, the "Ms." is a rather recent addition to the tradition) instead of using titles. This is respectful and avoids the problem of having to distinguish hierarchically among students, TAs, adjuncts, full profs, etc.
Columbia Law lists all teachers on its faculty list. Whether this is out of respect for everyone performing the job or in order to make the faculty look larger than it necessarily is, I don't know.
Frankly, I would be surprised if Obama would have had hard time getting a job as tenure-track fulltime faculty at Chicago anyway -- his resume's pretty good faculty material except that he didn't do a judicial clerkship and apparently never published. He's also been called a law professor by others in the legal profession: Hawaii Bar Journal (8-SEP Haw. B.J. 24) referred to him as "the young law professor and Illinois Senate candidate."
I hardly think UVa's customs are indicative of a larger trend. You have to wear a suit for the bar exam in Virgina, after all.
Post a Comment
<< Home