Houston's Clear Thinkers

Tom,

I don't think the U.S. News rankings are the real reason, though I'm sure that didn't help. It may be that relations between dean and faculty were at times frosty.

There was indeed considerable student anger at the USNWR issue, which I agree is stupid. The only legitimate complaint to be made is the officially abysmal employment rate, which while inflated for the record size of my own class of 2005, is really, really poor.

I understand the faculty did have other issues with her, although the only one I know of was the contentious decision to change the 1L curriculum a couple of years ago to include a second semester elective. Some of the losing faculty really hated the idea.

Just fyi, it's "Rapoport." Not "Rapaport."

Given the emphasis that the US News ranking place on a school's reputation among attorneys and judges, and the inconsistant quality of the research and writing abilitites of the graduates that the UH turns out, I'm not surprised by the rankings dip. I am not altogether sure that Dean Rapoport ought to take the fall for that, though -- it seems more symptomatic of the culture of that law school more than anything else.

A Texan Lawyer

The reasons:

Dear Provost Foss:

This is to inform you that I am resigning as Dean of
the UH Law Center, effective May 31, 2006, and that I
intend to take light duty to protect my health between
now and the effective date. My attorney will be in
contact with Dona Hamilton to discuss the appropriate
exit package as I return to my role as a faculty
member.

For the past several years, a few vocal senior Law
Center faculty members have made a concerted effort to
persuade me to resign. This effort has become
increasingly personal and vicious over time. The
recent five-point decline in U.S. News & World Report
rankings and the potential $3MM reduction in the Law
Center’s budget became perfect platforms for them.
They have rallied some students and alumni, and they
have used those students and alumni to take their
fight public. I have decided that it is not
productive for the Law Center to be captive to that
“win at all costs” strategy, especially as the Law
Center moves toward its reaccreditation site visit and
the University moves toward its comprehensive
fundraising campaign. The stress has also taken a
significant toll on my family and on me. As much as I
have loved working for the good of the Law Center over
the past six years, I must step down.

At least one member of this small cadre has made it a
point of personal pride to have played the same role
in the departure of my predecessor deans. He has
openly expressed his glee at my recent
discomfort—capped with an ear-to-ear grin and a
“thumbs up” sign to students at last Friday’s faculty
meeting and with a side-heels kick of joy in front of
some staff and students at yesterday’s lunch for the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. It has not escaped
my notice that the tenor of the attacks on my
predecessor deans took on a different and more
malevolent tone with the Law Center’s first woman
dean.

The Law Center is at a crossroads, as is the
University. Presidents, provosts, and deans lead by
persuasion, because the norm of shared governance
prevents us from using more traditional corporate
responses to blatant insurrection. If a faculty
prefers to ignore uncivil and unprofessional behavior,
then it has chosen to appease rather than to
respond—in essence, to play the role of Chamberlain
rather than Churchill. The Law Center’s faculty must
decide if it will continue to tolerate governance by
aggression. If it continues its passive response to
this group of bullies, then it will send a clear
message—especially to the junior faculty and to the
students—that professional, civil discourse about
legitimate disagreements is not as effective as
high-pressure tactics and behind-closed-doors plotting
for personal gain. If the University allows the
passivity of the Law Center’s senior faculty to
continue without comment, it will signal others in the
University community that these shameful tactics
actually do work well.

When you and I first met last summer, I told you about
the pain that I had already endured on the watch of
the prior Provosts, and I told you then that, over
time, you would be able to sort out the good and bad
actors at the Law Center. Since your arrival, I have
kept you informed about the worst of the attacks, and
I know that you are aware of the increase in frequency
and maliciousness transpiring this spring. I hope
that you will use these insights to find the
appropriate balance between the Law Center’s
self-determination and the University’s need to
protect the Law Center’s students, staff, and junior
faculty from any future retaliation from the current
instigators.

Very truly yours,
NBR

Let me preface this comment with I am actually a graduating UH Law student this spring.

I am ashamed of the behavior regarding some of our faculty members, my class mates, and the dean.

There are definite issues at the law center, namely budget short falls and the ranking drop. I think the budget shortfall is due to the former dean's inability to relate to a class of attorney alum who have consistently donated money to UH over the years.

As to the dropping of US News and World Report, I agree that this rag of a magazine SHOULD have no bearing on a law school's quality, but the fact is that it is the industry standard. And as I write this comment there are hundreds of confused college seniors out there using the rankings as the deciding factor in their choice of which law school to attend this fall.

Academia can write articles until it is blue in face but it won’t change the general perception of the publication.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: