How Do You Solve the Problems of Ave Maria? ATL Interviews Dean Bernard Dobranski (Part 2)
Earlier today, we posted the first installment of our recent interview with Dean Bernard Dobranski, of Ave Maria School of Law. You can access that part of the write-up, which includes background on current controversies at Ave Maria, by clicking here.
Now we bring you the second half of the interview. It appears after the jump.
Same deal as before. These are excerpts from a two-hour telephone interview conducted yesterday. Our questions appear in bold, followed by Dean Dobranski's responses.
(If you found the questions from the first half of the interview to be too general, vague, or softball-ish, you may like this half of the interview better. But we didn't treat the interview as The O'Reilly Factor; we didn't see it as appropriate for us to berate a law school dean. It was a cordial conversation, not an interrogation.)
It has been reported that "two professors and two lecturers have left the school since last year, and one professor took a leave of absence." Is there an exodus of faculty members?
I don’t know if I would use the term "exodus," but there are certainly people who aren’t happy here and who may go. There have been two people who have resigned. One was the head of our clinic. When I hired her, I advised her that this move [to Florida] might be a possibility. She explained that for personal reasons she couldn’t move. We hired her knowing this. She did a fantastic job for us. She left to take another job at another law school; I gave her a recommendation for it.
Another person left. Back in August of last year, he told me that he had decided to explore the job market, and had great regret over this because Ave Maria had been a good home to him. There were a number of personal factors that led him to seek other employment: aging and ill parents, growing children, and his wife’s burgeoning career. [But] when he did resign in February 2007, he unleashed a tirade of criticism that wasn’t consistent with what he had said in August about personal factors.
As for the person on leave, he indicated to me last year that he too for personal reasons would be looking for opportunities elsewhere.
Aren't these faculty departures a cause for concern?
These things happen all the time in the academic world. People come and go. I don’t attach particular significance to this.
When we made the decision, I announced to everyone that everyone was welcome in Florida. We wanted the same faculty and the same staff. I understand that for personal reasons not everyone will be able to do that, especially staff.... But everyone is welcome.
Having said that, I know that some people will decide for personal reasons not to move. I know of one faculty member who is very supportive of the administration but just can’t move for personal reasons.
Everyone is welcome. If people decide for whatever reason they don’t want to go [to Naples], I’m sorry to hear that, and I wish I could change their mind. But I do know that there is a huge pool of talented people who are interested in being law professors at this school, and we draw from that pool. It’s a buyers’ market for us....
Given the nature of our school, not everyone will be looking for a job here. But we’ve had a steady stream of people who are eager to teach here.
We just announced three new appointments: one tenure-track, one visiting, and one clinical. We’re soon going to announce two new visiting professors, both with Ph.D.s, one with substantial litigation experience, and the other with previous law school experience and a tremendous record of scholarship and publications.
What about the student body? How will the move to Florida affect the incoming class?
The students [who] are coming in next Monday, they were told that the decision had been made to relocate, and they should expect to spend the first two years in Michigan and the final year in Florida....
For students coming in this year, we may be able to help with their relocation expenses, in a general sense. [The program] would be designed to help those who have to move the farthest. The maximum amount is roughly $500.
We will also have relocation packages for faculty and staff. At a minimum it will include moving expenses. We will be working on that throughout this fall, to come up with packages.
It has been reported that "[a]t least 20 students who finished their first year earlier this year are leaving," along with "several rising third-year students." Is this accurate? Is this cause for concern?
To my knowledge, no rising third-year student has indicated a desire to leave.... Now, we’re starting classes the week after next, so it’s possible some might not come back. In a typical year, you’ll have two or three people who decide not to return, for personal or financial reasons. Sometimes they take off a year, to deal with family concerns, or to let their financial situation improve. It’s not uncommon. But as of today, I haven’t heard about rising third years leaving....
In terms of rising 2Ls, it is not at all uncommon for people who do extremely well to transfer to another law school. So we lose some people who transfer. Having said that, we will probably lose more people than last year, due to the turbulence.
Part of this is because we have faculty members who are essentially running a campaign to encourage people to transfer out. It’s despicable.
But as of last Friday, the number of people transferring out is only slightly higher than last year. But some people don’t tell you until the last minute or at all. You can’t really tell until classes start.
What is the law school's status with the ABA? Doesn't the move place the school's ABA accreditation at risk?
We are fully accredited by the ABA, and [the accreditation process] worked out for us quite well.
In terms of the move, the ABA requires by a rule that if you make a major change in their program, you have to get the ABA’s “acquiescence” -- that's a term of art. A move from Ann Arbor to Naples is a major change. So we have to get their "acquiescence" for this.
