If there was a way to bet the outcome, I would have gone all in that St. Louis Law School’s interim dean, Tom Keefe, would fail.
Keefe — a local plaintiffs attorney with no previous experience in academia — was appointed in August when former dean Annette Clark resigned after clashing with University President Lawrence Biondi over law school funding and autonomy.The problems, at least on the surface, included his use of language deemed “inappropriate” among academics, his maintenance of his private law practice and his failure to get along with tenured faculty.
Keefe immediately ruffled feathers when he told a reporter that he was not Biondi’s “butt boy” and announced that he would maintain his private law practice while serving as dean. Keefe is a longtime supporter of the law school and a friend of Biondi.
Keefe acknowledged that he was not a good fit for the job, telling the Post-Dispatch that he and the tenured faculty members were “like oil and water.” He also acknowledged making comments that others found inappropriate or that could be seen as sexual harassment.
“Our tears are not deep,” said the faculty member, noting that Keefe never really grasped how a law faculty functions, but did a better job at relating to students.
While it may be that the friction between Keefe and the faculty was well-grounded, was there really any chance that it would end any other way? Consider his epitaph at ground zero of legal academia, The Faculty Lounge :
It is regrettable for the folks at SLU Law (faculty, students, staff, and alumni) that it has come to this. At the same time, the episode provides a splendid example of how things can go wrong when a university administrator disregards the appropriate role of the faculty regarding a decision of enormous importance to a law school.
After all, what could possibly be worse than disregarding the appropriate role of the faculty in appointing a dean? Law school is nothing if not the turf of the professoriate, the hallowed halls of scholarship. Keefe was doomed from the start because he was not approved by the faculty. The rest, such as his talking like a human being rather than in the dulcet, “appropriate” tones of scholars, provide excellent excuses, but the real reason is plain. He wasn’t one of them. He wasn’t their choice. They would crush him. And they did.
It may be that Keefe was an awful dean, and that his demise was the proper outcome regardless of anything else. This really isn’t about Keefe, per se, as it is about the calls for change in legal education, where the legal academy says it’s willing to incorporate more practical education into the curriculum, and that even lawprofs whose practice experience spans a clerkship and a year or two as a baby associate are fully capable of imparting their practical wisdom to law students. “We can do it,” they cry, eschewing the nasty, dirty practitioner’s doubts of their capabilities.
But what happens when a practicing lawyer is introduced into the mix as dean? The scholars aren’t happy. They don’t invite him to dinner. They don’t support his efforts. They hate him from the first day he steps foot in the office, sabotage him at every turn, and tell him not to let the door hit him in the butt on the way out. See? Practitioners have no place in our Academy. They aren’t one of us.
Even the daring faculty member who was bold enough to utter “our tears aren’t deep,” but not so courageous as to put his name to his words, concedes that the practicing lawyer “did a better job at relating to students.” To some, this seems to be rather critical, a big deal. Did the faculty care?
For all the academic posturing, the demise of the practicing lawyer dean is a harsh dose of reality. Practicing lawyers don’t speak like scholars; they say things that professors find vulgar and brutish, expressing actual thoughts in a language that makes scholarly ears burn. “Butt boy”? How awful. Of course, real people talk that way, using ordinary words to express ideas, but in the bastion of political correctness, propriety and nuanced expression, where no one can ever utter a harsh word, outrage is sure to ensue.
Yet, had Keefe somehow adopted the scholar’s penchant for understatement, he still would have been despised for his lack of scholarship, his banal pedigree, his lack of adoration of the things that make scholars feel vital. We are not the same species, and in a law school, the faculty rules.
Pretty much everyone agrees that changes are needed, that the good years of tons of applicants filling as many seats as schools could jam into a classroom, while scholars spend their many free hours thinking deep thoughts about important theories that no judge will ever read. Faced with declining enrollment, a moribund job market, the realization that their scholarly works are neither read nor appreciated by anyone other than their tenure committee and the potential that they too will see the business end of the door if they don’t make school work better, academics are coming to grips with the monster they’ve built on the backs of law students. You can always tell the law students from the faculty, as they’re the ones in debt.
