@David –I like that these clinics are fighting for justice (I actually support the cause in this particular case). At the same time, as you mentioned above, the University is acting like an extension of the state executive branch by operating these clinics. I see that as a potential problem because the clinics don’t have the same level of accountability as the elected executive branch does. Normally, if the citizens of Maryland don’t agree with the types of lawsuits that the executive branch is bringing, they can vote for change (regardless of how well-justified the lawsuits are "on the merits"). Here, I can see an argument that Maryland is using its University-run clinic program to “hide the ball” and bring unpopular lawsuits that it would not normally bring through the Prosecutor’s office for fear of angering its electorate. (Like you, I don’t actually think that is happening here, but I could see an argument along those lines.)

@Nathan – I also support very broad academic freedom, but I think of academic freedom as a “shield” rather than a “sword” (to use Civ Pro terms from last semester). Here, I think that the University is using academic freedom as a sword in filing lawsuits against the family and Perdue. In that role, I think that the University is acting more like extension of the executive branch, and less like a University pursuing its traditional academic mission (in which I agree that the principle of broad academic freedom should govern). While I think U Maryland's students will be better off from the experience of having litigated these lawsuits, I also think that it is reasonable to subject the clinics of Maryland to a higher degree of scrutiny than would normally be allowed when the University is acting in its traditional (non-aggressive) role.

-- SaswatMisra - 10 Apr 2010