Effective yesterday, Associate Dean Sara Gordon is now the interim Dean for the Boyd School of Law. [UNLV Press Release]
The town of Minden and the Washoe Tribe have reached an agreement over changing the time of the siren that many associate with warning people of color to leave the town by a certain time. [TNI]
Two workers injured in 2019 boiler blast sue UNR, contractor. [RJ]
Have a safe and happy weekend everyone! Be smart if you set off fireworks. And please don’t drink and drive!
Bull crap…it was installed to tell brown people to get out of town. Whatever excuses they've come up with in the intervening years are just that – excuses.
Fine. What is your justification for why the bell rang at noon, then? Because it did.
The Douglas County ordinance went into effect in 1918 and had a time of 6:30. The siren was installed in 1921, was on a mechanical timer, and rang twice a day at 12 and 6:00. Minden, like many small towns, had a volunteer fire department. The siren was tested every day, and when there was a fire, the firefighters came in from the community in response to the siren.
Kind of a cheap shot, but I doubt she'll move the law school to a high rise with rent the school can't afford. I can't imagine moving all those pacific reporters.
He had enough money to buy her position at Boyd. One thing I despise about Boyd is how many untalented individuals are juiced in. Does anyone really think the best and brightest are recruited for teaching and administration? It's all juice and leftwing credentials.
I graduated from Boyd a couple years ago, and Prof. Gordon's evidence and criminal law classes were some of the best I took at Boyd. Very practical, clear, concise. Prof. Gordon is far from untalented. Do you have some basis for calling her untalented? Or are you talking out of your a**?
I am sure she is talented. My problem is that she is a white (really white) woman of privilege. In this day and age, when blacks cannot walk the streets without being gunned down by cops, when immigrants are put in filthy cages for the crime of seeking a better life, when trans are discriminated against for work and fear for their lives, Boyd didn't choose a member of these victim groups. No, they picked one of their own: rich, white, privileged.
So Gerry Gordon bought his daughter her position at Boyd? Okay, something to brag about. Not paying your bills would cause anyone to have money. Be proud!
1:51–You start by assuming she must be talented, but the rest of your post obviously assumes the complete opposite–that she is unworthy and deprived a worthy person of color of the appointment.
But as to your post in general,1:51–why does everything have to be a stark, ultra-dramatic either/or proposition?
Yes, as you suggest, diversity concerns should play a major role in such hirings (particular in the here and now, for many reasons).
But when a particular appointment does not result in the selection of a person of color, that does not automatically mean the system was racist and that the white appointee is a worthless, undeserving shill.
And that is particularly the case here, as you seem to ignore four things:
(1) Boyd, far from avoiding diversity appointments, actually had an African American Dean not long ago(Charles White Villareal–sorry if I remember the name wrong, I'm getting older).
(2) This new appointee is quite capable, although we are to assume she is completely worthless and un-deserving merely because she is the daughter of someone successful? Should not woman be judged on their own merits rather than judged based on some male they are married to or related to?
(3)And we are to likewise assume she was selected over equally, if not greater, qualified and deserving people of color? Do you even know who the other finalists were, and what race they were?
(4) She may be white, but she is a female. Your point would be better taken if she were a white male, as that would much better fit the business as usual, exclusive white good ol'boy's club theme that you suggest.
Now that all said, I'm not denying your point would be much better taken in some other context, and I would almost certainly agree with it in such other contexts.
But you picked the wrong set of facts to make the point that white males control, and receive all the benefits and positions that should go to others. You pick a situation of a university which is absolutely open to appointing an African American Dean as one did in fact recently serve, and you pick a situation where it is a woman who is in fact appointed, and one who is widely recognized as being very worthy and capable.
Of course there are horrible hiring practices controlled by racism and sexism.
But 1:51's point is not worth the time of day when their line of attack(as you point out) is against a university that hired an African American Dean, and then shortly thereafter a female Dean.
Color me curious. Apparently, I can look up anybody's vaccination status on this website. Is doing so a HIPAA violation? An otherwise unlawful act? Is it a HIPAA violation for the government to make this information available in an unrestricted manner?
