"The University of Chicago has said that he was a senior lecturer, which is different from lecturer and actually the equivalent of full professor. The only difference is that he was not tenured (but neither are many professors)."
This is so frustrating because it's so obviously not true. The school can cover his basis and the word "professor" can be thrown around in the vernacular, but anyone who has attended law school knows very well that a guest lecturer is not considered a Constitutional Law Professor. Someone who attended Harvard Law School ought to know that. I can understand why people who have probably never set foot in a law school classroom would assume that since he lectured at a law school he is therefore a Professor. But he is clearly not a Constitutional Law Professor.
It was a colloquialism introduced by some random supporter. He was offered a tenure track position, but declined. Of course it is sort of weird how you can become a law professor without a doctorate.
