By Marc Korman.
Previously, I wrote about an effort in the General Assembly to restrict University of Maryland funds due to the law school's clinics. After negotiations among many legislators, a compromise amendment was adopted to the budget by voice vote. The amendment removes funding restrictions for the University but still has reporting requirements for the law school. Not everyone I spoke with around the law school was happy with the compromise, though it was certainly better than the funding restriction version. The issue will be settled when the House and Senate convene a conference to iron out differences in their versions of the budget. However, there are indications the Senate was comfortable with the House compromise.
Disclosure: Until May 21st, I am student at the University of Maryland School of Law.
Saturday, April 03, 2010
Stand Up for Academic Freedom - An Update
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Sorry Marc, but I'm not inclined to support the "rights" of students to have the legislature extort money from me to fund lawsuits I oppose.
You argue for "academic freeedom," what about my freedom to keep the money I earn or to see that it is spent on programs I support, not activities I oppose?
And I would also oppose this type of expenditure even if you students decided to litigate on behalf of the other side.
Just what is unreasonable about having the people who provide subsidies like your decide priorities rather than letting the recipients set the priorities for spending the handouts they accept.
There's a lot packed into your statement.
I don't recall my tax returns including a page allowing me to check off the government activities I wanted to pay for. This was an aspect of the healthcare/abortion debate I did not understand. Abortion opponents kept saying their tax dollars should not have to go towards abortion services. But how come I can't specify that my tax dollars not go towards the death penalty, a war I don't oppose, or for processing mountaintop removal mining permits? Why? Because that's not how government works.
Here, the legislature made a choice, decided a priority, to have a law school. So the question then is who should set specific priorities for the law school? Is it a dean and law professors or a part-time legislature? I think if you want to have a top tier public law school, you need to let the school operate as others do. That means robust clinic programs free from political meddling.
That said, you don't need to apologize for disagreeing. You are welcome to your point of view.
-Marc
I don't like the compromise. The price of a peaceful society is litigation. Hashing out differing viewpoints is a good thing and if it takes a Judge to decide, so be it.
Just curious here - is the message the state is sending to the law students - pro bono work is OK as long as you do not cross any of our sacred cows ...or should I say chickens?
Post a Comment