Is there any argument for a university massively subsidizing its law school?

This isn’t a rhetorical question.

I’ve been writing an article on the current finances of America’s law schools, in the wake of the big decline in both JD enrollment totals and effective (sticker minus discounts) tuition rates over the past decade or so, after a couple or three troublemakers started pointing out that law school had become way too expensive, relative to the relevant cost considerations.

Law schools have reacted to this — outside the elite 12 or so national law schools, that like the rest of our plutocracy remains untouched by petty fiscal concerns, so they can continue to burn money like it’s going out of style — in three ways:

(1) Going out of business. About ten of the 205 ABA approved law schools that existed a decade are now gone, by either closing for good, losing their ABA accreditation, or in one case merging with another school.

(2) A large number of schools have made big cuts to their operating budgets, which have generally involved laying off lots of faculty and staff, since payroll is by far the largest variable cost these schools can control.

(3) A handful of schools have somehow managed the central administrations of their respective universities to engage in ongoing massive subsidization of otherwise unsustainable budget structures.

A very sincere question to Planet LGM. Are there any valid justifications for universities engaging in (3)? Why should the rest of the university pay for a large portion of its law school’s operating budget — and not for a year or two, while restructuring takes place, but on a continuing basis?

I’m eager to hear what people think about this.