Now it's rock'n'roll time.
[U of Chicago] law student evaluations made available to The Washington Examiner by
the university showed that his popularity then fell steadily.
In 1999, only 23 percent of the students said they would repeat
Obama's racism class. He was the third-lowest-ranked lecturer at the law
school that year. And in 2003, only a third of the student evaluators
recommended his classes.
His classes were small. A spring 1994 class attracted 14 out of a student body of 600; a spring 1996 class drew 13....
Oh, and that "Con Law" crap?
From 1992 until 2004, Obama taught three courses: "Current Issues in
Racism and the Law," "Voting Rights and the Democratic Process," and
"Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process.
....only one of which is remotely 'con law.'
Work habits? Puhleeeze....
Senior lecturers were, however, still expected to participate in
university activities. University of Chicago Law School Senior Lecturer
Richard Epstein told The Washington Examiner that Obama did not do so.
Obama, Epstein said, "did the minimal amount of work to get through.
No one remembers him. He was not a participant in luncheons or
workshops. He was here and gone."
There are many golf courses in the greater Chicago area, after all.
Could be that he was also employed by a law firm, was writing a book, and was on several boards of directors while being a law professor.
ReplyDelete'Writing a book'? That's debatable.
ReplyDeleteA board membership consumes about 8 hours/month, with another 4 hours/month if one is on a committee.
Face it: he didn't take his work at UC seriously.
It is only debatable if you are wearing tin foil on your head.
ReplyDeleteOr are you suggesting that Dinesh D'Souza divined Obama's anti-colonial, drunk luo tribesman, communist inspired agenda from a book that someone else actually wrote?
And you forgot the law firm work.
Gee, I wonder what is the ideological slant of Dick Epstein, the source for the Examiner hit piece. Cato Institute, Hoover Institute, Heartland Institute. No axe to grind, aina?
ReplyDeleteAnony--if you find a fact-error, point it out.
ReplyDeleteJimbo: if he couldn't fulfill his obligations as a UC prof, he should have quit.
He didn't have the integrity to do so. SCOAMF.
Bias leads to interpreting facts to support already preconceived notions, Dad29.
ReplyDeleteEqual Protection and Substantive Due Process is only remotely 'con law.' if you do not apparently know that they are both in the Constitution.
ReplyDelete