What will they look for? Finances, the quality of the facilities, stability in operations.
Is it possible accreditation could be affected through that process? Yes. If the ABA thinks you’re creating a brand-new institution, they may make you start from scratch.
That is theoretically possible. In that case, I would be opposed to the move. That would be the worst-case scenario.
But that’s not our intent [to create a new institution]. It’s the same institution. We’re just going to be in a different part of the country, in a different building.
I can’t predict with certainty what the ABA will do. But I’m comfortable that the ABA will look at all the factors and grant its acquiescence.
We’re in the process of putting together information [about the move] for the ABA. We’re hopeful of getting a decision from ABA before the end of this year or early next year.
What's the basis for your confidence that accreditation won't be threatened?
[T]he reasons in favor of the move are so strong that I don’t think there is much risk of losing accreditation. Southwest Florida, Naples - Fort Myers, is the last major metropolitan area in the United States that doesn’t have a law school. The demographics are great. The local bar and bench are really excited about our coming there.
We’ve always wanted to be a national law school, and in fact we are. We have students from 49 states. The greatest number come from Michigan or the Midwest, but we are national. Total enrollment is around 37,5 but our goal is to get between 400 and 450. When fully mature, we’d like to bring in around 150 students a year. That’s small. And we want to be selective. We also have a very generous scholarship policy -- our "tuition discount" is very high, thanks to Mr. Monaghan’s generosity.
I was initially a skeptic, but now I’m enthusiastic about the move. I think we’ll be better able to fulfill our mission there than here. The southeastern United States is the fastest growing part of the country. A significant part of that growth is Catholics. You have Catholics coming down from the north, and you have Hispanics coming up from Central and Latin America.
Charlotte and Atlanta are two cities with rapidly growing Catholic populations. Florida, especially southwest Florida, has always had a strong Catholic population. If you put Ave Maria Law School right there outside Naples, and you look at the first part of the [school's] mission -- to be national, small, selective -- where do you find another law school like that?
[In the southeast you have] Duke, maybe Vanderbilt, but nothing else on that level. There are a number of [other] excellent law schools, sure, but they are much larger, like Emory, or they are state schools.
On the second [part of our] mission, the Catholic intellectual tradition side, you have St. Thomas and Barry [law schools in the area]. Neither one really emphasizes their Catholic identity in the law school. They don’t really emphasize it or pursue it the way that we do.
Is Professor Stephen Safranek -- currently suspended without pay, and potentially subject to termination -- being punished for his criticism of you and the law school's administration?
I don’t comment on pending personnel matters. But people are free to have whatever views they want on the relocation. Just because the board has made a decision doesn’t mean that people can’t have differing views.
What about claims that you've frozen the salaries of certain tenured faculty members and removed them from key committee posts, based in part on their criticism of you and the administration?
No member of the faculty, stuff, or student body has ever been or will be punished for expressing his or her views about the Board’s decision to relocate to Florida.
Are decisions about tenure are being affected by whether the candidate supports or opposes the law school administration?
No, absolutely not. In terms of tenure, there is no presumption in favor of tenure. The burden is upon the faculty member to meet the requirements for it. We have a whole list of factors. In capsule form, candidates have to excel in three areas: teaching, scholarship, and service. In each one of those categories, you have to meet the standard. The burden is on the professor to establish they meet the requirements.
Are the allegations that you are monitoring the email communications of faculty members true?
No. It’s one of these things that is absolutely false.
Is the administration's treatment of the faculty, including but not limited to Professor Safranek, consistent with the principles of academic freedom and tenure? What about Ex Corde Ecclesiae?
There is no substance to these allegations. People are free to express their views on academic matters, whatever they might be. We have a lot of diversity of views here.
We are a Catholic institution. We have people who come down on a conservative, free-market side, and we have people who come down on a more left-leaning side.... Another example [of an issue that divides the faculty] would be the war. Or an even better example would be capital punishment.
Academic freedom is alive and well here. We have robust discussions and debate here. It’s certainly consistent with Ex Corde Ecclesiae, which is a beautiful document about the nature of a Catholic university. Our motto is Fides et Ratio: faith and reason. The fact that faith and reason can work together is a real inspiration for our law school.
One of the geniuses of our mission is that we’re about engaging the culture, having some impact on the culture. We're not strident, but not apologetic either. We want a place at the table in the dialogue about the role of law in this country. We treat others with respect and civility, and we expect to be treated with respect as well. And we have been – we’ve been treated very well within the legal academy.
What's the composition of the Ave Maria student body in terms of religious belief?
Seventy to seventy-five percent of our student body is Catholic -- level of practice, I don’t know. The other 25 percent come from a variety of backgrounds. Mostly Protestant, a fair number of evangelicals, but some more mainstream.
