Obama: A Mere "Lecturer?"

So is Barack Obama exaggerating his resume when he says he was a "law professor" at the University of Chicago?

The schools says no.

The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

Comments

And don't forget the fact that Chicago was a war zone at the time, and he had to hold office hours under heavy sniper fire. What a scoop!

Posted by norbizness | March 28, 2008 10:37 AM

This is dumb. "Professor" is a loose term that is used in many ways. If you teach a course at a university--regardless of your official title--your students will call you "professor" and you will be regarded as such. Period. That's all Obama meant. He never made any claims to be a full tenured Professor. This is dumb.

Posted by Dan | March 28, 2008 10:37 AM

Geeze, has things deteriorated to this level?

Are we going to call Clarance Thomas an Associate Justice?

Common usage is he is a Supreme Court Judge and entitled to be referred to as such.

If nitwit pickers really want, he can just be called a member of faculty.

Posted by D | March 28, 2008 10:48 AM

I know, Dan.
It is so funny it took a statement from the school for journalists to realize a lecturer IS a professor.
I mean talking about parsing words !

Posted by Benjamin | March 28, 2008 10:48 AM

Marc - If the school which employed him says "no" Obama was clearly not exaggerating his position with them, how is this even a story?

Why is there this incessant need to try and change the subject to something that has no relevance?

Posted by Philly Dog | March 28, 2008 10:49 AM

I'm pretty sure this is a talking point advanced by Karl Rove the other night, and picked up by the fine ladies over at TalkLeft. Good times.

Posted by Jake | March 28, 2008 10:49 AM

Hey now guys.
Marc didn't raise the story when the Clinton raised it from BS-ville but only mentioned it once it was seriously debunked.
Give him some credit here !

Posted by Benjamin | March 28, 2008 10:52 AM

Actually this is useful. The quote specifies that it is Senior Lecturers which are considered, by the university, to be full professors. And this is something that Senator Obama in fact was. So his position as a professor is clear.

Posted by Daniel | March 28, 2008 10:52 AM

Jake

this was actually a Clinton camp talking point in a memo in the midst of bosnia gate two days ago. They put it out there as this big big lie!

Posted by lfo | March 28, 2008 10:53 AM

Marc - If the school which employed him says "no" Obama was clearly not exaggerating his position with them, how is this even a story?

Why is there this incessant need to try and change the subject to something that has no relevance?

I hear you, but right now it's important to push an all-out offensive against the lies of Hillary Clinton. The only way this ends is if we point out lie after lie after lie after lie. That, in conjunction with an SD onslaught, might give Democrats the possibility of not bloodying up Obama too much for the general. The fact is that he's the presumptive nominee - the issue at hand is just how bloody he will get in the process. This is the route towards stemming that: point out lie after lie after lie. Preferably while under sniper fire.

Posted by Bill | March 28, 2008 10:53 AM

Thank you. It's helpful to have this on the record since the Clinton team was using it to say he lies too or "mis-speaks" as she did about Bosnia.

Posted by Rhoda | March 28, 2008 10:55 AM

You know, it would take rather little effort to have OBammBamm be conferred the title as a University Professor at an Ivy League institution today....

Plus a few honorary Doctorates....

Plus.....

Give it up, nitwits.

Posted by D | March 28, 2008 10:56 AM

Obama did not exaggerate his resume. The average person is not concerned about the distinction between "senior lecturer" or "professor" in our universities. Senior lecturers at a prestigious law school like the University of Chicago often have jobs in public policy and, therefore, are not full-time members of the faculty.

The professors at the University of Chicago law school do maintain that Obama "could have joined their ranks whenever he wanted." See this article on the law school's Web site: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/law-students-gave-Obama121807/index.html

And what, may I ask, is so wrong with the position of "senior lecturer" at Chicago? Richard Posner, widely considered one of the most influential legal theorists of our time and a founder of the law and economics movement that has swept the legal academy, is such a senior lecturer: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/posner-r

Posted by erga | March 28, 2008 10:59 AM

Silly season.

