Amid Criticism From Lawmakers, Arkansas Rescinds Dean Offer

Emily Suski, an associate dean at the University of South Carolina law school, was supposed to assume her new role as dean of the University of Arkansas law school July 1. But six days after university officials announced Suski’s hire, they rescinded their offer based on outside feedback.

“After receiving feedback from key external stakeholders about the fit between Professor Suski and the university’s vacancy, the university has decided to go a different direction in filling the vacancy,” university officials wrote in a statement Wednesday. “University officials are very grateful for Professor Suski’s interest in the position and continue to hold Professor Suski in high regard. We wish Professor Suski well as she moves forward with her career.”

University of Arkansas spokespeople declined to comment further on the nature of the feedback, but a state lawmaker claims that the rescission is political. In an Instagram post, Arkansas representative Nicole Clowney, a Democrat, wrote that the university’s decision to rescind Suski’s offer was a “horrifying, unprecedented and absolutely unconstitutional abuse of state power.”

According to Clowney, several state lawmakers learned after Suski’s hire was announced that she had signed a friend-of-the-court brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the students in two cases challenging state laws against transgender athletes’ participation in sports teams that match their gender identity. Clowney did not name the lawmakers but said “at least one constitutional officer” was among them.

“There is nothing about signing onto this brief that would impact Prof. Suski’s ability to serve as dean,” Clowney wrote. “But Arkansas officials weren’t concerned about Prof. Suski’s ability to carry out the functions of Dean. Instead, the signature alerted Arkansas elected officials that Prof. Suski may share different political views than they do on this one issue. That, for reasons too frightening for me to even fully comprehend, was enough for multiple state elected officials to threaten to substantially reduce funding in the upcoming fiscal session.”

One of the lawmakers who objected to Suski’s hire was Senate president pro tempore Bart Hester, a Republican, The Arkansas Advocate reported.

“There’s no way the people of Arkansas want somebody running and educating our next generation of lawyers and judges [to be] someone that doesn’t understand the difference between a man and a woman,” Hester told the Advocate.

Attorney General Tim Griffin also told the Advocate he supported the university’s decision.

“The Attorney General simply expressed his dismay at the selection and his confidence that many more qualified candidates could have been identified,” a spokesperson for Griffin told the Advocate. “He never requested or even contemplated that the offer be rescinded, but he applauds the decision nonetheless.”

A spokesperson for Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders declined to tell the Advocate whether the governor was involved in the decision but said in a statement, “Governor Sanders appreciates the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, for reaching the commonsense decision on this matter in the best interests of students.”

Suski’s curriculum vitae shows that she has extensive experience teaching, researching and writing about civil rights and Title IX cases. She is not a party in either case before the Supreme Court and is not representing either party. Neither Suski nor Clowney responded to Inside Higher Ed’s requests for comment Thursday.

In a statement, American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas executive director Holly Dickinson said the organization was “deeply troubled” by the reports that Suski’s offer was rescinded over her signing of the amicus brief, and she called the university’s decision retaliatory.

“Let’s be clear: This had nothing to do with competence or fitness to lead. It had everything to do with viewpoint,” Dickinson wrote. “If state officials can threaten to cut funding because they dislike a professor’s legal analysis, then no public employee in Arkansas is safe to speak freely. Under this logic, any public worker could be punished for expressing a belief unless it has first been approved by politicians. That is not governance—it is ideological control.”