I have integrated the substance of several of my prior posts here on the future of the American law school into a review essay of Brian Tamanaha’s book, Failing Law Schools, and posted it on my SSRN page.

You had to be sharp tonight to see through the provocateur antics of Fox News “reporter” Steven Crowder. Crowder went to Lansing to “report” on the labor demonstration against the new right to work legislation. But his real purpose was to raise a “ruckus” as he himself tweeted several hours earlier: “All aboard the ruckus wagon.”

Crowder had no visible identity card indicating that he was media. And as he himself admitted on Hannity he engaged in action to “defend” anti-union protestors. In other words, he went beyond reporting the demonstration and became the story, which is arguably a violation of his obligation as a reporter.

He got into the ruckus he went looking for and in the process a protestor falls or is pushed to his knees and only then takes a swing at Crowder, understandably.

The right wing blogosphere went nuts. But Crowder posted a doctored video that cut out the picture of the union man down on his knees. Instead his doctored clip makes it look like the union guy came out of nowhere to take a punch at Crowder. At least Hannity posted the full tape and it clearly showed the union man on all fours, seconds after Crowder approached him with his hands raised.

Update Wed afternoon: Crowder himself was asked this afternoon on Twitter (@scrowder) how Union guy ended up on his knees at feet of Crowder and Crowder said he had pulled the man away from the tent.

Update Wed. PM: On Hannity tonight one guest said he watched entire footage of event and said it showed Crowder throwing Union guy to ground. In response, Crowder screamed, in so many words, “he was pulling on the tent and he went down.”

Update: The Times catches up late last night here.

Crowder’s doctored version is here.

The full version showing union guy (in black cap) on all fours is here. Key moments start around 1:20.

Press reports suggest that University of Virginia President Teresa Sullivan was given the option to resign by Board Chair (“Rector”) Helen Dragas and told if she refused she would be fired. This is a very common approach for boards to take when they want to give a CEO a face saving exit.

But that kind of option is not one for single board member, even a chairman of the board, to offer. Boards only have authority to act collectively. A single board member has no power except that which is expressly delegated to him or her by the board (as in the case where a board member is given a task or responsibility by the board).

The full record of meetings of the board is not available as far as I know and so the question about the process that should be answered can’t be yet: did Dragas indeed have the authority of the board to give Sullivan the choice she was given? The source of that authority (which should have been indeed a decision by the full board) should be made clear.

The other aspect of transparency is the substance behind the process. It might be preferable for boards of major institutions to hold discussions of proposed personnel changes in public, but it doesn’t work that way now and there is nothing unusual therefore in the way the BOV at UVA handled this.

Of course, they clearly were not prepared to be transparent with a clear explanation AFTER they announced the decision and for that there is no excuse. It suggests that they had not really thought this process through. And that in turn undermines their credibility when speaking about the overall change in direction they think the university ought to make.

One is left thinking of the exchange between the Dustin Hoffman character and his father played by Bill Daniels in The Graduate: Gee, son, this all sounds a little half-baked (referring to his son’s idea of marrying the Katherine Ross character); to which Hoffman deadpans, “No, Dad, it’s completely baked.”

Given the importance of the issues in higher education – one might say the crisis in higher education – the way that the BOV handled this will likely make rational debate about this situation much more difficult to undertake.

My union, the AAUP, has issued a statement of support for Sullivan. But Sullivan is not really the issue. The issue is the future of higher education in the US. We need to be thinking creatively and openly about that problem. The AAUP should articulate a new and democratic model of higher education that can serve as an alternative to the neo-corporatism of what is called the RCM model (apparently advocated by the (erstwhile?) left liberal Sullivan as well as her former U. Texas colleague and now UC President Mark Yudof) as well as what might be called the hyper-capitalist “Stanford/MIT” model pushed however inarticulately by the UVA BOV.

One step the AAUP could support would be to reform the governance model now so common on university campuses in order to broaden the debate about how to solve the real problems of the institution. The current AAUP statement when matched against the UVA events and the pace of change washing over the university environment is dated and weak.

Instead of boards of trustees that are made up for the most part of large donors or potential donors, a constituency model should be considered similar to that of organizations like Cal-PERS, the large public sector pension plan. Its board has representatives from the Governor’s office, the legislature and current and future retirees. They work together to articulate a strategy to invest and protect in a socially responsible manner the retirement assets of public employees in California.

There is no reason, for example, that university boards should not include rank and file faculty representatives (including tenure and non-tenure track) as well as staff. Had the UVA BOV had such individuals engaged in the internal debate about the future of a school that is properly lauded as our country’s “public Ivy” this crisis within a crisis might have been avoided.

