Shelanski Moves On (Again)

According to Dealbook and the WSJ Law Blog, former Boalt prof and sometime antitrust regulator Howard Shelanski is going over to Davis Polk. His class at Boalt was a real pleasure -- I, for one, wish him all the best in his new gig.

Is the Rumor True?

I heard a rumbling that starting this year WOA will be a graded course. Is that true?

If so, I feel that is great news. For better or worse, and despite our occasional posturing to the contrary, grades do motivate Boalties. Because I feel that WOA and LRW are the most foundationally useful classes in the 1L lineup (civ pro is a close runner up) any added anxiety will be worth it. Better to fret over how to synthesize cases and express an argument than over the application of economic theory to contributory negligence.

Let the Games Begin!

Spring registration is underway. I do not have anything particularly witty to say about registration, but if you have comments, complaints or questions, post them in the comments.

Murphy's Law

Looks like the Class of 2010 had the right instinct with respect to the graduation speaker - unlike Uncle Zeb (who was quoted voraciously at the Greek Theatre in May) Professor Murphy has left the building.

Congrats to her; it's our loss.

Some Great Course Evaluation News

If you are a student, you just received an email announcing that from here foreword - and subject to conditions - the 'narrative' portion of professors evaluations will be available students. About freaking time. Huge props to the students who pulled this off (I know it was not easy), although I do have one question about the email.

First, read this:

This year, our faculty advocates on the Curriculum Committee have approved a great change in course evaluations! Previously, students could only see aggregated numerical ratings (e.g., "Rate Professor X on a scale form 1 to 5") and not responses to narrative questions (e.g., "What could Professor X do better?"). However, this year, the responses to narrative questions will be made available online to the student body with password protected access. There's just one catch. In order for your answers to a particular narrative question to be made available to your fellow students, at least 50% of the students enrolled in this course must also respond to that particular question.

BHSA is asking that all students complete every question on the evaluations and remain polite and civil in our answers so that we are able to post them on the website. This new feature will give us all access through Berkeley Law's website to primary source information about student experiences with professors. We hope that you are excited about this and do your best to make it successful.

Doesn't the first sentence of the second paragraph sort of suggest that, while narratives will be posted, not *all* narratives will be posted? Who gets to decide what constitutes "civil"? Who gets to set the boundaries for what is considered "polite"? I hope it's not the professor.

Again, though, this is great work by some very dedicated 3L's. I'm not going to benefit from this, but it makes me very happy all the same.

Students: fill out your course evals here.

GL's Post-Hearing Roundup

GL's hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee is over.

Overall, I think it went well. I don't think some senators' atempts to focus on the welfare rights article were successful--partly because the passages they quoted consisted of complex academic language.

And GL was able to circumvent other "hot topic" issues like gun control or capital punishment by either stating that he had no opinion, or in fact that he agreed with the questioner's premise.

He was a little on the defensive in light of his prior comments during the Roberts/Alito confirmations, but he avoided falling into the trap of comparing their nominations with his own.

And of course he took a bit of a battering on the late submissions of documents issue. But I really can't see how that could really be used to justify Republican opposition.

The correct link to Jesse Choper's letter is here. (Thanks for the tip, anonymous!) I still am waiting for Whelan's response. I'm sure hill have some indignant mouth-frothing on the hearing posted soon.

--------

The White House has confirmed Goodwin's nomination here.

Prior N&B threads on Goodwin Liu shows a surprisingly wide range of view at Boalt. There are clearly a lot Boalties that worship at the Church of Goodwin. There are others that think that his constitutional law classes were overly biased in the ACS direction. (These last two sentences may not be unrelated.) I don't really know enough about GL to make any opinions. I thought his graduation speech last may was underwhelming. But he's been very helpful to me in the few situations in which I've interacted with him.

The logistical problem facing N&B on this topic is that, these days, the confirmation of judicial nominations can take years--if they happen at all. And the track record of speedy confirmations for Obama nominees is not good. Although the LA Times article suggests that GL has well-placed conservative supporters, he may be a controverial nomination (based on his ACS leadership and his opposition to the Alito SCOTUS nomination). And if we keep popping up with thread updates every few months, then we'll separate all the different comments.

So I propose keeping this as a kind of enduring GL Confirmation thread. I'll try to keep it updated as appropriate, and will bump it whenever there are any new developments. I also may change the title as appropriate, but will keep the comments. Of course, other posters can start their own threads. (After all, I'm sure there will be plenty of press releases coming out soon...)

Fall 2010 Courses

Someone asks:

Can we have a thread to complain about the newly released Fall 2010 class schedule?