I can look up my own vaccination records, but trying to get my kids? It is utterly broken. Despite having an older copy of their records, with their IZ number and everything printed on it, no such record is ever found on their portal.
Guest
Anonymous
July 2, 2021 6:18 pm
10:38–Boyd will be Boyd, and will not notably improve in quality(or notably decline in quality, for that matter) depending on what bureaucrat currently warms the Dean's chair.
No one seems to set longevity records as Dean of that school(the first one, Dean Morgan, served by far the longest, if memory serves).
Guest
Anonymous
July 2, 2021 6:43 pm
Wasn't Gordon and Silver hoping for the Caesar's BK which went to someone else?
Yes. It seems like at that time (with 20 20 hindsight) that this bankruptcy was the "make it or break it" scenario for them. If they got it, perhaps they would have survived a few more years. But they didn't get it, it went to some Chicago-based law firm, and they folded soon after.
Guest
Anonymous
July 2, 2021 6:54 pm
11:18–Despite Boyd's somewhat checkered reputation(rather diplomatic phraseology on my part),they appear(as do most, if not all, law schools) to have taken a somewhat condescending view toward long-term successful practitioners, when hiring faculty, as they appear to much prefer the published academian types, and established professors, rather than emphasizing hiring successful local attorneys for their faculty.
A colleague of mine(who will remain nameless as I don't think he wants it disseminated that he kept getting rejected by Boyd) was clearly one of the best local practitioners in his specific field of practice.
During the creation of Boyd, and during the first decade of its operations, he was a huge promoter, and even better financial contributor, toward the law school.(At lest it seems that way, as he claimed he was contributing heavily, but the amounts were never revealed).
He was hoping, through such efforts and lobbying, to become a full-time professor in his area. And, it appears that to keep him continuing to contribute to, and promote, the school, it appears someone involved higher up may have been dangling a carrot–keep up all the good work and generous fundraising and yes, you may well be rewarded with the professorship you seek(again, at least that is how my colleague presented it to me).
But I told him the most he could realistically hope for is a per diem, adjunct type situation, such as a one off teaching of a course now and again, for limited compensation, as opposed to a full professor position with solid salary.
He would insist I was wrong and that they appeared to be making very positive representations to him about his possible future with the school, etc. Plus, he argued who better to be a professor in this subject matter than him, one of the undisputed top practitioners in that area here in Vegas, etc.
What he failed to sense(and he is not the only one. This is a very common tale) that law schools seem to view it as somewhat undignified and unimpressive to provide too many professor positions to local practitioners, even if they are skilled in the given area. Instead, they much prefer to go for established, and published "names" in the area of legal academia who have already served elsewhere as highly-regarded professors. That is a much better move for them across the board, rather than populating the law school faculty with local practitioners who are largely unknown outside the city.
And, truth be told, populating your faculty with these prominent people in legal academia who already have a successful track record as professors, is much more effective at increasing your school ranking(and thus fundraising) than populating your faculty with local practitioners simply because they are good local lawyers in their area of practice.
I think that, in general, is unfortunate, but I do need to make one qualifier. Being a good practitioner in an area does not necessarily translate into being an effective professor–a communicator who can connect, and impart knowledge and advice which sticks with the students. But if you hire an academian, who already has an impressive track record as a professor even if they have little or no practical experience as a practitioner, it's a much safer bet, in general, than the local attorney, who may be a successful practitioner but may lack some of the skills necessary to be an effective educator.
The circle jerk of academia is a joke. There ought to be a rule that one cannot be a law professor without ten years of full-time practice experience. It's an embarrassment that we have a bunch of egg heads with no real world experience running the legal academy. I did not attend UNLV, but my school was very typical. Of my 1L professors, only my civil procedure professor had meaningful experience as a practitioner.
I didn't read the whole essay 11:54 wrote, but I believe the reason law schools hire published academics over practitioners is because the U.S. News rankings care a lot about the scholarship coming out of a law school. And for reasons that defy explanation, law students care a ton about the U.S. News rankings.
12:38, yes, 11:54 emphasized all that, and also the fact that assuming that skilled practitioners, rather than academics with very little real practical experience, should serve as the professors, comes at a clear down side.