Posted by neilrlca | March 28, 2008 11:03 AM

I think the excerpt makes clear that he is telling the truth. Move on.

Posted by Rich | March 28, 2008 11:04 AM

Whatever the intent of your headline, the effect is malicious.

Given that no one has been saying lately that Obama was "a mere 'Lecturer'," the headline jars readers into the expectation that you -- or someone else -- has exposed Obama as a liar.

Indeed, for anyone who doesn't read the post itself, that is the likely takeaway.

May I suggest something along the lines of "PSA from U of Chicago: Obama Was a "Professor" or "That's Professor Obama, to You."

What you have now is pretty shoddy.

Posted by horizonr | March 28, 2008 11:06 AM

Is it April Fool's Day or something? Is this serious?

Good Lord, the Clinton campaign is really grasping at straws.

Posted by Jack | March 28, 2008 11:10 AM

Obama was a nice enough lecturer and all, but doesn't it seem a bit strange that with absolutely no record of scholarship to his name, he could get a tenure track post at a place like Chicago.

Posted by Sam | March 28, 2008 11:11 AM

Marc - You should have connected this story with the Clinton camp's memo trying to push the idea that Barack was lying about his record - then your readers would have the full-context.

Posted by Colin Hicks | March 28, 2008 11:15 AM

In response to horizoner... copied from Politico...

the Clinton campaign charged earlier this week: "Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, 'Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter.' In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]."

So someone was saying he was a mere Lecturer after all...

Posted by response | March 28, 2008 11:16 AM

Pretty thin gruel indeed.

Posted by dave | March 28, 2008 11:17 AM

To echo Response:
The Clinton campaign this week came out with a memo about Obama's "lies" to try and get The Heroine of Tuzla off the headlines. This was the first example. So yes, "someone" had brought up the topic.

Posted by Deborah | March 28, 2008 11:25 AM

The Clinton campaign is SO small minded. They're just . . . so small.

Posted by Kristen | March 28, 2008 11:25 AM

Thanks, response.

I stand corrected on the facts. But Marc's headline makes sense, only if one was already aware of the Clinton campaign's original charge on Tuesday. The fact is, this is not something that everybody was talking about this week -- HuffPost is just now running it -- which means that many of Marc's readers (and this seems to be borne out in the comments here) are likely to be coming in to this story via this post.

That's what makes the headline misleading.

Thanks again for the correction, though.

Posted by horizonr | March 28, 2008 11:37 AM

gosh: obama supporters pretend that nothing obama is wrong. They pretend nothing is a problem. That any notice of inconsistancies is small and thin gruel.
Saying you are a professor when you aren't is a lie. Saying you are a professor when you are an adjunct would be a lie. It suggests a depth or involvement or leval of engagement that is not true and makes you saound better than you are. It's borrowing credibility that is not yours. Saying you were a professor when you actually declined that position, its responsibilities and obligations also is a lie.
But lies don't amtter when its your guy telling them.

Posted by Michael C. | March 28, 2008 11:43 AM

gosh: obama supporters pretend that nothing obama is wrong. They pretend nothing is a problem. That any notice of inconsistancies is small and thin gruel.
Saying you are a professor when you aren't is a lie. Saying you are a professor when you are an adjunct would be a lie. It suggests a depth or involvement or leval of engagement that is not true and makes you saound better than you are. It's borrowing credibility that is not yours. Saying you were a professor when you actually declined that position, its responsibilities and obligations also is a lie.
But lies don't matter when its your guy telling them.

Posted by Michael C. | March 28, 2008 11:43 AM

BS-ville indeed. LOL Some of Obama's supporters have taken Hussein as their middle names to dull the impact of Obama's middle name (during the 'Obama is a Muslim' smear-fest) So I guess we'll have to adopt Professor, too.

The Clinton's are grasping at straws.

Posted by Eillen Hamm | March 28, 2008 11:44 AM

Sam, he wasn't tenure track. As a TA in grad school, my students often called me professor. It's the college equivalent of "teacher." Quite possibly the stupidest Clinton attack yet.

