 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Welcome Message from the President
|
Back On Defense
Facing a threat that Cooley Law School would be summoned to a hearing to show cause why its provisional accreditation should not be revoked, I wrote a six page letter to Consultant Jim White contesting each of the ten so-called 'deficiencies' alleged against us.
It was a daunting task, largely because the litany of complaints were vague, non specific, and unsupported by allegations of fact. For example, the first claim was that Cooley had not demonstrated that it had a program consistent with sound educational policies. The standard quoted, number 103, required that a school demonstrate that it has a program consistent with sound educational policies "...by establishing that it is being operated in accordance with the standards."
In other words, they were saying that we were not in compliance with the standards because we had not demonstrated that we were in compliance with the standards.
How can you answer that?
I pointed out that the law school had been found to be in compliance by the ABA House of Delegates a year before. I pointed out that eighty-two percent of our graduates had passed the bar exam in February of 1976, a passing ratio equal to that of the prestigious University of Michigan.
What else could we do? What else could I say?
The second claim was that we did not have the resources necessary to accomplish the objectives of our educational program.
More nonsense. In three years time, we had accumulated assets in excess of a million dollars, consistently operated the school in the black, and graduated students who passed the bar and entered the profession. We were meeting our objectives.
They claimed our faculty were not involved in scholarly research and writing. I replied that one professor alone had written six books and edited over 400 other titles.
They said we didn't have enough faculty. I answered that we had more than twice the minimum required number of full-time faculty members.
They complained that our faculty did not have the major responsibility for the development of the educational program. I responded that Standard 205 requires academic policy to be set by "the faculty and the dean" and that Standard 207 provides that the allocation of authority between the dean and the faculty is a matter for determination by each institution.
Their sixth allegation, I branded as "ludicrous." They said we did not maintain conditions adequate to attract and retain a competent faculty. I pointed to the ABA's own statistics to show that Cooley's faculty salaries were tied for the third highest in the nation.
I branded their seventh claim as more double talk. While conceding that we had enough law books in the library, they said we didn't have enough other kinds of books to make up for the fact that we were not affiliated with a university. And this despite the fact that our school was just down the block from the Lansing Public Library.
Number eight was, as I declared, "... so blatantly false that it is difficult to comprehend how it could be advanced in good faith." They claimed that we didn't have a full time librarian! Peter Kempel was one of the first people I hired at Cooley. He was a lawyer, and had his Master's Degree in library science. He had been employed as a law librarian at the University of Detroit. He was a full time employee of Cooley and indeed held tenured faculty status. His job was to build the Cooley library, and he had taken us from ground zero to 63,000 volumes in less than three years.
The ninth claim was that we did not have adequate office space for part time faculty. I answered that we had just acquired an 80,000 square foot building, which placed us among the largest law school physical plants in the country. There was, I said, plenty of room for offices.
Their final beef, that we didn't have enough seating capacity, was also without substance. We had always provided study places for more than 40% of our students, as required by the standards. I finished by saying:
"...we have learned, despite your failure to inform us, that the accreditation committee is scheduled to meet in Washington, D.C., on or about May 18 and 19. We perceive that it is your intention once again to consider the status of Cooley Law School without permitting us to be present or to be heard.
"This course of action does not bespeak an effort to assist Cooley Law School or to encourage our advancement and growth. On the contrary, your upcoming unannounced meeting appears to be but one more episode in a long continued policy of obstructing the creation of new law schools, discouraging law school growth and limiting the number of young men and women who are able to enter the profession of law.
"The American Bar Association has no right to use its accreditation process as a means of providing protection for its members from the competition which might come from new lawyers. Just the opposite is true. The American Bar Association ought to see that the torch of learning is passed freely and generously to the next generation."
Admissions | Financial Aid | Academics | Grand Rapids Campus | Rochester/Oakland Campus
Library | Bookstore | Information Technology | Clinical | Career Services
Faculty | Students | Alumni | News & Events | Overview | Search Cooley | Contact Us
This Page was last updated on:
08/19/2004