By \u201ckey external stakeholders,\u201d the school means conservative politicians seeking cheap headlines. Because the professor signed onto an amici brief in the Idaho and West Virginia trans student sports ban cases heard by the Supreme Court this week and with that story dominating the news, right-wing lawmakers saw an opportunity to score points by torpedoing the law school\u2019s new dean.<\/p>\n
The brief in question<\/a>, prepared by Keker, Van Nest & Peters and Suzanne B. Goldberg, the director of Columbia Law\u2019s Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic, isn\u2019t particularly controversial. It doesn\u2019t even wade into the Equal Protection issues in these cases, limiting its inquiry to the West Virginia half of the case, noting that Title IX \u2014 by its text and existing caselaw \u2014 should protect the student involved because the record is undisputed that they have not undergone puberty and are already undergoing female hormonal puberty treatment, meaning any attempt to force them into male sports puts the student at a competitive disadvantage on the basis of sex.<\/p>\n This involved too much reading for the professional grievance industry.<\/p>\n Senate President Pro Tempore Bart Hester, a Republican, explained his objection to the Arkansas Advocate<\/a>:<\/p>\n There\u2019s no way the people of Arkansas want somebody running and educating our next generation of lawyers and judges [to be] someone that doesn\u2019t understand the difference between a man and a woman.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n This was, of course, not the argument in the brief. But it does play to the Republican fascination with kids\u2019 genitals that continues to deliver them votes from the sort of people asking Grok to strip pictures of teen actresses<\/a>. Alas, as the Trump administration has clarified, using AI to create child sexually explicit material is a national free speech concern<\/a> and a kid joining the \u201cwrong\u201d bowling team is a grave concern.<\/p>\n Hester also said he was \u201csurprised that this person who has these beliefs made it through the initial scanning processes,\u201d a telling confession that Republican lawmakers believe the hiring process should focus on theocratic wrongthink. The amicus brief isn\u2019t about \u201cbeliefs,\u201d it\u2019s about the legal significance of puberty in competitive sports and that, while male puberty is the inflection point that gives male athletes competitive advantages, all the parties in the case agree that the student involved has not and will never undergo male puberty.<\/p>\n Look, I\u2019m not going to pretend law schools shouldn\u2019t consider a candidate\u2019s past work. If a candidate for the job has a long history of posting racial slurs or something like that, it matters. But it doesn\u2019t matter because that\u2019s the candidate\u2019s beliefs<\/em>, it matters because it suggests the candidate will act<\/em> in a manner that bring illegal discrimination and a hostile environment into the institution. There\u2019s nothing about a brief outlining Title IX law and puberty that\u2019s going to impact the law school.<\/p>\n Hester insisted he didn\u2019t threaten funding, but added that \u201cthere\u2019s just a basic understanding that the legislature controls the purse strings.\u201d Very cool. Very not extortion.<\/p>\n Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders\u2019s office took a break from assuring us that the children yearn for the mines<\/a> to praise the university for \u201creaching the commonsense decision on this matter in the best interests of students.\u201d Attorney General Tim Griffin \u2014 who definitely didn\u2019t request she be fired, his office assures us \u2014 \u201capplauds the decision nonetheless.\u201d He just \u201cexpressed his dismay at the selection and his confidence that many more qualified candidates could have been identified.\u201d More qualified candidates? They searched for TWO YEARS! Arkansas, this may be tough to hear, but\u2026 maybe the problem is you.<\/p>\n The ACLU condemned the decision<\/a> to fire Suski:<\/p>\n If state officials can threaten to cut funding because they dislike a professor\u2019s legal analysis, then no public employee in Arkansas is safe to speak freely. Under this logic, any public worker could be punished for expressing a belief unless it has first been approved by politicians. That is not governance \u2014 it is ideological control.