Yup. Here it is.

This is also an appropriate place to discuss the new ranking policy, which you can find here (scroll to section 3.07, about halfway down the page).

Trickle Down Effect?

By now you've likely heard that Justice Stevens has formally announced his retirement. No real surprises there. Rather than his replacement (near unanimous consensus on the internets is that Solicitor General Elena Kagan will be tapped, or perhaps 7th Circuit Judge Dianne Wood) what I wonder is closer to home: what effect, if any, could a looming SCOTUS appointment have on Professor Liu's April 16th Confirmation hearing?

"Come on, Man. This Affects All of us"

A commentator in the thread below asks for a discussion on the nominations for the faculty graduation speaker. The nominees are:

1. b*rring
2. m*rphy
3. m*rray
4. s*lansky
5. s*ift

They're all fantastic. They're all funny. And they're all worth hearing. Nominating speakers is tricky business, however. Success depends not only on whether students like the person or what they have to say, but also how well they will deliver that message. Case in point: last year's speaker.

I actually submitted a vote for John Yoo - think about it: he's funny, non-confrontatinal, and pretty much the star of Boalt's annual gradation ceremony anyway - but I see he didn't make the list. I won't say who on the list I did end up giving my vote to, but feel free to speculate to your heart's content in the comments.

Good! Win!

Update 01/21/2010: A non-password protected version of the article is here.

Update 01/22/2010: You can find Volokh Conspiracy discussion of the issue here.

________________________

The Daily Journal is reporting (behind password protection) that Obama is "poised to nominate" Professor Liu to the 9th Cir:

Jan. 20, 2010: Three Californians Up for Federal Bench (Daily Journal) "The Obama administration is poised to nominate three Northern Californians to the federal bench, sources have told the Daily Journal. The nominations could come as soon as today, when the U.S. Senate reconvenes. Goodwin H. Liu, a UC Berkeley School of Law associate dean and constitutional scholar, is said to be an Obama pick for one of the two vacant seats on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals . . . .

Question of the day: what professor is next in line for collective student adoration?

May I Please Order Off the Menu?

I'm not really up to speed on this one [something here about being a 3L] but the Spring Courses 2010 thread has seen a steady stream of comments like this one:

Anonymous said . . .

What is the story with the absolute garbage course selections? We had to petition in order to avoid conflicts between almost every ethics course and conlaw. Bankruptcy will never be taught again in the history of the school. Courses overlapping by 1.7 minutes with registrar AH exercising her twisted discretion to deny enrollment? If you would like to see a school with a respectable course schedule, check out Georgetown. Shmohawks!!!

It has been said before on this blog (at 9:55) that the internets let us hunt in packs. The first step is information-gathering. What's going on?

Spring Courses 2010

A commentator in the thread below correctly noted that it is high time for a spring courses thread. Feel free to ask your questions or share your thoughts about the upcoming semester here. My offhand observation is that current 1L's should consider Con Law with the legendary Professor C. It will be a once in a lifetime experience if you can get into the class.

Won't Somebody Think of the Children

Just saw this post on Leiter about a proposed walkout by UC faculty on 9/24 because . . . drum roll please.

Forced furloughs on days when they're not teaching or holding office hours. This, the fine academics consider an unacceptable violation of their umm well I'm not sure what it's a violation of, but they'll be damned if they have to give a talk on Renaissance art in Florence and not get paid by the UC for it. Meanwhile, students with stabbing wounds from the years of mugging by the Legislature and the Regents will now be forced to take that final step and teach themselves in September--instead of the usual December.

Memo to faculty: you look silly. It's something like complaining about a no smoking rule because without a pipe in your mouth, how else will you look prestigious? California is leading the nation in jobless claims, a nasty brushfire is exposing the dearth of resources that actually save lives, and you're complaining about WHEN you have to take furloughs? But to top it off, the complaint is that you can't screw over students to make a statement when taking your furloughs? THAT is your beef? Two words come to mind.

A Sort of Boalt Confirmation Hearing

Unless you're up to your eyeballs in the bar exam, you probably saw Mindi's email on behalf of BHSA soliciting applications for six student slots on the Faculty Appointments Committee.

I'd encourage anyone who is interested to do it. And I encourage anyone who does it to find out from prospective candidates: "If hired, would you make the narrative portions of your teaching evaluations available to students?"

----

Slight Update: An anonymous commentator noted the recent email explaining that classes with fewer than 12 enrolled students will be cancelled, for budgetary reasons. (The same email also stated that a new course section on "Critical Race Theory" would be opened. *cough*.) I think it's a real bummer that we are losing smaller sections, although it's probably also unavoidable. I also think students should realize the importance of tactical enrollment: this is NOT the semester to enroll in Construction Law (which currently has 10 enrolled students) late, after the first week of classes. Rather, this is the semester to enroll early, sample, and then cut the fat later. Just my two cents.