Posted by NHCt | March 28, 2008 11:44 AM

This has got to be the most idiotic line of inquiry I've ever read in this campaign, and I have to take issue with Marc for even giving it the cover of legitimate news coverage.

I went to Law School, I'm sure at least a half-dozen of my "professors" were not in fact tenure track, and almost always they were referred to as Professors. The only group for whom this difference is at all salient are those professors who are tenured. And yet, Obama couldn't possibly have been a tenure track professor because he wasn't even full-time (as he was also working in the State Legislature). Everybody knows this. And yet, we still call non-tenture track Professors, "Proffesors".

If you're lecturing the class, writing up the exam, and subsequently grading them, you're a Professor. Doubly true in law school, where TA's are rarely ever used.

Posted by hK | March 28, 2008 11:52 AM

Out of curiosity -- Bill Clinton also claimed to be a professor of constitutional law at Arkansas. I wonder what his actual position was?

Posted by Mike | March 28, 2008 11:55 AM

I'm a professor. Not a law professor, but a professor nonetheless.

Nobody in academia would disagree that Obama was a professor at the University of Chicago based on the University's statement. Nobody.

Clinton supporters: please get this through the bubble you've constructed. If you really want to push on this, it will blow up in your face. Ugly.

Posted by Jake | March 28, 2008 11:59 AM

Today, 2008-03-28/Friday, on the Diane Rehm shown, "journalist" Juan Williams reiterated and, despite rebuttal presented as posted here, CONTINUED to try to defend this nonsense charge from Hillary Clinton!! (And, to put it all in sharp contrast, he bent over backwards to give viability to her claim to being under fire in Bosnia.)

I think that NPR should stop Juan's pretence at being a journalist--objective reporting, and all that--, and free Juan from such obligations to go work full-time for Clinton.
His behavior went beyond the pale.

)-:

--DL*

Posted by DanL | March 28, 2008 12:10 PM

Whenever anyone calls me "doctor" or "professor" I tell them that I prefer the full German: Herr doktor professor.

Posted by Matt | March 28, 2008 12:24 PM

NHCt

I know he didn't have a tenure track post. UofC is saying that they offered him such a post. Presumably he turned it down precisely because there was an expectation of producing substantial scholarship. It is nevertheless unusual for a school such as Chicago to even make such an offer to a candidate with no scholarship to his or her name. In contrast, Hillary Clinton has actually produced legal scholarship (on childrens' rights, IIRC).

Moreover, Obama's title, Senior Lecturer, is the same as Judges Posner, Easterbrook, and Wood. Adjuncts at Chicago have the title Lecturer of Law. Posner is superhuman and still produces a great deal of scholarly work even though he's now a judge. Easterbrook and Wood are more typical and no longer write much scholarship. Nevertheless they were all on the faculty prior to their judicial appointments and all had distinguished scholarly track records.

Posted by Sam | March 28, 2008 12:30 PM

My boss - a Limbaugh ditto-head - is all over this. He cites Clinton's (I believe) released statement citing "9 different places where he just out and out lied" (my boss's words, not Clintons). I haven't gone over it, but from my understanding, the professor thing is the most substatial - it's what the media has caught on to and it's the only thing my boss could remember. He tried to reduce the argument to "Well, you're either a professor or you're not", which is technically true, but is funny coming from a person who has no experience in college.

Every day people in class call the instructors "professor", even though the majority of mine aren't technically professors. And what gets lost is Obama was making the point the he could authoritatively speak on the Constitution, as he taught it. I don't know if I've heard him say that he was a professor, but if he does, it seems from the U of Chicago that it's fairly commonplace to regard him as such anyway. It's pretty ridiculous.

Posted by socctty | March 28, 2008 12:49 PM

I just heard that Hillary Clinton was named Dean of Students at the University of Classless Losers.

Posted by Betty in Baltimore | March 28, 2008 12:49 PM

Sam,

In common parlance, the title "professor" implies simply a person who teaches classes at a university, which is exactly what Obama did. I don't think anyone, except someone straining for a gotcha, would take the use of the title as an assertion of lots of published scholarship.