Last year the student body had two Jews, three Muslims, a Hindu, and one self-proclaimed “Pagan hedonist.” We’ve had a growing number of Mormons coming here. Obviously they don’t come here for theological reasons, but they like our emphasis on values.
In light of your conflicts with the faculty, do you still retain the credibility and trust needed to lead the law school as an institution?
As I said, the number of dissenting faculty is by no means a majority here at the time. It’s obvious that the Board still has confidence in me, and Tom [Monaghan] has confidence in me. In terms of faculty, there are plenty of faculty members here who are supportive of the law school administration and are working very hard.
Speaking of Mr. Monaghan, is the school too dependent upon his financial support?
Mr. Monagahan has given us over $50 million over the past seven years, plus all kinds of other support. It shows his generosity. It also reflects on the controversy here. Many of the dissenters have a more narrow view of what the law school is supposed to be.
[T]he dissenters have been arguing against Tom’s heavy subsidy to us. They would like the school to have less financial resources. Where does most of that money go these days? Scholarships. The first impact [of taking less money from Monaghan's foundation] would be on the scholarhips.
I’m not ashamed of getting as much money as I can, including from Tom’s foundation, to help defray the financial burdens for our students. We are one of the top two schools in the country in terms of tuition discounts.
But does reliance upon Mr. Monaghan's financial support give him too large a say in law school affairs?
The claims of Tom interfering with the running of the law school are absolutely false. He doesn’t tell me whom to hire, he doesn’t tell me whom to admit. He might make recommendations, and sometimes they’re followed and sometimes they’re not.
Only two things. First, he put on the table the idea of relocation. If you want to get call it meddling, you can call it meddling, but I think it’s proper for the Chairman of our Board, who has been our chief financial benefactor, saying I think our law school would thrive and do better down there [in Naples]. The vote was 8-1, so somebody was willing to disagree.
The due diligence process of looking into everything we wanted to look into took quite some time. That kind of process wouldn’t have happened if we were just marching to the beat of our benefactor’s drum.
Second, when we were first starting the school, Tom has a very strong professional view about professional dress [that led to a dress code]. My views aren’t identical to his, but I do think there is value to dressing properly. We do have a dress code for faculty members that calls for professional dress, generally coat and tie for men, and one for students also.
So what's the student dress code?
It's less demanding than the dress code for faculty, but the students must wear appropriate attire.
Our students can wear jeans. You probably see less visible body piercing and tattooing than anywhere else. But they’re not that different from law students at other schools.
In light of the current crisis, how would you evaluate the future of Ave Maria?
People talk about crisis all the time, and there are difficulties, but we will get through them. When you have people who have strongly held beliefs, it’s not uncommon that a division will develop that will turn nasty and ugly. But we’ll get through it.
I think the future is incredibly bright. There’s tension now, but I see very positive things happening in the next year or so. And then we’ll take that down to Florida. We’re continuing to move forward. We’ll be doing the kinds of things that we wanted to do.
Dean Bernard Dobranski bio [Ave Maria School of Law]
Fumare: Law, Culture, and Catholicism... up in smoke (ongoing coverage) [Fumare]
Mirror of Justice (ongoing coverage) [Mirror of Justice]
AveWatch: School of Law (ongoing coverage) [AveWatch.org]
'Reign of terror' at Ave Maria School of Law? [Renew America]
Purge at Ave Maria Law? [Inside Higher Ed]
The Trials of Ave Maria School of Law [WSJ Law Blog]
Memorandum: The Current Crisis [WSJ Law Blog (PDF)]
Earlier: How Do You Solve the Problems of Ave Maria? ATL Interviews Dean Bernard Dobranski (Part 1)
(67) Comments
FIRST!
YEAHHHHHHHHH BIOTCHHHHHHH
HOOOOO HOOOOO HOOOORAAAAHHHHHHH
FOURTH!!!!!
FIFTH!
OMFG LMAO! Lat you are hilarious!
Nice work, Lat
Looks like the Catholic gene pool has pretty much dried up. Another consequence of global warming? Or is it just too much pizza.
No time to read the interview, but did Lat ask her about scamming young 0Ls out of a fortune for a worthless degree?
Seeing how bad it is at Loyola, I don't even want to think about what it's like at a barely accredited school like Ave Maria.
2:02-2:11:
It's almost as though you have nothing better to do at work than wait for a new blog to appear. What do you do?
2:31 - You know EXACTLY what I do
"You probably see less visible body piercing and tattooing than anywhere else."
Yep. You know those secular law schools. Filled to the brim with hardware and ink.
Hilarious.
