Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Editorial: A win-win for UB, UB Law

We were very encouraged to see the University of Baltimore pledge to increase its law school’s budget by $5 million over the next five years.

We hope this action will go a long way toward defusing the crisis precipitated by the resignation in July of Phillip J. Closius as law school dean. Mr. Closius said at the time that his stepping down was prompted by longstanding differences with University President Robert L. Bogomolny over the amount of law school revenue the university keeps for itself.

Mr. Bogomolny said he asked Mr. Closius to step down over issues of leadership, not finances.

Whatever the reason, the dean’s resignation led to a UB study of the financial relationships between other law schools and their universities.

After examining the data of nine other universities and law school, UB officials concluded that the law school should receive more money from the university.

The additional money would come from UB’s central fund, tuition, a small increase in the number of new students admitted by the university and from increased fundraising, Mr. Bogomolny said. He also pledged to keep future law school tuition increases “as small as possible.” Tuition will not be increased to help pay for the first year’s law school budget increase.

Debates over goals and resources often occur in academe, and they often surface important issues such as this one that need to be addressed. In the University of Baltimore’s case, we hope that this agreement was entered into in good faith by all parties and that it will result in more stability and fewer distractions going forward.

With a new law building scheduled to open in 2013 and the search for a new dean getting underway, the university and its law school need to put this funding issue behind them and move forward to a brighter future.

One comment

  1. Didn’t UB announce this deal about a month ago? Is there some reason the DR didn’t sign off on it until now? Did it take that long to figure out how to phrase the editorial to avoid taking sides in the Bogomolny-Closius spat (though your preference for Closius still comes through)?