That said, Obama has written two books and he did run the Harvard Law Review, so I doubt producing a law review article is beyond his ken.

Posted by southpaw | March 28, 2008 12:53 PM

On the Italian side of my family, one semester of community college is enough for all my aunts to call you "professore."

Posted by Brian | March 28, 2008 12:59 PM

Talk about not seeing the forest for trees. Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago - one of the best law schools in the country - and people are arguing about whether he was right to use a colloquial term to explain what he did there?

There's petty and there's ridiculous. This is the latter.

Posted by patagonia | March 28, 2008 1:03 PM

Michael C, you are a total idiot. Even an adjunct is a professor. The school doesn't even need to back him up, because common sense dictates Obama is correct. It is objectively true he was a professor. As a former law student and now lawyer it's pretty obvious that the Clintons are grasping at very tiny straws. And by straws I mean lies.

Everytime Hillary does something wrong and Obama folks call her on it, the Clintonites chalk it up to Obama supporters being a cult or something...
maybe, perhaps, Hillary is wrong sometimes? Maybe?

The real cult is the cult of Clinton. You people are so dellusional it's pathetic.

Posted by Gary Goodman | March 28, 2008 1:07 PM

In common parlance, the title "professor" implies simply a person who teaches classes at a university, which is exactly what Obama did. Posted by southpaw | March 28, 2008 12:53 PM

Well what had me laughing was the Clintons memo that said the title of "professor" was conferred only for faculty with tenure. These folks clearly have not been to college in a long time because there are hardly any faculty members anymore at most schools with tenure. And of course anyone who teaches a class is called a "professor" by the students without distinction to whether they are a "Senior Lecturer", "Adjunct Professor", "Associate Professor", "Professor", "Distinguised Professor", "University Professor", etc.

From the memo:

He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]

Unfortunately for Hillary, details do matter and not all "professors" have tenure. Everyone in academia knows that and if you are just finishing your dissertation this spring, you are clearly familiar with the distinction between tenure, tenure-track and non-tenure track faculty positions at universities.

Posted by Bubba | March 28, 2008 1:13 PM

Saying you are a professor when you aren't is a lie. Saying you are a professor when you are an adjunct would be a lie. It suggests a depth or involvement or leval of engagement that is not true and makes you saound better than you are. It's borrowing credibility that is not yours. Saying you were a professor when you actually declined that position, its responsibilities and obligations also is a lie. But lies don't amtter when its your guy telling them. Posted by Michael C. | March 28, 2008 11:43 AM

You really should go back and re-read the UofC's statement. And I quote:

Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track.

I think that should satisfy you. It certainly disproves everything you just said and makes you look a little nuts.

Considering that the Clinton's have been making the rounds at all the VRWC (vast right wing conspiracy) outlets like Mellon-Scaife's paper, the Rush Limbaugh show, the American Prospect, it seems that the Clinton campaign and many of its' supporters have now imbued themselves with that same wingnuttery, that despite all facts to the contrary, the Clinton's really are killing off their political foes and despite what the UofC says (with no reason to lie or make things up, they are one of the most distinguished law schools in the country), Obama lied about being a professor. I just wonder what evidence would satisfy you? This case is cut and dry closed.

BTW - I too am disappointed with the headline of the post. It should be more equivocal.

Posted by Bubba | March 28, 2008 1:23 PM

southpaw

I agree that it appears to easily be within Obama's ability to write a law review article. I don't think he would have been a great scholar, but he sure could have churned out a law review article. He didn't though. As far as I know he did not have a scholarly agenda at all. Discussions of his law school and law review years all seem to mention that people knew his ambitions were political. It is not normal for a school like Chicago to give a position like Senior Lecturer (or offer a tenure track position) to someone like Obama.

Posted by Sam | March 28, 2008 1:25 PM

Matt,

you left out the 'von'

Herr Doktor Professor von ....

(Assuming you qualify....)