How appropriate this is categorized under a "vicious infighting" tag. Yet the Dean's interview makes everything sound so normal - you know, tenured faculty get dismissed all the time. It's just a coincidence the three faculty we just tenured supported the relocation and the two who were denied tenure opposed the relocation. Sometimes salaries freeze - nothing to see here.
It's good to see the Dean fess up that the move was Monaghan's idea. Is he interfering with the law school? Naw - but check out all of Monaghan's conflicts of interest (click my name below) including numerous for-profit investments that benefit from AMSL's relocation. Read about how Monaghan threatened to withdraw support unless AMSL moved and how 'dissidents' were kicked off the board. It's all at www.avewatch.org if you have the stomach for it.
What many people don't realize is that the voices that are very critical of the dean and the Board of Governors are limited to a small group of faculty and alumni. These individuals love the school, yet they think they have a "truer" version of what a Catholic law school is about.
These individuals have systematically orchestrated much of the negative publicity (via blogs, op ed pieces, media interviews) in an effort to discredit the dean and, seemingly, to prevent the law school's relocation because it does not meet with their "approval." These many efforts to discredit the dean have taken many shapes and sizes, and have been ongoing for more than a year. They are being carried out without regard for the Law School's reputation. The individuals behind these relentless attacks against the dean (and the Board of Governors and fellow alumni and students who are supportive of the decision to relocate) seem to know no bounds.
While I can't claim to know what is behind the decisions with regard to Professors Safranek, et. al., I have to believe that there were good reasons for this. My advice to viewers of this blog, keep in mind that the postings that you see come from a very narrow (and narrow minded) group of individuals who have an agenda of their own.
Ave Maria School of Law will succeed in Florida. Like any other young law school, there is a maturation process that is sometimes bumpy. Nonetheless, we have much to be enthusiastic about.
How did this school ever get accredited? How does it remain accredited? Where is the ABA?
And, Lat, there has to be more to the story than this boring guy's "nothing to see here." If there's nothing going on, how come you and the WSJ and the Chronicle of who?, the Chronicle of what? the Chronicle of Higher Education are all posting about it.
You should interview the dissidents. They always make for a better read and, in this case, they're probably in the right.
I pity the poor slobs who go to this school.
Thomas 2:54 = Dobranski
Great job deaning that place right down the toilet.
Thomas,
"a small number?"
Then why are there over 160+ signatures on the current petition to reinstated our beloved faculty?
And what of the earlier "no confidence" votes coming from facutly, current students and alumni?
Give me a break. No other law school would get away with this kind of ridiculousness.
Comment breakdown:
65% elitist
30% religious hatred
5% Ave Maria student
Comments such as those of Thomas above are very disappointing.
Thomas has set his opinion on an erroneous premise that people who are critical of the events at AMSoL are "are limited to a small group of faculty and alumni." Given his precision of assertion, I'd come back that people with his myopic optimism are even more limited to a far smaller circle of sycophants.
Granted, that very small circle is very well funded, but they aren't very well organized beyond a PR firm and some spotty public comments. Public support is otherwise limited to critics of the critics, such as Thomas here.
What Thomas, and others, do is to attempt to bracket the argument as one of preference. Nobody but them is arguing preferences, rather people argue about the stated mission of the school as founded, and whether the promises made during the founding of the school were meant to be relied upon. People supporting the newly revised (yet again) mission of the school appear to have no deference for the lasting effecting of a promise relied upon.
If Above the Law readers recall, Ave Maria School of Law promised to be a law school that produced lawyers of highest ethics and understanding of the western legal tradition. For the students who believed in that originally advertised mission, and the founding faculty, they dedicated their lives to making that happen.
Today, however, there is a fight to make the mission of the law school to be to support the caprice and whim of a single man whose interest today is in Florida.
Myself, and my classmates who joined me in the Inaugural class did not go to a law school meant to boost someone's ego -- we went to a law school that was supposed to teach that promises, words, and representation, especially those relied upon by others, are meant to have lasting value. That's what this fight is about.
It's not PR, or personal preference -- it's a fight about what's right.
In just 48 hours, nearly 200 members of the Ave Law community have signed a petition against the Dean's and Monaghan's purge of faculty who disagree with them, and more signatures are rolling in:
helpavelaw.blogspot.com
Add this to the category of craziness poured into the slimy bucket of religion.
65% Ave Maria faculty
30% disinterested snark
5% First
I graduated in the first class of the Ave Maria School of Law. I was very impressed with the quality and the Catholic mission of the school. In fact, not only did we have outstanding students, faculty, and administration, who were committed to the Catholic mission, but we also had statistics that put us squarely in Tier I of law schools.
We were told that while Tom Monaghan was the primary benefactor, he would not be involved in the day-to-day affairs of the school.
