 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Welcome Message from the President
|
Called on the Carpet
The meeting of the ABA's accreditation committee in Washington D.C. on May 18 and 19, 1976 was another one of those clandestine, closed door sessions at which they liked to make confrontational decisions.
My six page defense was hand delivered to Consultant Jim White by Bob Krinock on the eve of the meeting. Copies were also delivered to each member of the accreditation committee.
Within hours of the concluding session on May 19, Harold G. Reuschlein, Dean of the Saint Mary's University Law School in Texas, and Chairman of the ABA accreditation committee wrote to me and to Phillip Marco, Chairman of the Cooley board of directors notifying us of the action taken by the committee.
"NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chairman of the Board of Trustees and the Dean of the Thomas M. Cooley Law School are hereby notified, pursuant to Rule IV, Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools by the American Bar Association, that a hearing shall be held as soon as possible after the expiration of 30 days after the date hereof to determine whether the Thomas M. Cooley Law School is in substantial compliance with the Standards, and, if not, what steps should be taken."
His letter ended with a chilling reminder that if our law school were removed from the list of approved schools, our graduates would not be eligible to take the bar examination in almost every state, and with the added warning that they intended to get the matter of Cooley's ouster before the House of Delegates "at the earliest practical date."
Reuschlein's letter arrived on May 24, 1976. Looking back, I am amazed by the number of things that were on my plate at that time. I was about to become a candidate for the Republican nomination for the United States Senate. In just three days, on May 27, 1976, my forty-seventh birthday, my campaign committee would file some 20,000 signatures with the Michigan Secretary of State petitioning to put my name on the August Primary ballot.
Needless to say, I was in no mood for aggravation from the American Bar Association.
My May 25, 1976 reply to Dean Reuschlein was short and to the point:
"Your letter of May 19, 1976 was received here on May 24, 1976.
"You make reference to a letter to me dated April 8, 1976 from E. Clinton Bamberger, Jr. No such letter was ever received by me.
"Your letter purports to give us notice "pursuant to Rule IV" of the Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools.
"Your attempt to give us notice as required by Rule IV is fatally defective for two reasons:
"First, Rule IV requires 'a notice for a hearing on a certain date.' You have not given us a certain date for a hearing.
"Second, Rule IV requires the notice to come from the Council. You write as Chairman of the Accreditation Committee, and you refer to a resolution of the Accreditation Committee. There is no suggestion of Council authority for the purported notice.
"Incidentally, I see that your letter refers to a Sub-Rule (2a) of Rule IV, authorizing the Chairperson of the Council to appoint a Hearing Commissioner.
"This Sub-Rule is not part of the published Rules circulated by the Council. We would appreciate being informed when this new rule was adopted and what other rules have been adopted which have not been published as required by the Standards."
Two days later, Bob Krinock got an 'oops' letter from Jim White to the effect that Dean Reuschlein's reference to a Bamberger letter was intended to refer to a letter he, White, had sent to me on April 8.
Of course, the Board of Directors and the faculty of the law school were up in arms over the decision of the ABA to try to take away our provisional approval. Peter Kempel, our head librarian was particularly incensed, as the Coco report had all but claimed that we had no librarian at all. He wrote directly to Jim White, and I backed him one hundred percent.
In July, I received a form letter from the Consultant's office:
"This past year your law school was reinspected on behalf of the American Bar Association. I am writing this letter to seek your suggestions in helping us in the further improvement of the program of reinspection. *** I would appreciate very much receiving your candid and confidential comments on the effectiveness of each member of the team that visited you on our behalf. In addition, I would appreciate receiving your candid suggestions as to ways in which we can improve the reinspection program."
Sure you would, Jim. Sure you would.
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