My recent post, “Law school faculty monetary contributions to political candidates, 2017 to early 2023,” has garnered a lot of attention and feedback, and I’m grateful for people’s interest in it! Some recurring questions came up.

First, what does this say about the percentage of politically-engaged faculty (an important question raised by Professor Milan Markovic and others)?

I tracked around 3300 faculty. That could double-count some faculty who moved around, so it could be smaller. And some could self-identify as a “law professor” but not teach at the law school (e.g., a business law professor in an undergraduate), another way it could be smaller.

But I sense I am somewhat understating the results, as I know of a non-trivial number of faculty (some of whom followed up with me after this post!) who are not included because they failed to list their occupation; listed some other occupation, like attorney or teacher; or whose title is, say, “professor of legal writing,” “professor of the practice,” or “Williams Chair in Constitutional Law.”

That’s all a hedge, and let’s set it aside for a moment. Based on what we know, what does it say about political engagement?

The window of contributions was a five-plus year window, 2017 to early 2023. I looked at law school faculties from 2022. That worked out to around 35.5% of “full time” faculty who contributed in this time (9195 faculty).

I looked at faculty that hit the 50% mark in terms of contributions, with, of course, all of the caveats I’ve listed.

One might be hard pressed to see any rhyme or reason for particular schools on the list or off the list. It’s possible, for instance, that some DC schools (like American, Catholic, and George Washington) attract disproportionately higher donors with some hope of service in a future administration. It’s possible that some schools’ faculty members (Irvine, Katie Porter) or famous alumni (Hastings now UC Law SF, Kamala Harris) prompted more donations. Only three of the Princeton Review’s “most liberal law students” (American, Irvine, George Washington) appear on the list.

Again, it’s interesting to return to the Princeton Review rankings of the “most conservative students.” Six of those top ten (Ave Maria, Regent, Faulkner, LSU, Idaho, Mississippi College) make the list of the least politically engaged faculty.

So there are varying things to consider. On the whole, contributions hover around 1/3 of the reported faculty (perhaps a bit higher but perhaps not by much) in the last five years. At a handful of schools (perhaps for some reasons), contributions are much higher or much lower as a percentage of overall faculty. It could be that political engagement is happening elsewhere. That said, with 1/3 of faculty reporting and nearly 96% of them going to Democrats, I am not sure that it is masking substantial numbers of Republican contributors who are simply sitting on the sidelines—but, perhaps a few more, if one sees how political engagement shakes out among those least-active institutions.

There are some other contribution figures to consider, perhaps for later posts.