The skilled and experienced professors have a proven track record of teaching, connecting with students and imparting knowledge, while a skilled practitioner often has no such skills or traits.
Sometimes, at CLE programs, often presented by skilled local attorneys in their field, the speakers can be very ineffective at connecting with the audience, or imparting their knowledge, or even with pacing themselves and knowing what to emphasize, how to vary inflection and avoid monotone, how to dramatize their ideas, etc.
So, saying that skilled practitioners, rather than so-called ivory-tower academians, should be chosen as professors, has a certain populist appeal, but is often not really advisable.
But also, as a couple posters mentioned, the law school rankings are better served if you load up with nationally recognized professors in their field, as opposed to throwing bones to local prominent practitioners by vesting them with law school professor positions.
At best, these local skilled practitioners may get to teach an occasional class for limited per diem compensation, but are seldom offered full-time professor positions.
Also abhorrent is the old fool way past their prime that just won't leave. They have tenure and just can't give up the ghost. Typically, they were once nameplate experts in their field. But now, they cannot string two coherent sentences together. I had a professor like that, and, well, like most of law school anyway, I had to learn the class content on my own. The professor was useless!
Guest
Anonymous
July 2, 2021 7:07 pm
11:54, your post reminds me of the situation at my law school where there was this professor of Civ. Pro and Evidence who was reputed to be one of the ultimate experts–publishing and lecturing all over the country, leader of rule revision committees–you name it.
He's still at my former law school, and now well into his 70's, as a full time professor in those two areas, as his legend and reputation continue to grow by leaps and bounds(supposedly anyway, according to all the law school's promotional materials).
Now, when I had him as a prof.(40 years ago) he was only in his early 30's, apparently was already enjoying this sterling reputation in these areas, and had in fact already been a full-time prof. there for several years, meaning he joined the faculty full-time at no later than age 27 or 28.
That means he had little or no meaningful attorney experience prior to being hired, and in fact no one in the area seemed to have any knowledge or recollection of him ever having practiced. He apparently had t all the right connections, and when in law school, and on law review, was already publishing influential and well-received articles on Civ. pro. and Evidence, that were published in law journals, etc. Very smart and very ambitious, but apparently little or no practical experience as an attorney.
In point of fact, none of the resumes or CVs I located concerning him ever made any reference to having practiced law. Instead, they were all a recitation of a gazillion articles, lectures, committees, academic positions held, consulting work, etc.
And everyone reading this can think of at least one similar professor form their law school–someone who is supposedly so legendary great in their area, but no one seems to know anything about them ever having practiced law to any meaningful degree.
I just looked at the CV of one of the CivPro instructors at UNLV. This professor was a practitioner from 1996-2000. Two of those years appear to be at a firm as an associate and two years in house for a corporation.
(1) I interviewed to be a law professor (not at Boyd) after about 2 years of practice. I was told that my private practice experience was "on the high side," but that was okay because that particular school "liked to have professors with experience."
(2) I ran this by a professor friend of mine, and he told me that what law schools are universally looking for is (i) number of published scholarly articles; (ii) whether the applicant has a phd or has served as a viting assistant professor; (iii) whether the applicant went to a big name (i.e., ivy) law school; and (iv) whether the applicant had a high-level federal clerkship.
(3) My friend told me that years of practice usually means a person didn't have time to publish, and also indicates that the applicant isn't totally dedicated to publishing.
(4) I agree that this interest in putting ojut law review articles that no one ever reads is absurd and has no correlation to success as a teacher.
Agree with 12:39 and like post of others.
Federal clerkship, preferably appellate, is the golden ticket for the first job as a professor. A close second is having juice. Real experience with real clients is disregarded as inconsequential.
Nevada, and especially in Las Vegas, juice has been very important.
Today I learned that Minden didn't repeal its sundowner ordinance until 1974 – in case people think these things are ancient history.
Minden shaming, really? It's a nice place to live, and the folks living there don't move there because of siren folklore.
I can't believe 10:06 is a real comment.
A dinner bell? It's amazing the hoops racists will jump through to justify their racism.
It rang twice a day for years, as part of the volunteer fire service system check. It was on an automated clock.
Bull crap…it was installed to tell brown people to get out of town. Whatever excuses they've come up with in the intervening years are just that – excuses.