Dean Dobranski, the faculty, and the students did an amazing job at getting the school fully accredited in the shortest amount of time possible- five years.
So what happened that changed things? Tom Monaghan decided that he wanted to move his Ave Maria empire to Florida, where he planned to retire. Unfortunately, he never thought twice that the educational institutions he funded are not sole proprietorships. So in 2002, he told the Board of Governors of Ave Maria Law that they either would move the school to Florida or he would cut off the funding that he had pledged to the school (and the ABA). This is confirmed by the letter of Charlie Rice, former Ave Maria Law Board of Governors member, which can be accessed here:
http://fumare.blogspot.com/2007/08/memo-from-professor-charles-e-rice-to.html
(It should be noted that Charlie Rice was booted of the Board of Governors for questioning Monaghan's plans, which set off the initial dispute between a large amount of alumni, students, and faculty, and the administration)
So for the last several years the Board of Governors have had a gun held to their heads by Tom Monaghan, and although they wouldn't admit it publicly, they believed there was no alternative to move the school to Florida.
The most unfortunate thing about the whole matter was that Dean Dobranski was originally against the move, but for unknown reasons changed his mind and then ruthlessly began hunting down those tthat opposed Monaghan's interference and the proposed move. This led to what has been referred to as a "climate of fear" that has been rampant at the school ever since, with faculty, alumni, staff, and students who would dare question the moves of the administration being retaliated against in schocking fashion. Meanwhile, Dean Dobranski and the Board of Governors neglected the school and watched over its transformation from Tier 1 to Tier 4 status is just a few years.
The malfeasance of the administration, the mistreatment of so many individuals by Dean Dobranski, as well as the public silence of the Board of Governors to all of these matters caused a majority of the faculty and the alumni board to cast votes of no confidence in Dean Dobranski. The Board of Governors never even examined the issues behind these votes but rather immediately issued a statement that they backed Dean Dobranski.
Since then there has been an exodus of both students and faculty from the school, with the crisis culminating in the recent decision to grant tenure to three professors who support the administration, but deny it to two who had voted no-confidence in the Dean. Additionally, Dean Dobranski has effectively terminated a tenured professor who has also spoken out against his administration.
I am glad to see that Dean Dobranski has atually listed a few reasons why he thinks SW Florida is a better fit for the Catholic mission of Ave Maria Law - these are more reasons than any of us in the Ave community where ever given when we were supposedly "consulted" about the benefits of the potential move. Obviously, the Dean still hasn't done his homework, because he might be shocked to learn that Charlotte is actually closer to Ann Arbor, MI than it is to Ave Maria, FL. But it's not surprising to me as the whole Florida move is nothing more than an attempt to enrich Tom Monaghan's Florida land development and his for-profit enterprises.
Happily, I believe there are enough good Catholic people and institutions out there that we might be able to carry on the Catholic mission of Ave Maria Law even after Monaghan starts up his new law school in his new town. I pray for this and encourage others to do the same.
Terrence McKeegan, AMSL Class of 2003
Ok, stats aside, am I out of touch here, or is a diploma from “Ave Maria” LS suspect on its face?
Like they could not give the place even a plausible name that might sound legit, even vaguely?
As a U-M student, the necessity for moving seems obvious.
1. Naples is 10 million times nicer.
2. Ann Arbor is ultra-liberal and a terrible place for a religious law school. 2. Ave Maria now inhabits an industrial park on the outskirts of town; in Naples it will have a university, accredited or not, to be part of.
Bottom line: A rich guy founded a law school and now he wants to move it. Professors think the word "tenure" is Latin for "king." The ABA will probably stick it to religion by nixing the move.
It's not going to Naples, it's going to "Ave Maria Town." Tell me that doesn't make a difference. I wear a Miraculous Medal. I said the Rosary on my way to work today. I'm leaving work early to go to Mass for the Feast of the Assumption. And I snort milk out my nose when I hear "Ave Maria Town."
I'm hoping the ABA sticks it to Monaghan by nixing the move. Fool the ABA once, shame on him...
I love how pointing to a biased Web site like avewatch.org is supposed to convince me that this whole thing is evil. How is the information on that site any more reliable than what Dobranski says?
And seriously, people, what is the big deal about moving the school? From everything I hear, Michigan sucks.
avewatch is run by Jay McNally, an angry former employee of Tom Monaghan who thinks his one-sided snarking is "journalism"
Uhm...history is repeating itself, folks.
University of Detroit Mercy...Same self-righteous professors who didnt get their way, same bad behavior. UDM was harmed (temporarily) as a result.
When is someone going to get the joke here?
Lat, if this subject is really of interest to you, you ought to look into the UDM shit. These Profs are whack.
