Legal Commentary

In my earlier post on the news accounts of the FIU dean search, I likened a mainstream media accounts of a law dean search to accounts of judicial proceedings--ripe for context to be lost in translation. I was more right than I thought.

It turns out that the ten people mentioned in the newspaper stories are not finalists for the job in any sense; those were ten candidates that were discussed during that meeting (which was attended by a Herald reporter). Other candidates also were discussed. Other candidates will be discussed at the next meeting. And Alex Acosta, the outgoing United States Attorney who was the focus of both newspaper stories, was at the top of the list because the list was alphabetical. So, contrary to what the media reports suggested to some observers, we actually were not doing anything "strange" compared to other dean searches, such as presenting twice as many finalists or identifying and highlighting one person as a "leading" candidate early in the process. The reporter apparently completely misunderstood what had occurred at the meeting.

The committee is taking steps to publicly correct the (mis)perception, to preserve the efficacy and workability of the search and to ensure all candidates (mentioned in the article and not mentioned in the article) that no firm decisions have been made.