Posted by D | March 28, 2008 1:47 PM

It is not normal for a school like Chicago to give a position like Senior Lecturer (or offer a tenure track position) to someone like Obama. Posted by Sam | March 28, 2008 1:25 PM

This is just ridiculous and based on nothing more than your own ignorance. I am actually in law school at a the highest rated school in the nations capital and I can emphatically say that law schools try to bring in people to teach from a variety of backgrounds and experiences with the law to inform students. There are people who come to law faculties in a variety of positions without any publication history direct from high level government appointments. My school just buried former Cong. Father Drinan, who had no academic background before coming on directly to a full tenured position. And I could cite many other examples of people coming directly from years of private practice (check the publication record of Chief Justice Roberts, he has none since law school), politics, judgeships, etc. directly on to law faculties without any publication history. In fact, everyone in the legal profession knows that law journals are sort of a professional joke, they are not peer reviewed and they are all administered by law students themselves. While publication may be important for someone to get on a faculty without anything else on their resume representing significant professional success, like a respected clerkship at the Supreme Court or Federal Circuit, legal publication does not have a lot to do with recruitment and tenure decisions. In fact, my personal experience is that editing casebooks and writing non-fiction policy books that reach wide audiences are actually the highest promoted forms of publication in the legal profession. Obama was an elected and high profile state senator at the time, and there is nothing "not normal" about it. The only thing "not normal" is your ignorance.

Posted by Bubba | March 28, 2008 1:53 PM

I believe Chicago Law has four "senior lecturers":

Richard Posner
Diane Wood
Frank Easterbrook
Barack Obama

I dare anyone to go into oral argument at the Seventh Circuit and suggest to any of the first three (appellate judges) that they are "lying" if they refer to themselves as a "law professor".

Posted by Ryan | March 28, 2008 2:17 PM

DanL, I agree with you about Juan Williams. I don't know what his deal is but he is absolutely a Clinton apologist. I though it was interesting on the DR show today someone sent in an e-mail, which Diane read, that said Juan was wrong and that has lost is objectivity on this race.

I can't figure out whether it's his FOX affiliation, or whether he's trying very hard (too, too hard) not to be seen as favoring Obama, or what it is. But none of his commentaries are the least bit objective any longer. It's funny to me how NPR has two "senior analysts" (Williams and Cokie Roberts) who are so obviously pro-Clinton. I can't figure out the motive for either of them, but it's starting to get kind of silly.

Posted by Amy | March 28, 2008 2:28 PM

Thanks for this article, which to be blunt about it reveals another shameless Clinton campaign lie. They put out a very detailed attack memo in an effort to divert the uproar over Clinton's whopper about running from gunfire in Bosnia. The memo alleged that Obama was untruthful on many points, for example by exaggerating his lecturer position into a professorship. But as the article points out, he IS a constitutional law professor, and in the view of the school, one of the best in the USA, is also eminently qualified for tenure track.

Moreover, as an adjunct law professor myself at a fine school with a lesser reputation than the U Chicago school of law, I am most impressed by the school's repeated offers to him to join the tenure track faculty.

Posted by Bearwoman | March 28, 2008 2:43 PM

I am an Obama supporter, and I can't speak for how things work in law schools, but in any other academic discipline, claiming that you were a university "professor" on your CV or resume (when applying for an academic or research job), when you were in fact a lecturer (senior or not) would be extremely serious and would likely get you into hot water. The title of professor is, universally, a tenured position (at least throughout the US and Europe). Even calling yourself a professor when you were, in fact, an assistant professor (which is tenure-track, but not tenured) would be very serious; lecturers (even senior lecturers) are not tenure-track.

Note in particular that the statement from the school says that they offered him a "tenure-track" position, not that they offered him a "tenured" position. In other words, they offered to make him an assistant professor, not a professor. So this offer does not excuse the faux pas. The university is understandably trying to cover for him, but unless the rules in law schooos are very different, this was a stupid, stupid thing to do.

Posted by ernie cohen | March 28, 2008 3:13 PM

Ernie, I am a lawyer and an adjunct professor at a law school, and I can assure you that Barack Obama IS a professor. In every law school, the lecturer from the community is viewed as a member of the faculty, and as a professor. Moreover, the law school in this case, one of the best in the country, views its senior lecturers as professors. And as the law student who wrote in earlier points out, the students view their lecturers as professors. Some professors are tenure track, some are not.

