More comes out about the behind the scenes wheeling and dealing to get Chemerinsky dumped, courtesy of the LA Times and the SF Chron.

Making Chemerinsky the head of the law school “would be like appointing al-Qaida in charge of homeland security,” Michael Antonovich, a longtime Republican member of the county Board of Supervisors, said in a voicemail left with The Associated Press.

Now, as the Times reports, there’s a whole new round of wheeling and dealing to maybe get him back:

UC Irvine officials on Friday were attempting to broker a deal to once again hire liberal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky as dean of its fledging law school, just three days after its chancellor set off a national furor by dumping him….

And, if that wasn’t enough, there’s the strange matter of the fact checking snafu, which may or may not have played a part in some of the above wheeling and dealing.

(This is also in the Times article, and is complicated issue having to do with whether Chemerinsky was correct in writing in his August 16 op ed that California doesn’t pay for lawyers at the habeas stage of…… Oh never mind. Just read it. )

(Heaven knows you certainly don’t want to get behind with this story, as there will clearly be new installments to come. And otherwise you’ll have to focus on other unpleasant issues—like, say, the high cost of health insurance….or when Bush is going to bomb Iran.)

And here, in case you’re curious, is the link to the open letter to Chancellor Drake signed by various members of UCI’s faculty and students.

Okay, here’s where we are so far:

UCI Chancellor, Michael Drake says that his choice to rescind the job offer to Erwin Chemerinsky to become dean of the UC Irvine law school wasn’t one teensy, weensy bit political, that it was really just a “management decision.” (Whatever that means.)

Meanwhile Chemerinsky says, he was told, point blank, that he was turning out to be “too politically controversial.”

The UC Irvine Donald Bren School of Law was to have opened its doors in the fall of 2009 as the first new public law school to be established in the University of California in over forty years. (UC now operates law schools at UCLA, UC Berkeley, UC Davis and the Hastings Law School in San Francisco.) The search to find the right dean for the school began in December of 2006. Actual screening of applicants started on February 1 of this year. The search committee was filled with heavy hitters from both sides of the political spectrum, many from UCI’s brilliant and well-respected School Social Ecology.

By late summer, the winnowing process was over and Chemerinsky was offered the position on August 16, pending the approval of the University of California Board of Regents.

According to California Speaker Fabian Nunez—who sits on the board—the regents were never asked.

But Something Happened. We know this because on Tuesday 9/11, Chancellor Blake—who, before this debacle was reportedly very well liked, both on and off campus— flew in to meet with Chemerinsky….and withdrew the job offer.

In the days between then and now, poor, beleaguered Chancellor Blake has been dissembling like crazy. First it was the regents who were the problem, then it was Chemerinsky’s mid-summer op ed, then it was….I don’t know….the psychic influence of He Who Must Not Be Named….or whatever.

Finally we were treated to the Rashomon experience of these dueling editorials (here and here) in the LA times.

So what’s the real deal?

This morning’s OC Register offered some clues:

…..as early as Aug. 29, Republican political consultant Matt Cunningham said he received a forwarded e-mail in which Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich asked fellow Republicans how Chemerinsky’s appointment could be stopped.

Bingo.

A little further poking around reveals that also on August 29, a short article appeared in the LA Times reporting that “someone involved with the selection process” had leaked that Chemerinsky was the “front runner” for dean. (One wonders the reason for the leak, but I digress.) Clearly, Antonovich—and likely some others—saw the article and began frantically emailing.

And then someone likely applied pressure. And then more pressure. Finally, somebody—or several somebodies— told Blake that he better do whatever he had to do, but job-offer-or-no-job offer, Chemerensky was a no-go.

It is important to mention here that while conservative meddlers such as Antonovich should be ashamed of themselves, the right-leaning legal/academic community has been almost uniformly stellar in its response to the Irvine/Chemerinsky mess.

As of today, the Orange County Register and others are calling for Chancellor Blake’s head. With his ham handling of the situation, maybe Blake should go, or maybe he should stay. Until we learn the full back story, and what kind of threats….er…suggestions were made to Blake—and by whom— it’s hard to say. (Eventually, we will know. Count on it.)

In the meantime, why should the rest of us care that a job offer was tendered to a Duke University law professor, and then later withdrawn?

Here’s why: Because when the worst kind of petty back room political maneuvering holds that kind of power over one of the state’s best—hell, one of the country’s best—public universities, then we all damn well better care.