Just sayin...
To be more precise: former employee of a philanthropic endeavor funded by the Ave Maria Foundation (the philanthropic foundation founded, funded, and chaired by Tom)
this guy reminds me of Roman Grant. anyone?
"Obviously, the Dean still hasn't done his homework, because he might be shocked to learn that Charlotte is actually closer to Ann Arbor, MI than it is to Ave Maria, FL. "
Terence...could you possibly be a bigger moron?? I mean...ugh.
2 pros under varying pseudonyms: 35%
3 cons under varying pseudonyms: 45%
everyone else laughing at you: 19%
L2L: 1%
ANONYMAD,
I don't understand. Charlotte is closer to Ann Arbor than to Naples.
ANONYMAD,
Ann Arbor to Charlotte - 668 miles
Charlotte to Ave Maria - 689 miles
Gawd you are dim. What Southerner is going to want to go 689 miles NORTH for crying out loud, when they could go another 689 miles SOUTH to an even better clime w/ even more opportunities post-LS?
Are you REALLY that ignorant? Ohhhh...I forgot....you have an a-g-e-n-d-a. That's v/v cute.
Gawd you are dim. What Southerner is going to want to go 689 miles NORTH for crying out loud, when they could go another 689 miles SOUTH to an even better clime w/ even more opportunities post-LS?
Are you REALLY that ignorant? Ohhhh...I forgot....you have an a-g-e-n-d-a. That's v/v cute.
ANONYMAD,
No true Southerner from North Carolina will want to go to Naples, Florida, the land of New England senior citizens.
Dean Dobranski,
Thank you for continuing to address this issue clearly and frankly. It's sometimes difficult to hear over the din of dissent being fomented by the professors in the hallways and, unfortunately, classrooms.
And thank you Mr. Monaghan for making it possible for me to receive an excellent legal education.
"Mr. Monagahan has given us over $50 million over the past seven years, plus all kinds of other support. It shows his generosity. "
Actually Dean Dobranski, it shows nothing approaching generosity for him to transfer $50M from his bank account, (take the tax break)to his foundation which he chairs and then move it along to his law school which he chairs and then give it and all of the law school assets (plus all other assets gained through fundraising) to his University in Florida which he chairs and for which he is the self appointed Chancellor and partner in the real estate development of the town. This is not generosity it is savvy capitalism under the guise of non-profit higher education. Take a look at the current board of governors for the University - joining him on his board are three members of the administration - all his employees and currently that's the full roster.
Class of '03 alumni. Dobranski needs to go.
Ave MAria- 02'
Ave Maria grads - why there and not Notre Dame for a Catholic legal education? Curious is all as I would think that ND comes to mind when looking at a law school AND Catholic community.
Why not Notre Dame? Why Ave?
Oh a list of reasons:
I have a full-ride scholarship thanks to Mr. Monagahan. I didn't want to leave Michigan. Ave Maria (at least when I applied) was the new up-and-coming school, students had high LSAT scores (I was in the top 95 percentile), Ave beat University of Michigan on the Michigan bar for the past few years, won moot court competitions. Ave was a fun, new law school that looked like it was going places. Now, I wish I would have taken one of the other 3 scholarships I was offered at other schools. But only because I am sick of all this drama - in fact, Ave served me well. I have a great job lined up after I graduate at a top law firm. And also, I couldn't go to Notre Dame because I went to UofM for undergrad - Notre Dame is a THORN in my side during football season.
the whiny students, faculty and alum need to drink a tall glass of STFU. The school is brand new and in a crappy part of the country oversaturated with law schools and a declining population. Move the school and keep the funding coming in. Why is this a problem? If you dont want to move to sunny Naples then stay in Michigan and maybe you can get a job boxing up Chysler when it moves to China in 3 years.
10: 49--
Are you trying to argue that Ave Maria is better than Michigan?
Think what you will of sites like Avewatch (their take on this article is linked to my name below) - they report factual information. Remember, too, that individuals formerly associated with Ave Maria entities have direct knowledge of how they operate. If you want to know what's really going on in an organization, would you ask former insiders or the organization's PR firm?
9:47
the reason Ave Maria students don't go to Notre Dame - most of them couldn't get in
Ave Maria LSAT averages
75% - 158 - 25% - 150
Notre Dame LSAT averages
75% - 167 - 25% - 164
Ave Maria GPA averages
75% - 3.61 - 25% - 3.02
Notre Dame GPA averages
75% - 3.69 - 25% - 3.28
As the kids on XOXO like to say - Ave Maria is a festering TTT in decline
How about Michigan v. Ave Maria?
