...more precisely its law school's navel: here, here and here. For an earlier blog posting on the subject, see here.
Let us hope that the second story misrepresents Judge Calabresi:
Calabresi said there are two kinds of scholars. There are experts in the field who contribute to their generation of legal thought. And then there are innovators whose work will survive them.
The former are exactly the kind of professors a large school like Harvard should hire, he said, and the latter are the kind of professors on Yale’s faculty.
Anyone who said this with a straight face would obviously be delusional--even by the self-important standards of elite law schools--so I strongly suspect some pertinent context is missing. If one were to take a glance at the Yale faculty of, say, 1970, you'd find a handful of genuine innovators (including Calabresi himself, as well as Alexander Bickel, John Hart Ely, Thomas Emerson, and Myres McDougal, among others), several "experts in the field who contribute to their generation of legal thought," and a rather large number of folks that would likely prompt the reaction, "Who is that?" I couldn't find a 1970 Harvard faculty list, but the 1970 Chicago faculty (with Ronald Coase, Harry Kalven, Jr., Edward H. Levi, Norval Morris, and Richard Posner, among others) probably had as many or more genuine innovators than Yale. Let's face it: in making hiring decisions, it is awfully hard to say "whose work will survive" the test of time!
Recent Comments