Let me add that it is a huge honor to become a senior lecturer/professor at a law school, which is even greater when it is a top law school like U Chicago. And it is an even huger honor to be repeatedly offered a tenure track position.

Lastly, the U Chicago law school does not need to cover for anyone. They are letting the world know what all of us who have been to law school or teach at law schools know -- by any standard, Obama is a law professor. I'll remind you that Hillary Clinton, who like her husband went to law school, and who practiced law for years, knows all of this well. It is hard to view her campaign's memo as anything but an unjustified, baseless and misleading attack.

Posted by Bearwoman | March 28, 2008 3:35 PM

Sam,

are you really questioning the ability of a former editor of the Harvard Law Review to get on permanent faculty at U of C?

Posted by BA | March 28, 2008 3:37 PM

I love it - Obama says he was a professor, his employer, who defines his position, says he was to, and yet that is not good enough for Michael C and ernie. U of C. can call anyone they want a "professor" - you don't have to like it, but keep your "lie card" to yourself.

Posted by Blue Moon | March 28, 2008 4:11 PM

I am an Obama supporter, and I can't speak for how things work in law schools, but in any other academic discipline, claiming that you were a university "professor" on your CV or resume (when applying for an academic or research job), when you were in fact a lecturer (senior or otherwise) would be extremely serious and would likely get you into hot water. The title of professor is, universally, a tenured position (at least throughout the US and Europe). Even calling yourself a professor when you were, in fact, an assistant professor (which is tenure-track, but not tenured) would be very serious; lecturers (even senior lecturers) are not tenure-track.

Note in particular that the statement from the school says that they offered him a "tenure-track" position, not that they offered him a "tenured" position. In other words, they offered to make him an assistant professor, not a professor. So this offer does not excuse the faux pas. The university is understandably trying to cover for him, but unless the rules in law schooos are very different, this was a stupid, stupid thing to do.

Posted by ernie cohen | March 28, 2008 4:26 PM

Bubba

While I may be ignorant, going to law school is no evidence to the contrary. I too went to law school (at the University of Chicago). I was even graduated. Obama actually gave me a B in Con Law III. No doubt the latter score was evidence of grade inflation. I suppose even if Obama were the greatest instructor in the history of the world, he would have had only limited success with mediocre students such as myself. As it was, the only impression he left with me was that he was nice. I remember thinking that he was much nicer than the typical law proffessor and attributed it to his being a politician. The latter, I reasoned, know how to treat people, the former are bunch of shmucks.

I nevertheless feel secure in stating that it was not normal for a school like Chicago to make such offers to a man of Obama's credentials. You are correct to suggest that many law schools do appoint people with impressive non-scholarly backgrounds. Obama's credentials were not impressive when he began lecturing at Chicago. He was not yet a state senator. He was a "community organizor" two years out of law school.

BA

I am absolutely questioning the ability of a former editor of Harvard Law Review to get a tenure track job at Chicago with no scholarly record or notable achievement. I think many other readers and commenters would back me up.

My best guess is that Obama was a local black left wing activist with a sterling academic record. People got to know him and were impressed. I don't think, however, if he had been white or conservative or without sterling pedigree could he have garnered such an offer without scholarship or achievement.

Posted by Sam | March 28, 2008 4:40 PM

DanL et al,

Funny thing about Juano isn't it? I admit I watch Fox - probably the same reason I like to see twisted up car crashes as well - but I saw him a few months ago defending Miss Hillary and I thought he was going either punch the other guy or explode. It was amazingly visceral. I have no idea what's up there. While no one should be surprised that Faux isn't on board, it is odd that while Hannity's hatred of Barack seems purely economic, Juano has got a real problem with the O Train...

Posted by Reginald Avery Wilkins, Ph.D. | March 28, 2008 5:20 PM

Sam,

Suppositions and contra-factuals do not an argument make. You may, indeed, suspect any number of things.

