« Trail running | Main | Politics and The Lord of the Rings »

Who's to blame for Colorado's "woefully inadequate" law building?

By now many of us know that the ABA thinks the Fleming Law Building at the University of Colorado is "woefully inadequate." (Via en banc.)

School officials are blaming the lack of state funding, for lack of anything better to blame, I suppose. It is true that the current budget crisis prevents the state from bailing out the law school. There's just no money there.

But what I'd like to know is, did the school fail to plan for this? Budget crises can be counted on from time to time, and a state school can't reliably predict that there will always be money available from the state. Especially not a state school in Colorado, whose legislature doesn't seem to enjoy funding higher education.

Why hasn't Fleming been adequately maintained and updated? Surely this is much cheaper than an entirely new building. Who's decision was this?

Somebody, somewhere, probably dropped the ball. It probably wasn't the current Dean, David Getches. He hasn't been there long enough.

Was it the former Dean, Harold Bruff? It's hard to say. There are some postive-sounding surveys on Bruff floating around, but surveys can be woefully inadequate themselves sometimes.

What about the students? Where are they? Are they upset? Happy? Do they care? So far I haven't seen much comment on this issue from Colorado law students. If the building is really so inadequate, you'd think the students would be more upset.

Why hasn't the media looked into these questions? This would be a great piece for any student journalists at Colorado who wanted to scoop the bland, insipid reporting that's plagued this story.

Here are some articles addressing the tuition hikes solution to the funding shortfall; here's a discussion of the ABA's other concerns about the school.


Hey! You're reading Animal Dreams! Good for you.