They’re not going down without a fight, however. They beat Tom Keefe, even though he was able to relate to the law students, young men and women who wanted to be lawyers. They circle their wagons on lawprof blogs and lawprof conferences about how they, and they alone, will manage to change law schools to the New Normal without the interference of practicing lawyers. They can do it. They don’t need us. They don’t want us. They don’t like us.
Actually, they despise us. We are everything they’re not. We do what they teach. And if we try to stick our nose into their world, the same thing will happen to us as happened to Tom Keefe. That’s the New Normal. Get used to it.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Law schools have no monopoly on self-righteous blowhards.
Point?
There were also issues with sexually inappropriate comments. While I agree he was doomed from the start I think the reasons are much broader. SLU Law needs to be taken seriously or it will die. The University treats it like a step-child and then placed a person in the position who did not know how to administrate. There is no shame in that but he was definitely the wrong person at this time.
Whenever someone speaks about “sexually inappropriate comments” which was also noted in the story, but without stating what those comments were, it raises a problem. What constitutes “sexually inappropriate” tends to fluctuate wildly according to the peculiar sensibilities of the audience, and this is particularly true in academia. In the absence of the actual language, it’s meaningless to me.
As for his ability to administer, it’s pretty damned hard to herd a faculty who hates you and refuses to cooperate because you’re an outsider. So was he as bad an adminstrator as they claim? Maybe. Maybe not. We’ll never know because he never had a chance.
I think he’s calling you a “self-righteous blowhard.”
Thanks. I got that part (I’ve been called worse). But I fail to see how that makes what happened any better.
I am a SLU Law alum, and I worked there (in the law library) for 14 years. Scott knows nothing about Saint Louis University Law School, and doesn’t even care enough to bother to get the name right. He just uses the news from SLU–a complicated situation with a long history, and a University president who treats the law school like shit–as a platform for his usual uninformed ranting, and claims without any basis that “this isn’t really about Keefe.”
SLU Law is a school that has always been very practice-oriented, with close ties to the practicing bar, as well as a deeply held public interest mission. Scott, you are a fierce advocate for clients, and I admire you for that. But when you talk about things you know nothing about, that’s when I give up on learning anything useful from you. You’re a pompous clown with no respect for anyone else’s views on anything.
Jim, since you are an alum of St. Louis Law College, are you able to talk about the topic of “Biondi’s Butt Boy?” I have never heard this term used to described someone at a law school. Is there a position at St. Louis Law University entitled “butt boy?”
How fascinating that you take it so personally because it touches you. This blinds you when you say that I “claims without any basis that ‘this isn’t really about Keefe.’ ” I refer to my point, not to yours, and the basis is my purpose in writing about this, not your feelings about what I write. But that never dawned on you, because this was personal.
If I was an academic, I would whine about your ad hominem attacks, but as a lawyer, I couldn’t care less. Nor do I care about SLU (which you take the time to write that I don’t “even care enough to bother to get the name right.”). You care deeply? How nice. I don’t.
The Keefe story is an example used here to reflect a larger issue, but you can’t see this because of your personal butthurt at the mention (and misnaming, something that every non-SLU alum will laugh at you for) of your alma mater. It’s very sweet that you’re defensive about your law school, and I’m sorry that I’ve hurt your delicate feelings. But if this was Cooley, would you care? Would you then be able to grasp the point? I bet you would. See your problem now?
You called it the wrong name. You are a pompous clown butt boy.
I read somewhere (but haven’t bothered to confirm) that he asked one female student in public if she was wearing panties, and asked another if she’d be getting laid at a dance. Don’t know the context.
Seriously? That’s some bad stuff, definitely inappropriate if said.
yeah, well I think the only result of this is that Jim won’t be back to read your “usual uninformed ranting…” until the next post.
Another SLU Law alum here, and this article doesn’t quite offend me as it does Jim. In fact, I think it’s an interesting take that no one else is talking about. So for that I appreciate it, Scott.
