"We had three other finalists, and one of them would have definitely done it a week ago," said psychology professor Elizabeth F. Loftus, a member of the committee. "If you asked them today, I don't know. I don't think the law school will be derailed, but who knows what's going to happen next?"

Despite his public denials of caving to pressure, Loftus said that Drake told the committee during an emergency meeting Wednesday night that he was forced to make the decision by outside forces whom he did not name.

"I asked whether it was one or two voices or an avalanche, and the answer is that it was an avalanche," Loftus said. "But we are not supposed to capitulate to that in the world of academic freedom."

Drake told Chemerinsky that the appointment would prompt "a bloody fight" within the UC Board of Regents and that "if we won, it would damage the law school," Chemerinsky said. ". . . He said, 'I knew you were liberal, but I didn't realize how controversial you'd be.' He said, 'I didn't realize there would be conservatives out to get you.' "

Several members of the Board of Regents said Thursday they were baffled by Drake's decision. They believed Chemerinsky's appointment would not have been blocked by the 26-member board.

Gerald Parsky, former chairman of the Board of Regents, was contacted by Drake in late August who told him he was leaning toward Chemerinsky. Drake "did not ask my opinion on Chemerinsky and I did not provide it," Parsky said.

"The regents support academic freedom and the right of the chancellor to decide on the hiring of a dean based on the academic needs and goals of his individual campus, and the regents do not interfere with these matters," Parsky said. "And I do not believe we did in this case at all."

Information from: Los Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com

- Associated Press