Whether or not you think it unusual that Obama would have been offered a tenure track, the fact remains that he was. You can offer any number of suppositions and speculations as to why he was but unless you can back up those speculations with something a bit more concrete, you really aren't making any sort of real case for them.

Posted by Andrew Lias | March 28, 2008 6:00 PM

Obama taught me constitutional law. He was a great professor: he was attentive, a great faciliator of dialogue, intelligent and personable. He was a professor at Chicago law. Call it teacher, professor, call it what you will. Just don't waste time over an issue that has been settled.

Can our current president even spell "constitution" much less pronounce it? I don't think so.

Posted by Chicago03 | March 28, 2008 6:17 PM

Sam, you probably will be disappointed if you expect others to confirm your misguided belief that Obama was offered a position at UofC because of his race and pedigree (not sure how you distinguish "pedigree" and "scholarly record and notable achivement").

First, Obama was NOT offered a tenure-track job out of law school. He joined UofC initially as a Lecturer, which is an adjunct position. He became a Senior Lecturer only in 1996, when he was elected to the Illinois Senate.

Second, even if he had been offered a tenure-track faculty position, I don't see how that would be unusual, even under your standard. Obama was not just any editor of the Harvard Law Review; he was the President. This fact alone almost guarantees that he would have had a SCOTUS clerkship had he wanted one. If you are looking for a "notable achivement," serving as the President of HLR is arguably more notable than a SCOTUS clerkship, which is often the only thing many junior faculty members have on their resume when they first join a law school faculty.

Posted by anon | March 28, 2008 6:22 PM

Other "Senior Lecturers" at UC law include federal court of appeals judges Richard Posner, Frank Easterbrook and Diane Wood. No one suggests they are somehow exaggerating when they claim to be professors at the law school.

Posted by Anon | March 28, 2008 7:02 PM

We forget Obama was a legal superstar. Graduate at top of Class from Harvard, those kids are always offered prof jobs.

Plus has clerkships lined up and even in talks to be a Supreme Court Clerk (justice Roberts). I know a few ppl who taught Obama (and his con law teacher stumped for him).

Obama is apparently one of the smartest ppl that they have met, ever. I am always amazed that Obama decided not to take the easy road (Sup Clerk can lead to Sup Court or other powerful/wealthy positions) and instead choose to take a job for 13k (while he had student loans).

It says something when a person will give up instant power and money (Clerks can get 30 -60 k bonus).

Marc ask your self if you would do that? Few ppl would, and yet so many try to smear him.

Shame on us.

Posted by eh? | March 28, 2008 7:09 PM

Sam, your story about having gotten a "B" from Barack at the law school only has one flaw: U of C doesn't give "B"s, nor As or Cs for that matter. It has a numeric grading system.

I suspect that if your story were true you would have known that.

Posted by "Sam" is full of it | March 28, 2008 7:09 PM

I too wonder about whether Sam graduated from U Chicago school of law. Most folks who can even get admitted there are able to spell the word professor.

Posted by Bearwoman | March 28, 2008 8:08 PM

Ernie,

I'm not sure what your source is for how you define a "professor" only as one who is tenured, clearly, it's not the University of Chicago Law School.

"The title of professor is, universally, a tenured position (at least throughout the US and Europe). Even calling yourself a professor when you were, in fact, an assistant professor (which is tenure-track, but not tenured) would be very serious; lecturers (even senior lecturers) are not tenure-track."

Your comment reveals a remarkable lack of knowledge about the issues and intricacies of tenure in the current academic world, you might wish to read the Chronicle of Higher Ed sometime. But what surprises me is that you make the rather absolute claim to be such an expert on tenure and titles that you know more than the University of Chicago School of Law on how it defines the rights or titles conferred upon its faculty. Clearly, you failed to reveal that you are, in fact, not Ernie Cohen, but Saul Levmore, Dean of the of the University of Chicago Law School. Hi Dean Levmore.