Fall Courses 2009

[Update 04/19/09 (Patrick): One last bump here, as registration is this week.

Update 04/10/09 (Patrick): Hat tip and huge thanks to Anonymous in the comments, who shared a link to Berkeley Law's "two year plan" for course offerings.  

I had a pdf posted here until this morning, when I received an angrily polite email demanding I take it down.  The tone of the email (all demands, and no explanations) tempted me to leave it up, but in the end . . . meh.  I don't really have the energy to be stubborn over something trivial.  If you are an alum or someone with a genuine and legitimate interest in the plan, email me and I'll happily kick you an updated pdf. Current students can find a copy at the SID protected link, above.]

--------------------------------------------------

The course list for fall 2009 will be posted tomorrow at this link. But given today’s lunch talk about graduation requirements, bar courses, and the like, we might as well kick this thing off. Here is a rundown from the talk:

To graduate, students must take the core 1L curriculum, Professional Responsibility (as a 2L), and Con Law (at any time). They must also fulfill a 40-70 page writing requirement, supervised by a faculty member, by the end of the fall semester of their third year. Recommended bar courses include Evidence, Civ Pro II, Corporations, and Crim Pro. Note tat this fall will be the last time Civ Pro II is offered at Boalt.

Lastly, the scuttlebutt is that John Yoo will teach one of the Civ Pro classes.

Some of that guidance is mandatory, and some of it is sort of over the top (e.g., exactly what are they doing to do to you if you choose not to take Professional Responsibility until your 3L year? Expulsion? Prison? Death?). I suspect that which is which should become evident as the comments develop. I’ll bump this thread a time or two as tele-BEARS Phase I approaches.

That Empty Berkeley Tradition Strikes Again

From the tread immediately below:

Anonymous said...

On a different note. Can we get a post on the silly petition being circulated re: Yoo's civ pro II class.

Posted by Anonymous to Nuts & Boalts at 4/15/2009 4:18 PM

I don't know about the petition, but if it is a demand to replace Yoo with someone else, I know what I think (comments).

[Update 04/16/09, Patrick: as a commentator notes, it's only a matter of time until this thread pops up elsewhere. So, maybe I should say what I think instead of just assuming I'm such a loudmouth that everyone knows.

What I think is this: we should let the University do its job. No one is using the Torture Memos anymore nor are the Memos part of the curriculum at Boalt, so there is no need to head off an emergency. It's downright disturbing to me that the very same people who are angry at Yoo for bending and breaking the law are also willing to sidestep the University rules in their quest for vengeance. I'd like to sit the petition writers down for a basic Q&A on topics like "explain with precision the legal flaws in the Memos, and cite the Memo that contains them," spell "Abu Ghraib" or "locate Iraq on a map." The results of that session would reveal the petition for what it is: an expression of political animus, heavy on passion but light on principles, and hastily conceived as the Torture Memos themselves.

Finally, this may be petty of me but as a factual matter I'd like to flag a hurried revision to the petition (HT, again, to a commentator). It used to be called the catchy, "Reconsider John Yoo for Civ Pro II." Now it is the much more benign,"More Options for Civ Pro II." The new title gestures toward free choice and expression, but not enough to carry the day: you'd like to see him fired. Fine. I get that. But if you love this country and its laws, may I politely submit that this is a fantastic opportunity to embrace them. Wait for a conviction, and then can him by the book.]

My Law School Has Sprung a Leak

One is a fluke, two is suspicious. As comments in the thread below point out, we're losing Shelanski and Hathaway. I loved the former as my contracts professor and really hate the thought of him leaving. Who will take his place and use "The Great Cornjolio" in a hypo? He visited HLS [GULC and NYU?], and I held my breath that the visit would not lead to a permanent move. But I guess the "universe has a way of course correcting." I don't know much about the latter. I've read her occasional op/eds in the LA Times coauthored with Professor Ackerman of Yale. I guess based on nothing more than pure speculation, she's just returning to the familiar, both in terms of setting and peers.

I have this weird tingly spidey sense that DE's success in recruiting lateral and entry-level faculty may be gaining the attention of other schools. Sklansky visited HLS last year. Talley and Lester this year. Notice that we poached all three from UCLA and U$C. The last time around Bundy was a finalist to be dean at Hastings. Will he be the official selection this time around now that their choice "loved 'em and left 'em?" Moran (and most definitely her dog) are visiting UCI for a year or two. What will come of that? Yoo visiting the other OC law school, Chapman. Is the absence of crazed hippies with too much time on thier hands inticing? I'm sure I'm missing others.

