December 16, 2008
Boise from Case Western to DePaul
Craig Boise (international tax) at Case Western Reserve University has accepted a senior offer from the law school at DePaul University, where he will be Director of the Graduate Tax Program.
Tales from the American Oligarchy: Caroline Kennedy Seeks New York Senate Seat To Be Vacated by Hillary Clinton
David Post (Temple) hits the nail on the head. Of course, academia has higher standards than politics.
December 15, 2008
Interim Dean Victor Gold Named Dean at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles
The university press release is here.
December 14, 2008
Law Schools Ranked By the Number of Corrupt Public Officials They Graduated
As usual, Yale and Harvard come out on top.
December 13, 2008
Sjostrom from Northern Kentucky to Arizona
William K. Sjostrom, Jr. (corporate law, securities regulation) at Chase College of Law of Northern Kentucky University has accepted a senior offer from the University of Arizona Rogers College of Law.
December 12, 2008
Lessig from Stanford Back to Harvard
Lawrence Lessig (Cyberlaw, intellectual property, constitutional law) at Stanford Law School has accepted a senior offer from Harvard Law School, where he had taugt prior to his move to Stanford several years ago.
The amazing Dean Kagan strikes again!
"Moral Skepticism and Moral Disagreement in Nietzsche"
I've posted a revised version of the paper I gave at the annual NYU "History of Modern Philosophy" conference in November (which generated an excellent and very helpful discussion). This paper might interest some readers who follows debates in moral philosophy. Here is the abstract for the paper:
This essay offers a new interpretation of Nietzsche's argument for moral skepticism (i.e., the metaphysical thesis that there do not exist any objective moral properties or facts), an argument that should be of independent philosophical interest as well. On this account, Nietzsche offers a version of the argument from moral disagreement, but, unlike familiar varieties, it does not purport to exploit anthropological reports about the moral views of exotic cultures, or even garden-variety conflicting moral intuitions about concrete cases. Nietzsche, instead, calls attention to the single most important and embarrassing fact about the history of moral theorizing by philosophers over two millennia: namely, that no rational consensus has been secured on any substantive, foundational proposition about morality. Persistent and apparently intractable disagreement on foundational questions, of course, distinguishes moral theory from inquiry in the sciences and mathematics (perhaps in kind, certainly in degree). According to Nietzsche, the best explanation for this disagreement is that, even though moral skepticism is true, philosophers can still construct valid dialectical justifications for moral propositions because the premises of different justifications will answer to the psychological needs of at least some philosophers and thus be deemed true by some of them. The essay concludes by considering various attempts to defuse this abductive argument for skepticism based on moral disagreement and by addressing the question whether the argument "proves too much," that is, whether it might entail an implausible skepticism about a wide range of topics about which there is philosophical disagreement.
Regulating Blog Comments
Since my esteemed colleague Eric Posner began posting at the "Volokh Conspiracy" blog, I've started looking at that site again, and so noticed that Orin Kerr (George Washington)--an expert in criminal law and procedure and one of the most worthwhile contributors there--has posted an updated version of their "comments policy," I assume in response to increasingly worthless comments threads. (I've got my own policy, of course, but since blog comments sections are generally worthless, I open them less often.) My own (admittedly dated) recollection of the comments section at the Volokh blog was of a cesspool of juvenile stupidity as well as every right-wing delusion about how the world works imaginable: sort of like right-wing talk radio, but typed. Anyway, I was amused that Professor Kerr's attempt to reassert some dignity to the comments threads immediately provoked--what else?--an explosion of juvenile stupidity and crackpot ranting, including this gem:
I was banned after attacking Eugene personally. The policy below ensued soon thereafter. It is mostly about his feelings. Here, I have seen curse words, personalized death threats, unacceptable language. I have seen links to sites with animal sex, illegal pharmacies. No problem. Question the professor on substance, and that is unpardonable. He does not know the legal word, reasonable, really means, in accordance with the New Testament. He failed to grasp that the supernatural central doctrines of the law, mind reading, future forecasting, truth detection by gut feelings, standards of conduct set by fictional characters to make them objective, all violate the Establishment Clause. He is an expert on crosses in city flags, but refuses to see the glaring lawlessness of the central doctrines of the law that he indoctrinates into his students daily. Although we share some beliefs, I believe he is mired in Medieval superstition, unforgivable given his scientific knowledge and his intelligence. I coined the legal term of art, in his honor, "dumbass." That is someone with an IQ of 300 who has been made a mental cripple by a legal education.
December 11, 2008
Witt from Columbia to Yale
John Witt (American legal history) at Columbia Law School has accepted a senior offer from Yale Law School, where he will start in July 2009. (Columbia had several years ago warded off an attempt by Harvard to lure him away.) Last year, Columbia also lost Thomas Merrill (administrative and environmental law, property) to Yale. (On the other side of the ledger, of course, Columbia earlier this year recruited Michael Graetz [tax] from Yale!)
Duquesne Dean Ousted
And "ousted" seems to be the right word. The University President and Central Administration do not come out of this looking too good.
UPDATE: The Dean's public letter. Pretty shocking. If its contents are accurate, it would be shocking if the University President isn't gone within the year.