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n That is their goal. <\/p>\n Conservatives nab every opportunity to warn that the woke mob would end academic freedom. Then they ended academic freedom. Every accusation is a confession. All that whining whenever a law professor is chastised for using racial slurs<\/a> or students peacefully protest a hate group<\/a>, it\u2019s just to set the stage for their more robust assault. Refusing to tolerate illegal discriminatory behavior (at least illegal on paper until this Supreme Court says otherwise) is not the same as firing someone for making straightforward legal analysis in a brief. To use a poster child of this right-wing whinging, Amy Wax<\/a> wasn\u2019t disciplined for making arguments about labor law, she was disciplined for bad-mouthing minority students. But these folks spent years blurring the distinctions so they could some day fire a professor just for recognizing that anti-discrimination laws are real.<\/p>\n As State Representative Nicole Clowney put it<\/a>: \u201cVeiled threats and comments behind closed doors about the political leanings of University of Arkansas faculty and staff are nothing new, sadly. But state elected officials threatening to withhold funding to the entire School based on the political beliefs of the newly hired Dean is a new, terrifying low.\u201d<\/p>\n Tsk tsk. It\u2019s the worst terrifying low\u2026 so far.<\/p>\n Culture warriors cancel new U of A law dean before she started<\/a> [Arkansas Times] The post Law School Dean Survives Two-Year Search, Falls To One-Week Culture War<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n After a two-year search, the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville found its new law school dean. Then, a week later, it unfound her.<\/p>\n Emily Suski, a professor and associate dean at the University of South Carolina\u2019s law school, was announced as the new dean of the law school on January 9. By January 14<\/a>, the university had \u201cdecided to go a different direction in filling the vacancy\u201d based on \u201cfeedback from key external stakeholders about the fit between Professor Suski and the university\u2019s vacancy.\u201d<\/p>\n By \u201ckey external stakeholders,\u201d the school means conservative politicians seeking cheap headlines. Because the professor signed onto an amici brief in the Idaho and West Virginia trans student sports ban cases heard by the Supreme Court this week and with that story dominating the news, right-wing lawmakers saw an opportunity to score points by torpedoing the law school\u2019s new dean.<\/p>\n The brief in question<\/a>, prepared by Keker, Van Nest & Peters and Suzanne B. Goldberg, the director of Columbia Law\u2019s Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic, isn\u2019t particularly controversial. It doesn\u2019t even wade into the Equal Protection issues in these cases, limiting its inquiry to the West Virginia half of the case, noting that Title IX \u2014 by its text and existing caselaw \u2014 should protect the student involved because the record is undisputed that they have not undergone puberty and are already undergoing female hormonal puberty treatment, meaning any attempt to force them into male sports puts the student at a competitive disadvantage on the basis of sex.<\/p>\n This involved too much reading for the professional grievance industry.<\/p>\n Senate President Pro Tempore Bart Hester, a Republican, explained his objection to the Arkansas Advocate<\/a>:<\/p>\n There\u2019s no way the people of Arkansas want somebody running and educating our next generation of lawyers and judges [to be] someone that doesn\u2019t understand the difference between a man and a woman.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n This was, of course, not the argument in the brief. But it does play to the Republican fascination with kids\u2019 genitals that continues to deliver them votes from the sort of people asking Grok to strip pictures of teen actresses<\/a>. Alas, as the Trump administration has clarified, using AI to create child sexually explicit material is a national free speech concern<\/a> and a kid joining the \u201cwrong\u201d bowling team is a grave concern.<\/p>\n Hester also said he was \u201csurprised that this person who has these beliefs made it through the initial scanning processes,\u201d a telling confession that Republican lawmakers believe the hiring process should focus on theocratic wrongthink. The amicus brief isn\u2019t about \u201cbeliefs,\u201d it\u2019s about the legal significance of puberty in competitive sports and that, while male puberty is the inflection point that gives male athletes competitive advantages, all the parties in the case agree that the student involved has not and will never undergo male puberty.<\/p>\n Look, I\u2019m not going to pretend law schools shouldn\u2019t consider a candidate\u2019s past work. If a candidate for the job has a long history of posting racial slurs or something like that, it matters. But it doesn\u2019t matter because that\u2019s the candidate\u2019s beliefs<\/em>, it matters because it suggests the candidate will act<\/em> in a manner that bring illegal discrimination and a hostile environment into the institution. There\u2019s nothing about a brief outlining Title IX law and puberty that\u2019s going to impact the law school.