In short, just 4 or 5 years ago, our only serious threat was that school across the Bay. Given their size, they'd poach one or two choice talents (Lemley and Spaulding come to mind). Now it seems like everyone wants a piece of the pie that DE has baked.

Someone Swung the Sensible Stick!

Great news from BB via email today:

• After the 2009-2010 academic year, all 1L students will take five units of Civ Pro instead of four units (thereby eliminating the need for Civ Pro II).
• Beginning with the class of 2012, students will be required to take 220.6 Constitutional Law, a four-unit class, to graduate.  While they do not have to take it in the first year, but 1Ls will be given priority to get into 220.6 in the second semester of their first year. 
• Beginning now, if there are less than five students registered for a class by June 1, the class will be canceled.  Similarly, if a class has less than 10 students registered by the Friday of the first week of classes, it will be canceled.
  

Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows how much I approve of each of these changes. Civil Procedure and the Constitution are absolutely fundamental to litigation. And litigation is absolutely fundamental to our legal system. Sure, you get something from a curriculum without them. It's not necessarily an education, though.

The full email is posted in the comments.

Ninth Circuit Going to the Liu?

Law students generally don't get a chance to see the Recorder, so I thought I'd point out an article that may be of interest (it is available online too, but for subscribers only [EDIT: Patrick provides a link]). The Ninth Circuit currently has two vacancies--one seat transplanted from the D.C. Circuit (which is considered a "Calfornia slot"), and a second that is actually a disputed seat between California and Idaho.

So whose name is the first brought up by the Recorder as a "likely aspirant" for the vacancy? None other than Boalt's own Goodwin Liu. Could Prof. Liu really become a Ninth Circuit judge at the tender age of 38? I don't think anyone doubts his intellectual ability, and he certainly has the credentials. Having been in a seminar of his a few years back, I can vouch for his intellectual curiosity, willingness to countenance all sides of a debate, and a patient temperament well suited to the judiciary (he would be a welcome balance to fiery personalities like Kozinski or Reinhardt).

This begs the question, though, as to whether he could be confirmed. It is not just that Prof. Liu has very progressive views on controversial topics (including race and education)--it's that he has written widely on these views, and has often been quoted in newspapers, legal publications and on television. He also testified against the confirmation of Justice Alito. While I believe Prof. Liu would be a cautious and thoughtful judge, it is easy to imagine conservatives making an example out of someone with his track record and paper trail.

Which is why, if Liu truly does want to be a judge, now may be the time to go for it. Despite (or maybe because of) the current economic climate, Democrats' political capital will never be higher, and so now would seem to be Liu's best chance for confirmation. Not to mention that if he becomes a judge in the next couple years, his government pension will kick in when he is only in his mid-fifties.

The Recorder does point out that current district court judges are the most likely to be appointed, so it is difficult to say at this point whether Liu truly is a potential candidate. Irregardless, I hope Liu stays at Boalt, and all the better if it is in the same role as Prof./Judge Fletcher.

Who Sets Our Priorities?

I've been wondering how Boalt decides what courses to offer, and whether students' interests and demands play any significant role. Here are some interesting stats from Tele-BEARS website:

Evidence Section 1:
Enrolled: 153
Waitlisted: 21
Enroll Limit: 161

Evidence Section 2:
Enrolled: 82
Waitlisted: 25
Enroll Limit: 91

Topics in Evidence
Enrolled: 23
Waitlisted: 2
Enroll Limit: 26

The Evidence Advocacy classes all have similar waitlists; that's right, every single evidence class at Boalt currently has a waitlist. Other core classes in substantive law are similar. Compare those numbers to:

Foundation Seminar in the Sociology of Law
Enrolled: 10
Waitlisted: 0
Enroll Limit: 23

Law and the Emotions in Action
Enrolled: 3
Waitlisted: 0
Enroll Limit: 10

Designing Strategies for Neglected Disease Research
Enrolled: 12
Waitlisted: 0
Enroll Limit: 43

What's the take-home message here? I think it is that the allocation of course offerings at Boalt doesn't meet the demand. I think the extent to which there are empty seats in Foundation Seminar in the Sociology of Law, and standing room only in Evidence, is also the extent to which something is going awry.

The answer isn't to abolish Foundation Seminar in the Sociology of Law. The answer is to offer more Evidence classes. So, where is the holdup? It's obviously not students. Who does that leave? The faculty.