affirmative action

Here's a link to a Wall Streer Journal opinion- "Conservatives Need Not Apply". Fairly typical essay from the journal; to wit, why are we poor conservatives given such hard knocks. (remember the op-ed recently about the "lucky-ducky" poverty stricken folks that don't have to pay such high taxes?) Quickly, the article's argument is this: 1) law professors do more than anything in setting the idealogical setting of a school. 2) law professors, by and large, are democrats (8 to 1 at Michigan). And beyond that, "The overall ratio also understates the skewed debate on issues of public concern: our study finds that professors teaching economics-based subjects like antitrust and corporations are more conservative than their public-law counterparts. This leaves such subjects as constitutional law and international law -- the subjects that set the agenda for debate on the hot-button issues of our time -- with scarcely a conservative voice." 3) thus, if Michigan's really into diversity, they will bring on more conservative professors. Well. The problematic premises of this argument are too numerous to list fully here. (by the way, i assume it is a sort-of argument that Michigan's is disingenuous trumpeting 'diversity'.) Here is my initial response: Does the writer really think that law students are so susceptible to their professors' views that the diversity of student opinion will fade into that of the teachers? As one of those feeble minded students, I can assure the writers this is not the case. The driving feature in most classes--indeed, mostly so in those dreadly liberal public law classes--is debate. In that regard, professors prod students to express different points (legal, policy-minded, etc) in order to get a look at how these laws develope. In two years of law classes, I have noticed no lack of political variety in these class debates. Another (personal) point: It has been my experience that the public law classes (eg, Constitutional Law) involve a great deal more debate than do the economic/corporation classes (where the article finds more conservative professors). Noting that debate fosters a wider spectrum of opinion, the public-law (and thus liberal-led classes) are more diverse than are the economic (conservative) classes; where, indeed, the professor more or less spoon feed their views to students. Now, today's case, as I have understood it, has emphasized the school's interest in diversity more so than the remedial interest that sometimes arises in affirmative action discussions. Needless to say, if the remedial interest is raised (as it would be were I arguing) this article is reduced to stupidity. Well...I take that back. When the writer finds institutionalized party-ism (anti-conservative), or state laws barring conservatives from certain institutions; or if the writer can show me some photos of bathroom stalls with 'liberal' over one door and 'conservative' over the other... then I encourage the Wall Street Journal to debate this issue seriously.