Looking Forward With Columbia Law’s New Dean, Daniel Abebe

On August 1, Daniel Abebe became the 16th dean of Columbia Law School and Lucy G. Moses Professor of Law. Dean Abebe brings vast administrative experience to his new role. He previously served as vice provost for academic affairs and governance at the University of Chicago and deputy dean for the University of Chicago Law School, where he was the Harold J. and Marion F. Green Professor of Law. His scholarship centers on the relationship between the constitutional law of U.S. foreign affairs and public international law. In the Q&A below, he introduces himself to the global Columbia Law community.

How did you decide that the deanship of Columbia Law School was the right move for you after 20 years at the University of Chicago?

My decision to come to Columbia was, in several respects, an easy one. Columbia is an extraordinarily rigorous place with a distinguished history as a leader in legal education. Its long-standing preeminence in international law and comparative law resonates with me as a scholar. I appreciate the relationship the Law School has with the bar, its tradition of having a very strong corporate and business law faculty, and its eminence in constitutional law and administrative law, among many other fields. I also recognize the strides the Law School has made in becoming a place that embraces public interest and public service work. To have these pillars all in one place—and in one of the world’s most wonderful cities—is a platform to do innovative things, which was irresistible to me.

What is your initial vision for the future of Columbia Law School?

That’s exactly the sort of question—What do you see from a distance?—that I was asked during the hiring process. Of course, I need to listen to and learn from the Columbia Law School community, but I can already see a phenomenal institution that has enormous advantages given the excellence of its faculty, students, and staff; its location in New York; and its being part of a world-class university. So, I see a place that is very strong already and has opportunities to build on its historical strengths while also expanding into new areas like law and technology. I also believe it would be a missed opportunity if we don’t face directly the difficulties that all of us in higher education have experienced over the past year and aspire to foster a welcoming intellectual environment that is rigorous, respectful, and committed to free expression. If we do it well, we will be the model. And I think it’s a real opportunity that we cannot afford to miss here or in higher education generally. It also would be great for the Law School to play a bigger role within Columbia University as an institution on this hugely significant issue. With the partnership of our faculty, students, and alumni, we can make progress on this issue and identify other areas where we can move forward. 

You have a J.D. from Harvard Law School, and prior to becoming a law professor, you clerked in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit and worked in Big Law in New York. What initially attracted you to a career in the law?

I was probably in middle school when I started to think about the law. I tended to argue a lot with my parents, and they noted that this skill might be useful in some other context. I appreciate their patience! I was also drawn to politics in my early years, and I had the perception that many politicians were lawyers.

You ended up leaving Big Law to pursue your interest in politics at the University of Chicago, where you earned an M.A. and a Ph.D. in political science. Can you talk more about your area of specialty?

My focus was on the relationship between international politics and the constitutional law of U.S. foreign affairs—the idea being that how we think about the relationship between the president, the Congress, and the courts in the area of foreign affairs should be driven not only by our fairly vague and imprecise constitutional rules but also by the external environment in which we are actually trying to achieve foreign policy goals. For example, during a time of threat or crisis, there is often deference to the president that comes from the theory that the executive branch is better placed than Congress or the judiciary to move quickly, leverage resources and institutional competencies, and act to protect U.S. interests in foreign affairs. But when there is not a threat, we do not typically begin by deferring to the president; instead, we observe rules and practices that envision a more robust rule for Congress and the courts. I said: Let’s develop a better framework for understanding what the international conflicts or threats may be that trigger this change in who has more authority.

Why were you drawn to this area of study? 

When I was working on my Ph.D., I learned from some of the faculty members that I was asking interesting questions that tended to be, as academics like to say, at the intersection of two different fields. I realized that the frameworks I was learning from political science were really useful for thinking about some legal questions. So, I became drawn to foreign relations law—often called the constitutional law of U.S. foreign affairs—because it touches on international politics, which was my subfield in political science. I thought, Wow, this is how international politics works, and I get to think about the rules, procedures, statutes, and kinds of constitutional architecture for decision making in that area—this is an interesting field I want to go into.

At the University of Chicago Law School, you taught courses such as Property, Foreign Relations Law, and Public International Law. What do you enjoy about teaching?

There’s a reward that comes from sharing knowledge, helping students understand things better than they did the day before. In law school, students learn a tremendous amount from their classmates, and in some ways, a great professor is a conductor who can draw out comments and questions from everyone in the room, facilitating an opportunity for engagement that’s generative for learning. That’s a lot of fun. There’s a performative aspect to being a conductor as well, and I like being in front of students, bringing my enthusiasm for a particular topic to hopefully make them excited about the topic, too.

What led you to pivot from full-time teaching to law school and university administration?

It was an incremental process. While teaching at the University of Chicago Law School, I chaired our appointments committee, ran our fellowship program, and served as deputy dean. I enjoyed discovering the different ways you can meaningfully impact individuals and a community. You can impact students in a classroom and by mentoring them. You can impact alumni when you engage them in the ongoing life of the law school. You can contribute by shaping a larger institutional environment in which faculty, students, and staff can flourish. And I realized I enjoyed doing that. Being an administrator doesn’t have the same reward of working with an individual student during office hours, helping them think through a problem, and seeing the aha moment, which is extraordinary. But there’s a different feeling of extraordinary when you’ve helped set a course of hiring wonderful faculty, supporting pathbreaking scholarship, creating great clinical experiences, and building programs that contribute to student success. 

What’s your plan for getting to know the global Columbia Law community?

The plan is to listen and to learn, to engage faculty, students, staff, and alumni. To hear their views and what excites them about the Law School and what things I should be thinking about. Together with the Columbia Law community, I want to build on Dean Gillian Lester’s distinguished legacy and also identify new opportunities to meet today’s challenges and set a course for the future. But I need to learn and listen quickly because there will be issues that need to be addressed directly and soon, so it’s going to be immersive. I really look forward to getting to know people through that process, earning their trust, and working together to take us forward.

What excites you about living in New York again after 20 years away? What do you look forward to doing in your free time?

That assumes that I will have free time! The search committee didn’t tell me that. They said it’ll be really busy and that I’ll be working all the time. But, in all seriousness, I like to go to museums. I like to exercise. I’m a café guy; I like to visit different coffee shops. I love to read nonfiction—biographies, books on topics that are completely different, whether it’s, say, psychology or chemistry—but not legal nonfiction. I haven’t been to BAM [Brooklyn Academy of Music]; I haven’t been to a number of museums and other cultural institutions in New York. I’m excited about doing that. I haven’t walked in Central Park in many, many years. I haven’t really seen the High Line. I understand Brooklyn is unrecognizable in some neighborhoods, so I am excited to get reacquainted with the city. I’m also happy to say that my brother lives in New Jersey, and I look forward to spending more time with him, his wife, and my niece and nephew. I have a small group of people who are still my friends from my past New York days, so I’ll be able to reconnect with them. I love meeting people, and so I hope to make many new friends.