Ave Maria LSAT averages
75% - 158 - 25% - 150
Michigan LSAT averages
75% - 170 - 25% - 166
Thanks for clearing that up - never saw the numbers. Don't know if the gpa numbers mean as much but those LSAT's sure show a difference.
I woulda thought ND's gpa would be a touch higher as well - nothing below a 3.5
How does ND compare to other law schools? U of Chicago, Michigan etc?
Ave Maria GPA averages
75% - 3.61 - 25% - 3.02
Michigan GPA averages
75% - 3.80 - 25% - 3.53
Ave Maria LSAT averages
75% - 158 - 25% - 150
Chicago LSAT averages
75% - 172 - 25% - 169
Ave Maria GPA averages
75% - 3.61 - 25% - 3.02
Chigago GPA averages
75% - 3.77 - 25% - 3.51
11:09 did Michigan
Chicago's LSAT averages are
75% - 171 - 25% - 167
Mean GPA for entire class - 3.64
The numbers in this post and in 11:05, including Ave Maria's, are taken from the Schools' Admissions websites. It's pretty hard to understand how someone could say he went to Ave Maria to be around people with high LSAT scores. The 150's are about as low as LSAT scores get and still get one admitted to law school.
Patrick is right on Chicago. My (11:24) LSAT numbers are one year out of date.
For my class ('05) the LSATs were:
75%-162, 25%-158, mean 160.
Better than all but a few T2, worse than all but a few T1. So, a solid T2 school, maybe ranked 50-60, if based primarily on LSATS. Our subjective rankings sucked, but that's to be expected with a new school and an administration (Dobranski) that did nothing to publicize our strengths.
Now, our objective scores are bottom T4. Only schools with a specific mission to serve the educationally challenged have worse stats. Thanks, Dean Dobranski.
I get it that more than a few hard core Monaghan and Dobranski haters are policing the blogosphere and pouncing whenever they smell fresh blood, but bagging on Lat for having the conversation is just dumb. Please, accord him the same "intellectual freedom" that you want for the faculty at the AMSL!
One thing did jump out at me from this interview though... AMSL ranks 2nd in the country in tuition discounts? If true, that's a phenomenal statistic that needs to be considered when bashing Tom Managhan's check book. So, if Monaghan stopped writing checks, and tuition skyrocketed, wouldn't the alumni and faculty goe nuts and scream bloody murder? Kind of a Catch-22...
TIGS,
You are on to something.
No matter what the admin does, they are evil.
If TM gives money, he is bad because it makes other donors walk.
If TM does not give money, he is bad because he is abandoning the school.
The scholarships "buy" the students with objectively better credentials. Cutting off the scholarships would make the stats even worse, but the dissidents are on record in favor of cutting back severely on scholarships. A recipe for disaster.
The sad fact is that the very AMSL dissidents decrying the school's reputation are the very ones who proclaim every single action of the admin as "dirty laundry" that they (the dissidents) then delight in airing.
The school was never going to be loved by the legal academy, save for the Federalist Society types (who are in the extreme minority in the academy).
The dissidents have become Ward Churchill by seeing any criticism of their actions as evidence of persecution.
They also wish to destroy the school if they cannot control it.
How Catholic of them.
Yeah, whatever. Great job adhering to the talking points circulated by Monaghan's team.
The pro-Dobranski comments have all been from the same 3 guys under different names; the pro-faculty, pro-original mission comments have all been from about a dozen of us under real and fake names. This is on page two now, so it's pretty much over.
We'll see you brown-nosers in the comboxes of the next blog that picks up this story. "Til then, back to fumare.
i just had to weigh in. Dobranski said he doesnt know of any rising 3Ls leaving. well i dont know a lot of them, and I know one. She got into toledo and will take enough credits there in an extra semester so her degree wont say AMSL on it
Considering you're all legal scholars, I'm surprised nobody has pointed out that there are two (granted intertwined - but not inextricably) issues.
Issue 1: Michigan v. Florida.
Issue 2: Terminating faculty for having dissenting opinions.
Issue 2 is currently the hot button. Issue 1 is a done deal.
"I Know These People | August 15, 2007 04:11 PM" - do your homework before you libel; at least then you can defend yourself. Only one of the "suspended" profs came from Detroit Mercy.
As for "Thomas" - that dude has had it in for Pucillo since Spring of 2001.
The school is moving to Florida - like it or not. Right now the question is whether 2 out of the 3 ousted profs were treated fairly - or were they retaliated against for voicing a legitimate, protected opinion? If the latter, that's actionable and wrong.
Dobranski has been known to retaliate against students for dissenting in the class room, it's not a stretch to think he'd do it to his faculty.