NB: Biondi’s Butt Boy is an endowed faculty chair that specializes in teaching rear-end collision plaintiff law.
I don’t know, Scott.
1. Asshattery is not a zero-sum game.
2. Not all practitioners are created equal.
I could be convinced that Keefe was adding value by teaching law students valuable things about the actual practice of law, or by promoting teaching of useful things about the actual practice of law.
But he comes off like kind of a nut. There are plenty of practitioners who are nuts, and who teach only bad habits.
It’s perfectly possible that, simultaneously, he’s an awful choice and the academicians hate him for the wrong reasons.
Thanks for answering my question about the “Butt Boy” position Dan. Although I trust your lack of being offended by Scott’s post is probably due to the fact that you know nothing about SLU Law Center.
I suspect Jim’s rage is less a product of his being an SLU Law alum than the 14 years he spent in the library. Either way, I’ve yet to hear how anyone on the faculty made any positive contribution to Keefe’s ability as dean to benefit the students, as opposed to hating Biondi’s appointment without the faculty’s permission and doing everything possible to make sure Keefe failed.
Instead, we get angst and blind rage at the personal affront. Too bad.
Absolutely. Regardless of how good or bad Keefe was (and it certainly sounds like he was an asshat), it doesn’t make the reception he got from the faculty because he wasn’t their choice any better. If anything, it demonstrates the selfishness of sacrificing the welfare of the students for the time Keefe was dean just to assure his failure.
Jim,
Aside from having told Greenfield he’s wrong and called him names, you haven’t offered anything of substance to dispute his point. Instead, you’ve embarrassed yourself and proven his point, that the professoriate so hated Keefe from the outset that he was doomed to fail.
A very poor showing, Jim.
Why do I get the sense your criticism of Jim is only due to your unhappiness that he wasn’t more effective? And I assume your anonymity is due to an upcoming gig with the Mossad?
SHG,
You do have a bad habit of being extremely critical of academics. As you’ve never been a scholar, you might consider that you are less than knowledgeable on the subject and that your harsh opinions may not be welcome, accurate, or helpful.
It’s true that my view is from the outside, that of a (former) law student and lawyer, reader of lawprof blog posts and comment, and numerous discussions with lawprofs. Yes, some actually talk to me. Does that diqualify me from offering commentary? Some lawprofs think so, particularly when they are the target of my “harsh opinions.” Others tell me I’m on target, often saying what they would like to see but don’t feel they can while still functioning in the academy.
The problem is the alternative is to leave it up to lawprofs to deal with their own mess. They haven’t done a very good job of it up to now, and even if they did, it seems they commonly forget that the point of their existence (at least from my perspective) is to teach students to become lawyers. That’s the part that compels me to stick my nose in where it’s not wanted. Sorry, but law schools are for the students and lawyer, not the lawprofs.
This has got to be a troll post.
In the words of one of my old law profs, “interesting, please elucidate”.
I’ve been called a lot of names today, but the worst is “Brian Leiter’s differently-evil twin.” Now that one hurt.
That was one of the most incisive, well put, and effective written takedowns I have ever seen.
It was like watching Obi Wan Kenobi cut through 100 droids with a single lightsaber swing.
Baby lawyers have self-immolated for less.
Anon Prawf,
I’m not sure why Scott — or anyone else commenting on a subject of general interest — should care whether law school professors find our comments “welcome.” Nobody’s making them read it.
I’m also uncertain what you mean by “helpful.” I fear that too many law schools are becoming like too many schools for children, and being unduly focused on self-esteem. I hope you don’t mean “helpful” in the sense of “supportive and affirming.”
The truth is, the effectiveness of law school instruction ought to be a subject of grave concern for society. I see plenty of litigants ill-served by lawyers not taught to litigate, and plenty of criminal defendants ill-served by lawyers not taught to litigate. I am frankly less concerned about the feelings of students or professors than I am about the system producing effective representatives.
And, for the record, with very few exceptions, bar far the professors who best taught me how to be a lawyer were the ones who were practitioners or who had been practitioners most of their career.