<\/p>\n Hester insisted he didn\u2019t threaten funding, but added that \u201cthere\u2019s just a basic understanding that the legislature controls the purse strings.\u201d Very cool. Very not extortion.<\/p>\n Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders\u2019s office took a break from assuring us that the children yearn for the mines<\/a> to praise the university for \u201creaching the commonsense decision on this matter in the best interests of students.\u201d Attorney General Tim Griffin \u2014 who definitely didn\u2019t request she be fired, his office assures us \u2014 \u201capplauds the decision nonetheless.\u201d He just \u201cexpressed his dismay at the selection and his confidence that many more qualified candidates could have been identified.\u201d More qualified candidates? They searched for TWO YEARS! Arkansas, this may be tough to hear, but\u2026 maybe the problem is you.<\/p>\n The ACLU condemned the decision<\/a> to fire Suski:<\/p>\n If state officials can threaten to cut funding because they dislike a professor\u2019s legal analysis, then no public employee in Arkansas is safe to speak freely. Under this logic, any public worker could be punished for expressing a belief unless it has first been approved by politicians. That is not governance \u2014 it is ideological control.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n That is their goal. <\/p>\n Conservatives nab every opportunity to warn that the woke mob would end academic freedom. Then they ended academic freedom. Every accusation is a confession. All that whining whenever a law professor is chastised for using racial slurs<\/a> or students peacefully protest a hate group<\/a>, it\u2019s just to set the stage for their more robust assault. Refusing to tolerate illegal discriminatory behavior (at least illegal on paper until this Supreme Court says otherwise) is not the same as firing someone for making straightforward legal analysis in a brief. To use a poster child of this right-wing whinging, Amy Wax<\/a> wasn\u2019t disciplined for making arguments about labor law, she was disciplined for bad-mouthing minority students. But these folks spent years blurring the distinctions so they could some day fire a professor just for recognizing that anti-discrimination laws are real.<\/p>\n As State Representative Nicole Clowney put it<\/a>: \u201cVeiled threats and comments behind closed doors about the political leanings of University of Arkansas faculty and staff are nothing new, sadly. But state elected officials threatening to withhold funding to the entire School based on the political beliefs of the newly hired Dean is a new, terrifying low.\u201d<\/p>\n Tsk tsk. It\u2019s the worst terrifying low\u2026 so far.<\/p>\n Culture warriors cancel new U of A law dean before she started<\/a> [Arkansas Times] The post Law School Dean Survives Two-Year Search, Falls To One-Week Culture War<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" After a two-year search, the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville found its new law school dean. Then, a week later, it unfound her. Emily Suski, a professor and associate dean at the University of South Carolina\u2019s law school, was announced as the new dean of the law school on January 9. By January 14, the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":141984,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-142224","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Headshot-300x200-re2LOu.jpg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142224","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=142224"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142224\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/141984"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=142224"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=142224"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=142224"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
Amid Criticism From Lawmakers, U of Arkansas Rescinds Dean Offer<\/a> [Inside Higher Ed]
UPDATED: University of Arkansas withdraws incoming law dean\u2019s offer in wake of Republican complaints<\/a> [Arkansas Advocate]
In capitulating to political pressure to fire new dean, U of A violated Constitution, ACLU says<\/a> [Arkansas Times]<\/p>\n
\n![\"Headshot\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/abovethelaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2016\/11\/Headshot-300x200.jpg?resize=189%2C126&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\n
Amid Criticism From Lawmakers, U of Arkansas Rescinds Dean Offer<\/a> [Inside Higher Ed]
UPDATED: University of Arkansas withdraws incoming law dean\u2019s offer in wake of Republican complaints<\/a> [Arkansas Advocate]
In capitulating to political pressure to fire new dean, U of A violated Constitution, ACLU says<\/a> [Arkansas Times]<\/p>\n
\nJoe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n