Following up on my previous post, Tulane Law School Clinician Resigns, Says University Gag Order Censored Her Pollution And Racial Disparity Research: Chronicle of Higher Education Op-Ed: Censored by My Own University, by Kimberly Terrell (Tulane):
Tulane says it values free inquiry. Then my work became politically inconvenient.
I knew that our law-school clinic was due for a manufactured crisis. The petrochemical industry’s periodic attacks on the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic are like cicadas — emerging raucously every decade or so but eventually dying out. As a scientist who works alongside students and lawyers to help clients affected by petrochemical pollution, I thought that sticking to facts and data would keep me safe. I was wrong.
Attacks on law-school clinics have been a problem for more than 50 years. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, they stemmed from cases involving public-school desegregation and the rights of antiwar protesters. In the 1980s, there were attempts to prohibit clinics in certain states from involvement in lawsuits against those states. In the late ’90s and early 2000s, several clinics came under attack for challenging specific projects, including a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plant in Louisiana and a major highway project in Pennsylvania. In some cases, including a controversy involving Hofstra Law School’s clinic in 2006, the attacks were instigated by people who were major university donors.
At my clinic, the trouble started last fall, after a small Louisiana community stopped the proposed construction of a large industrial facility backed by a wealthy investor with ties to Tulane. Our student lawyers represented the community in asking a federal agency to deny the permit. We were told that Tulane’s leadership was unhappy about our involvement, an early sign of what was to come.
Shortly after the community’s victory, Michael A. Fitts, Tulane’s president, assembled an “independent” panel to review the university’s law clinics. According to university documents, the panel was asked to evaluate how clinics handle “controversial” cases, including those with “the potential to attract negative attention from public officials, the media, major donors, or influential interest groups.” We were told that all options were on the table, including changing the case-selection process, severing our affiliation with Tulane, and even shutting down the clinic. …
Like a toxic relationship, I keep hoping that my ex-employer and alma mater will come to its senses. Surely Tulane’s leadership doesn’t really believe that certain academics aren’t entitled to academic freedom … or do they? Perhaps the public protests or growing backlash from students, alumni, and fellow scholars will help them see the light. I suspect the outraged emails to the president and provost will continue for some time.
For now, I await the release of the “independent review” of the Environmental Law Clinic and listen as the cicadas gnaw away at Tulane’s academic integrity.
Editor’s Note: If you would like to receive a daily email with links to legal education posts on TaxProf Blog, email me here.
