genes and discrimination part trois - it's official, we have a new law!

finally, on may 21, 2008, w signed the genetic information nondiscrimination act! i can't believe it didn't receive any fanfare and i just heard about it this morning. this is the first civil rights legislation since the new millenium and no hoopla?

a quick search this morning on the la times and new york times did not show any news of the president making GINA the newest federal civil rights legislation.

and, a quick google search revealed that even other smaller news outlets did not report on it till, at the earliest, 4 days after the event.

at least the washington post, through reuters, reported it on the day bush signed it. but no one else outside the beltway picked up on the news?

shouldn't this be newsworthy? heck, accidents on the freeway get reported sooner.

well, i am glad it passed, lack of news coverage notwithstanding. now i hope employers and insurance companies heard the news too and will comply.

but more importantly, i hope americans who want and choose to be genetically tested for various diseases take advantage of this new law without fear of termination or higher insurance premiums or no insurance coverage. or at least, if those things happen, the courts can protect their rights.

genes and discrimination part deux

the house and senate already passed the "Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act." why hasn't bush signed it into law yet when he claims he's all for it?

sign it already!

genes and discrimination

i am so happy that there might soon be a law prohibiting genetic discrimination in employment and/or in accessing health insurance. with medical advances - such as genetic testing for breast cancer, lou gehrig's disease, etc. - empowering people to take precautions to avoid/minimize the inevitable (which end result is sure to be mentally, financially and emotionally taxing), these same people should not also have to worry about losing their jobs or losing health coverage for something they have no control over.

so house of representatives, pass this same law that the senate already passed. and whoever the POTUS will be when the law passes both houses of congress, sign it!

ucla football and legal ramblings part quatre

ucla football

ucla fell out of the ap rankings today because of that horrid "no touchdown" loss to utah. utah!?!?! the same utah that was 0-2 before the game against ucla!!!!

olson has not delivered. clearly. but, i think a lot of this has to do with coaching. ucla barely won against byu. and this loss exposed the joke that dorell has been.

i am almost dreading going to the ucla-washington game this saturday!

surely, ad dan guerrero knows what to do next..... and it starts with getting an exploratory committee to get a new coach in!

more on chemerinsky

the word today is that chancellor drake rescinded the rescission of chemerinsky's contract and he will now get to be the first dean of the uci law school. over the weekend, there have been reports that some conservatives were on drake's ear prior to the rescision.

i almost feel that chemerinsky should just say "thanks, but no thanks." i am sure that chemerinsky will do a fabulous job as dean and get funding, hire excellent faculty, etc, etc. but there have just been too much bad karma already. and, if in the .0000000000000001% that he fails, the conservatives will just have ammo to say "i told you so." and i hate that.

legal ramblings part trois

professor chemerinsky wrote an op ed piece about the rescission of his dean-ship with the about-to-be-established uci law school. was this a surprise? of course not. we all know he is outspoken.

but, it appears that even if the rescission is rescinded (through petition efforts), he will stay at duke. darn.

... if i were chancellor at ucla or dean of ucla law, i'd offer you (and professor fisk) a position.

legal ramblings part deux

the whole chemerinsky affair has been much discussed in the legal profession and in uci circles today. so, uci chancellor drake issued this statement today. interestingly, drake says

The decision was mine and mine alone. It was not based on donor pressure or political pressure; it was based on a culmination of discussions – over a period of time – that convinced me we could not effectively partner to build a world-class law school at UC Irvine.

well, let us look at the timeline. drake offered chemerinsky a job on august 16, 2007. chemerinsky supposedly signed a contract on sept. 4, 2007 and drake rescinded the contract on sept. 11, 2007.

what possibly could have happened between august 16 and september 11 that convinced drake that chemerinsky was not the person for the job? drake alludes in the la times article that he did not want chemerinsky to write op ed pieces because chemerinsky should "focus on things like legal education in this new role." but the op ed piece that apparently irked drake was published on august 16, 2007 -- the same day drake made the job offer to chemerinsky and well before chemerinsky signed the sept. 4 contract.

if drake was so unhappy about the existence of the op ed piece, he should not have made the offer when the op ed piece was published. if drake did not know about the op ed piece until after he made the offer, drake should not have negotiated terms of the contract or given the contract to chemerinsky (i assume that negotiations occurred between august 16 and september 4 -- 19 days!!!). instead, drake should have immediately rescinded the offer before there was any acceptance.

drake then makes this excuse:

In fact, there are individuals here with political views far more liberal than Professor Chemerinsky’s who conduct research, teach and serve in senior administrative positions.

still sounds bad...

legal ramblings

so i read that professor erwin chemerinsky was axed days after signing a contract to be the dean of the university of california irvine's brand new law school. what a shame.

i think that professor chemerinsky has a brilliant legal mind and to have him as a first dean would have brought national prominence to a brand new law school. he is a nationally known constitutional scholar and to axe him because he was perceived as "too liberal" is just outrageous!

perhaps professor chemerinsky should go to ucla. he and professor catherine fisk (his wife) could teach at ucla. it would be a nice point-counterpoint between professors chemerinsky (the supposed liberal) and eugene volokh (the supposed conservative).

speaking of professor volokh, his blog shows that a couple of his bloggers are just as outraged at the canning of professor chemerinsky.

professor volokh, states that

It is generally not proper, for instance, to refuse to appoint a professor because he's too controversial; but it may well be proper to avoid deans who are lightning rods for criticism, or likely to run into trouble with the Legislature or with others.

The example I give is Dean Ken Starr of Pepperdine. If he wanted to move to UCLA, I'd be delighted -- but, if the faculty, the administration, or the Regents opposed such an appointment on the grounds that he'd be too controversial, and the controversy would get in the way of his effectiveness, I would not condemn their position as a breach of academic freedom, or of the First Amendment.

another professor at ucla law, professor bainbridge, is outraged by uci's action.

uci, i think, majorly screwed this one up.

so professor chemerinsky (and professor fisk), if you are reading this, forget uci (and duke).... move back to southern california and please go to ucla!!!!

ucla, please extend an offer to professor chemerinsky -- you already had him as a visiting professor in the 90s -- why not offer him a tenured position? it'd be good to balance his views with those of professors volokh and bainbridge!