Posted by Tumblina | March 28, 2008 8:08 PM

I graduated from University of Chicago law school the year before Obama started teaching there. I heard from those who were still students when he was being recruited was that the faculty was very excited about him given the recommendations from the Harvard faculty, his credentials as President of Harvard Law Review, and his interest in public interest law. Did the fact that he is a minority add to their eagerness to recruit him? Sure. But they would not have made him the offer without the credentials. And they would not have later offered him a tenure track position if he did not cut it in the classroom, in faculty discussion groups, or in his reviews of tenured faculty members' manuscripts.

And in response to some of the more technical points being debated above....

Chicago does give numeric grades, but they correspond to specific numeric grades, i.e., 80 and above = A, 74-79 = B, 68-73 = C, etc. Most people got grades clustered around the median for the class, in other words, a B. When I was a student there, the highest grade I heard of through the gradevine was 86.

Also, unlike some other highly ranked law schools, Chicago limits the amount of outside work full "professors" can undertake. So they have the category of senior lecturer that they reserve for professors that move to judgeships, such as Posner, Easterbrook and Wood, and others with significant outside responsibilities that the Law School wants to treat as full members of the faculty.

Posted by Alum | March 28, 2008 9:17 PM

As others have stated, the definitions of professor, lecturer, etc., will no doubt differ in subtle ways from institution to institution. We should trust each university to then be able to define them as they see fit.

That being said, in my personal experience in academia, there is a distinction between the rights, duties, and obligations (including job security, benefits, teaching expectations, etc.) between those whose job titles include the word "lecturer," and those whose titles include the word "professor."

And by the way, to the poster "Bubba," Father Drinan had an esteemed career in academia as both a professor and the Dean of Boston College Law School before he became a Congressman, so it was not as if he went from a position of no academic experience to his position at Georgetown.

Posted by tom | March 28, 2008 11:05 PM

"I am absolutely questioning the ability of a former editor of Harvard Law Review to get a tenure track job at Chicago with no scholarly record or notable achievement. I think many other readers and commenters would back me up."

Sam, if other readers were to back you up, they'd be as clueless as you are.

1. No "notable achievement"? Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law and was the President of the Law Review. Very few people can claim those credentials. And lawyers who can do so have their pick of jobs in the law.

2. It isn't unheard of for law schools to give tenure track offers to adjuncts who have stellar academic credentials and who otherwise impress the faculty--even if they haven't published any articles. The current dean of Columbia Law School, for example, was hired as an adjunct and then was converted to a tenure track position.

Chicago in particular is known for hiring tenure-track candidates who may have thin publication records but the ability to debate comfortably and think creatively.

Posted by don anon | March 28, 2008 11:40 PM

This might be even more petty than the whole "reject" or "denounce" fiasco that made Hillary look foolish during the national debate.

Now, we have "Senior Lecturer" or "Professor". Wow...with only a few more of these zingers, Hillary will surely overcome her massive deficit!

Posted by Petty | March 29, 2008 2:15 AM

You can't have better academic credentials than Obama had. President of HLR is the top of the pile, and having Lawrence Tribe - Mr. Con Law - call you one of his two top students ever is plenty enough to teach con law anywhere, even Chicago. Even for a white guy, Sam!

Posted by Phoebe | March 29, 2008 4:45 AM

Sam, stop posing. You went to Vanderbilt.

Posted by yo yo | March 29, 2008 11:21 AM

For all those suggesting that Obama does not have anything "scholarly" to his name: Since when is being Editor-in-Chief of the top Law Review that publishes the most influential scholarly works not considered "scholarly"?

These people are often given prestigious positions right out of law school. They range from clerkships with a Circuit Court/Supreme Court to positions at great law schools.

You guys are a joke.

Posted by Tilley | March 29, 2008 7:00 PM

People are a lot smarter than you think. The caption of this story is misleading. It appears as though the story is going to expose an Obama lie/untrugh rather than validate a truth and cut out pettiness. I am sure you could have thought of several different captions that would be accurate. Is society losing all honesty? It is tiring to read these stories. Just do it right. It is refreshing to read a good story whether I agree with the writer or not. In a case like this, all you are doing is reporting a fact, not even writing a story of your own. However, via the caption, you have added some expectation of a conclusion that is not there.

Posted by mansah | March 30, 2008 9:28 PM