@stephenfdiamond

Heck, even Amnesty International is critical of Hollywood’s stance on piracy.

In Piracy Debate, Is the Sky Falling? – NYTimes.com.

First Netflix, now Google/YouTube. Silicon Valley’s technology companies continue their assault on the aging business model in Hollywood. Netflix announced recently that it had purchased exclusive rights to distribute a new TV show produced by Media Rights, a group linked to talent agency William Morris Endeavor. Now YouTube is talking about doing deals through talent agents with star actors to produce content for distribution on its popular platform.

FT.com / Technology – Hollywood makeover for YouTube.

Apparently Stanford University thinks they do. And if they succeed in a court case to be argued at the Supreme Court on Monday their approach to faculty inventions would be a reversal of nearly a century of protections of faculty academic freedom.

The case (Stanford v. Roche) involves an interpretation of the Bayh-Dole Act which was passed in 1980 to encourage the commercialization of research funded by the federal government. Congress granted universities who receive federal research money the right to commercialize new technology through the licensing of patents to which they have proper title. Stanford maintains the Act gives them, automatically, full title to faculty inventions.

Typically, when hired faculty assign their rights, in writing, to inventions to their university in return for a division of any royalty revenue the invention might generate if licensed to the private sector for commercial purposes. For some universities, particularly Stanford and U.C. Berkeley, this has been a very lucrative arrangement. Companies like Genentech and Google have generated billions of dollars of licensing revenue back to those universities and to their faculty inventors for use of those original inventions.

Since the federal government did not think they were very good at that process of spinning off intellectual property they allowed universities to step into their shoes when inventions emerged from federally funded research on university campuses. But that grant of any rights the federal government may have had was not meant to take away the right of faculty to their own inventions much less to any revenue stream those inventions might generate.

If Stanford’s view of the world were to prevail it would reduce the status of faculty, who hold appointments, into mere employees engaged to do “work for hire” that belongs to the university. In other words, the university would cease to be a university, it would become no different than a private sector corporation. This would of course destroy the unique incentives and culture found at a university that lead to pathbreaking innovation in the first place.

An amicus brief defending the rights of faculty has been filed by the AAUP (of which I am a member), the IEEE-US and IP Advocate. The American Intellectual Property Law Association has also filed an amicus brief that makes a parallel argument.

So what is it about HP these days? It’s top management is looking more like a home for executives who fail elsewhere.

Since when did the foundational Silicon Valley firm become a way station to retirement?

The new CEO, Leo Apotheker, was fired from SAP after 8 months as its CEO. The new Chairman, Ray Lane, was fired as President of Oracle. And three of the newest board members failed at their last gigs: Meg Whitman was trounced by a 70 year old in the governors’ race and some believe her last few years at E-Bay were nothing to brag about, Patricia Russo was pushed out in a shareholders revolt at Alcatel/Lucent, and in circumstances that are not clear Gary Reiner left GE as its Chief Information Officer after a long career there.

If one is looking for a logical explanation for the new board members, it is striking that two have long time consulting backgrounds and two have strong connections to private equity groups. This suggests that the real plan is to break up the company – since there is no word from Apotheker, a software salesman, about how he intends to run a hardware company, perhaps this is the real explanation – he isn’t going to run a hardware company. He is going to break it up and sell it off and use the cash to build a new business. I made that point in the Mercury News coverage this afternoon here.

H-P Shakes Up Board of Directors – WSJ.com.

The UAW is starting out contract talks with the Big 3 auto companies in a defensive and paradoxical position. The employers are pushing for a link between pay and productivity and quality as this Wall Street Journal story notes. Of course, most assembly line workers have little serious influence on these goals given the heavily engineered modern assembly plant.

But all collective bargaining is as much political as it is economic. Public sympathy for industrial unions is at an all time low, even inside the labor movement itself where concern with immigrant rights and keeping a tenuous grasp on political influence takes up more time.

And greatly complicating the situation is that the UAW run healthcare retiree trust sacrificed economic independence and now owns a big equity position in Chrysler and GM. Thus the union, for the first time in its history, is really on both sides of the bargaining table. That is an untenable position.

And it does not help that so much of the rest of the labor movement has been distracted by issues like immigrant rights and rather desperate efforts to maintain political influence in the Democratic party. The decline of manufacturing employment in the U.S. has left unions like UAW without the broader support they need. Unless the new UAW leadership under Bob King has plans to aggressively engage the UAW rank and file in a broader campaign to change the balance of power in the industry these will not be easy negotiations.