The funny thing about Dobranski, he convinced Monohan to throw so much money at his first few classes that he ended up with lawyers that are smarter than he. Unfortunately, the dude doesn't get that the "kids" have grown up, and from what I hear, they are tired of his ineptitude and megolomania.
Contrarian,
The law school's move to FL has been obvious since 2002, despite it not being official until 2006.
There has never been anything objectively immoral about that move.
What was objectively immoral was trying to thwart the move by any means necessary, no matter the cost.
10:49 - what do you mean by "any means necessary, no matter the cost." Goodness, it sounds horrible. Please do tell.
10:49 - interesting response.
First - you point out a conclusion I had already drawn, as if it were your own.
Second - you insert a phrase I did not use "objectively immoral." I wonder why? Who has EVER claimed the move was objectively immoral? I, in fact, believe the Florida move is a great idea. In the interests of full disclosure however, my future is not affected one bit by the decision. I understand that many of (your fellow?) alumnus believe that their respective futures will be affected greatly by the move. I can understand that emotion. But, as I said, and you so kindly repeated, the move is a done deal.
Third, as 1:42 a.m. points out, a bit sarcastically (I feel that I need to point out the sarcasm for you, forgive my paternalistic behavior), your last sentence is inflammatory, conclusive, and has no basis in fact. What's more, you didn't address the real issue that I raised.
If you are going to engage me, 10:49, at least address the issue.
Let me repeat it for you. It is, in fact, a legal issue. May Dobranski terminate faculty for voicing dissenting opinions?
10:49 - your tenor, and your inability to see and address the issue lead me to draw a few, perhaps unfair, conclusions about you.
1. You don't like one or more of the ousted faculty. One or more of them was/were unkind to you in your perception. Perhaps they informed you that with your grades, you had no shot at a clerkship or law review.
2. You believe that your career depends on this move to Florida; unlike many of your (quite impressive) classmates who have blazed their own trail at the finest legal institutions, you are unable to do so.
Like the move to Florida, these things are in the past. From an outsider's standpoint there is only one remaining - is there a wrongful termination/retaliation suit here? I personally think I could makes some money of this one.
Contrarian,
You need not express such angst or hurt or disappointment over a short blog response.
And I did engage the issue, but apparently I need to spell it out for you: the faculty who is losing tenure has apparently tried to "thwart the move by any means necessary", and termination of tenure could easily be valid in that case. The other faculty do not have tenure and thus the threshold for letting them go is much lower. Encouraging students to have disdain for the dean and primary benefactor is grounds for termination probably even for tenured faculty.
Not sure why you felt the need to attack.
You are on to something: your conclusions about me are unfair, indeed: My livelihood and career are quite secure (and not without some prestige and trail-blazing) regardless of what happens to the law school's location, I did very well academically, faculty encouraged such applications, and the faculty were always kind to me.
No angst or hurt. But this conversation is a bit frustration. You continue to believe you have addressed the issue, yet you still have said nothing but conclusory allegations.
For example - "the faculty who is losing tenure has apparently tried to "thwart the move by any means necessary", and termination of tenure could easily be valid in that case. The other faculty do not have tenure and thus the threshold for letting them go is much lower. Encouraging students to have disdain for the dean and primary benefactor is grounds for termination probably even for tenured faculty."
First, you've placed, "by any means necessary" - as if they are not your own words - now. Are they? If so, what do you mean?
Second, you allege that the faculty have "Encourag[ed] students to have disdain for the dean and primary benefactor" and that this "fact" "is grounds for termination probably even for tenured faculty."
Pretty strong language. Who is attacking? Who is feeling hurt or angst? I will say that your lack of legal analysis is, as you say, disappointing. Also, your premise is subject to significant attack. Does one encourage disdain merely by dissenting, or is this disdain you allege (and seem to be projecting) a by-product of dissent?
Why continue to ignore the issue, or are you incapable of addressing it? Again - is having a dissenting view against an employer's position grounds for termination?
I "quoted" my previous words to point out that I did previously touch on your concern, not for any other reason.
And, I have made a clear assertion that the faculty apparently took dissent to a level that is both prudentially unacceptable and unprotected by law. Sometimes people are fired for being imprudent - I did not think that professors were immune from that rule, even if they have tenure.
I am not sure what you think I am being coy or obtuse about.
Since I (and others) did witness at least one AMSL professor engaging in this sort of activity, I don't think what I suggest as the basis for termination or denial of tenure is far off base.
And BTW, I was careful to use language in my previous post that makes it clear that I am speculating (its what we lawyers often do) as to the possibilites: "if A is true, then B could very liekly be true".
Well, I have to bill some more time.
Pro Dobranski people: 2 points
Anti Dobranski people: 2 points
Contrarian: 10 points