Fine. What is your justification for why the bell rang at noon, then? Because it did.
The Douglas County ordinance went into effect in 1918 and had a time of 6:30. The siren was installed in 1921, was on a mechanical timer, and rang twice a day at 12 and 6:00. Minden, like many small towns, had a volunteer fire department. The siren was tested every day, and when there was a fire, the firefighters came in from the community in response to the siren.
When it rang at 6 it was to warn Native Americans to get out of town. What part of that do you not understand?
I hope Sara doesn't do to Boyd what daddy did (or let happen) to Gordon Silver.
Kind of a cheap shot, but I doubt she'll move the law school to a high rise with rent the school can't afford. I can't imagine moving all those pacific reporters.
and a sauna
Wow, I thought daddy had no money, because he screwed over his creditors.
Daddy’s firm went broke, not daddy. He is still doing very well.
Yes, losing your firm, not paying creditors, and working into mid seventies is doing well. You would do well not paying your bills.
He had enough money to buy her position at Boyd. One thing I despise about Boyd is how many untalented individuals are juiced in. Does anyone really think the best and brightest are recruited for teaching and administration? It's all juice and leftwing credentials.
I graduated from Boyd a couple years ago, and Prof. Gordon's evidence and criminal law classes were some of the best I took at Boyd. Very practical, clear, concise. Prof. Gordon is far from untalented. Do you have some basis for calling her untalented? Or are you talking out of your a**?
Sorry, but you discounted your opinion when you said you graduated from Boyd.
I am sure she is talented. My problem is that she is a white (really white) woman of privilege. In this day and age, when blacks cannot walk the streets without being gunned down by cops, when immigrants are put in filthy cages for the crime of seeking a better life, when trans are discriminated against for work and fear for their lives, Boyd didn't choose a member of these victim groups. No, they picked one of their own: rich, white, privileged.
1:51 PM,
Whether intended or not, I tip my hat to your excellent manifestation of Poe's Law.
So Gerry Gordon bought his daughter her position at Boyd? Okay, something to brag about. Not paying your bills would cause anyone to have money. Be proud!
I went to Boyd, and Judge Jennifer Dorsey was my professor there. Why?
1:51–You start by assuming she must be talented, but the rest of your post obviously assumes the complete opposite–that she is unworthy and deprived a worthy person of color of the appointment.
But as to your post in general,1:51–why does everything have to be a stark, ultra-dramatic either/or proposition?
Yes, as you suggest, diversity concerns should play a major role in such hirings (particular in the here and now, for many reasons).
But when a particular appointment does not result in the selection of a person of color, that does not automatically mean the system was racist and that the white appointee is a worthless, undeserving shill.
And that is particularly the case here, as you seem to ignore four things:
(1) Boyd, far from avoiding diversity appointments, actually had an African American Dean not long ago(Charles White Villareal–sorry if I remember the name wrong, I'm getting older).
(2) This new appointee is quite capable, although we are to assume she is completely worthless and un-deserving merely because she is the daughter of someone successful? Should not woman be judged on their own merits rather than judged based on some male they are married to or related to?
(3)And we are to likewise assume she was selected over equally, if not greater, qualified and deserving people of color? Do you even know who the other finalists were, and what race they were?
(4) She may be white, but she is a female. Your point would be better taken if she were a white male, as that would much better fit the business as usual, exclusive white good ol'boy's club theme that you suggest.
Now that all said, I'm not denying your point would be much better taken in some other context, and I would almost certainly agree with it in such other contexts.
But you picked the wrong set of facts to make the point that white males control, and receive all the benefits and positions that should go to others. You pick a situation of a university which is absolutely open to appointing an African American Dean as one did in fact recently serve, and you pick a situation where it is a woman who is in fact appointed, and one who is widely recognized as being very worthy and capable.
3:10, you are far more diplomatic than me.
Of course there are horrible hiring practices controlled by racism and sexism.
But 1:51's point is not worth the time of day when their line of attack(as you point out) is against a university that hired an African American Dean, and then shortly thereafter a female Dean.
Sara Gordon was an excellent professor.
-Boyd '13er.
Does anyone know how you can get a replacement vaccine card? Thank you!
https://izrecord.nv.gov/public/Application/PublicPortal
Color me curious. Apparently, I can look up anybody's vaccination status on this website. Is doing so a HIPAA violation? An otherwise unlawful act? Is it a HIPAA violation for the government to make this information available in an unrestricted manner?
To state the obvious, not, it is not a HIPAA violation.
I can look up my own vaccination records, but trying to get my kids? It is utterly broken. Despite having an older copy of their records, with their IZ number and everything printed on it, no such record is ever found on their portal.
10:38–Boyd will be Boyd, and will not notably improve in quality(or notably decline in quality, for that matter) depending on what bureaucrat currently warms the Dean's chair.
No one seems to set longevity records as Dean of that school(the first one, Dean Morgan, served by far the longest, if memory serves).
Wasn't Gordon and Silver hoping for the Caesar's BK which went to someone else?
Yes. It seems like at that time (with 20 20 hindsight) that this bankruptcy was the "make it or break it" scenario for them. If they got it, perhaps they would have survived a few more years. But they didn't get it, it went to some Chicago-based law firm, and they folded soon after.
11:18–Despite Boyd's somewhat checkered reputation(rather diplomatic phraseology on my part),they appear(as do most, if not all, law schools) to have taken a somewhat condescending view toward long-term successful practitioners, when hiring faculty, as they appear to much prefer the published academian types, and established professors, rather than emphasizing hiring successful local attorneys for their faculty.
A colleague of mine(who will remain nameless as I don't think he wants it disseminated that he kept getting rejected by Boyd) was clearly one of the best local practitioners in his specific field of practice.
During the creation of Boyd, and during the first decade of its operations, he was a huge promoter, and even better financial contributor, toward the law school.(At lest it seems that way, as he claimed he was contributing heavily, but the amounts were never revealed).
He was hoping, through such efforts and lobbying, to become a full-time professor in his area. And, it appears that to keep him continuing to contribute to, and promote, the school, it appears someone involved higher up may have been dangling a carrot–keep up all the good work and generous fundraising and yes, you may well be rewarded with the professorship you seek(again, at least that is how my colleague presented it to me).
But I told him the most he could realistically hope for is a per diem, adjunct type situation, such as a one off teaching of a course now and again, for limited compensation, as opposed to a full professor position with solid salary.
He would insist I was wrong and that they appeared to be making very positive representations to him about his possible future with the school, etc. Plus, he argued who better to be a professor in this subject matter than him, one of the undisputed top practitioners in that area here in Vegas, etc.
What he failed to sense(and he is not the only one. This is a very common tale) that law schools seem to view it as somewhat undignified and unimpressive to provide too many professor positions to local practitioners, even if they are skilled in the given area. Instead, they much prefer to go for established, and published "names" in the area of legal academia who have already served elsewhere as highly-regarded professors. That is a much better move for them across the board, rather than populating the law school faculty with local practitioners who are largely unknown outside the city.
And, truth be told, populating your faculty with these prominent people in legal academia who already have a successful track record as professors, is much more effective at increasing your school ranking(and thus fundraising) than populating your faculty with local practitioners simply because they are good local lawyers in their area of practice.
I think that, in general, is unfortunate, but I do need to make one qualifier. Being a good practitioner in an area does not necessarily translate into being an effective professor–a communicator who can connect, and impart knowledge and advice which sticks with the students. But if you hire an academian, who already has an impressive track record as a professor even if they have little or no practical experience as a practitioner, it's a much safer bet, in general, than the local attorney, who may be a successful practitioner but may lack some of the skills necessary to be an effective educator.
The circle jerk of academia is a joke. There ought to be a rule that one cannot be a law professor without ten years of full-time practice experience. It's an embarrassment that we have a bunch of egg heads with no real world experience running the legal academy. I did not attend UNLV, but my school was very typical. Of my 1L professors, only my civil procedure professor had meaningful experience as a practitioner.
I didn't read the whole essay 11:54 wrote, but I believe the reason law schools hire published academics over practitioners is because the U.S. News rankings care a lot about the scholarship coming out of a law school. And for reasons that defy explanation, law students care a ton about the U.S. News rankings.
12:38, yes, 11:54 emphasized all that, and also the fact that assuming that skilled practitioners, rather than academics with very little real practical experience, should serve as the professors, comes at a clear down side.
The skilled and experienced professors have a proven track record of teaching, connecting with students and imparting knowledge, while a skilled practitioner often has no such skills or traits.
Sometimes, at CLE programs, often presented by skilled local attorneys in their field, the speakers can be very ineffective at connecting with the audience, or imparting their knowledge, or even with pacing themselves and knowing what to emphasize, how to vary inflection and avoid monotone, how to dramatize their ideas, etc.
So, saying that skilled practitioners, rather than so-called ivory-tower academians, should be chosen as professors, has a certain populist appeal, but is often not really advisable.
1:33, yes, that.
But also, as a couple posters mentioned, the law school rankings are better served if you load up with nationally recognized professors in their field, as opposed to throwing bones to local prominent practitioners by vesting them with law school professor positions.
At best, these local skilled practitioners may get to teach an occasional class for limited per diem compensation, but are seldom offered full-time professor positions.
Is it possible that 1:33 earns their money in the academic field, rather than being down in the trenches practicing law?
Also abhorrent is the old fool way past their prime that just won't leave. They have tenure and just can't give up the ghost. Typically, they were once nameplate experts in their field. But now, they cannot string two coherent sentences together. I had a professor like that, and, well, like most of law school anyway, I had to learn the class content on my own. The professor was useless!
11:54, your post reminds me of the situation at my law school where there was this professor of Civ. Pro and Evidence who was reputed to be one of the ultimate experts–publishing and lecturing all over the country, leader of rule revision committees–you name it.
He's still at my former law school, and now well into his 70's, as a full time professor in those two areas, as his legend and reputation continue to grow by leaps and bounds(supposedly anyway, according to all the law school's promotional materials).
Now, when I had him as a prof.(40 years ago) he was only in his early 30's, apparently was already enjoying this sterling reputation in these areas, and had in fact already been a full-time prof. there for several years, meaning he joined the faculty full-time at no later than age 27 or 28.
That means he had little or no meaningful attorney experience prior to being hired, and in fact no one in the area seemed to have any knowledge or recollection of him ever having practiced. He apparently had t all the right connections, and when in law school, and on law review, was already publishing influential and well-received articles on Civ. pro. and Evidence, that were published in law journals, etc. Very smart and very ambitious, but apparently little or no practical experience as an attorney.
In point of fact, none of the resumes or CVs I located concerning him ever made any reference to having practiced law. Instead, they were all a recitation of a gazillion articles, lectures, committees, academic positions held, consulting work, etc.
And everyone reading this can think of at least one similar professor form their law school–someone who is supposedly so legendary great in their area, but no one seems to know anything about them ever having practiced law to any meaningful degree.
I just looked at the CV of one of the CivPro instructors at UNLV. This professor was a practitioner from 1996-2000. Two of those years appear to be at a firm as an associate and two years in house for a corporation.
(1) I interviewed to be a law professor (not at Boyd) after about 2 years of practice. I was told that my private practice experience was "on the high side," but that was okay because that particular school "liked to have professors with experience."
(2) I ran this by a professor friend of mine, and he told me that what law schools are universally looking for is (i) number of published scholarly articles; (ii) whether the applicant has a phd or has served as a viting assistant professor; (iii) whether the applicant went to a big name (i.e., ivy) law school; and (iv) whether the applicant had a high-level federal clerkship.
(3) My friend told me that years of practice usually means a person didn't have time to publish, and also indicates that the applicant isn't totally dedicated to publishing.
(4) I agree that this interest in putting ojut law review articles that no one ever reads is absurd and has no correlation to success as a teacher.
Agree with 12:39 and like post of others.
Federal clerkship, preferably appellate, is the golden ticket for the first job as a professor. A close second is having juice. Real experience with real clients is disregarded as inconsequential.
Nevada, and especially in Las Vegas, juice has been very important.
I hate it when the same person replies to his own post pretending to be a different person than the OP.
Heyy – Who would reply to their own post?
Heyy – Really, 6:40 you make a good point!
Heyy – Both you posters are right on!!