April 27, 2017

Ignorant bloviating about Whittier

I could not agree more with Northwestern Dean Dan Rodriguez:

Whittier's sudden closing is obviously a tough thing for current students and faculty.  Perhaps the decision will be unraveled in the face of public pressure or via littigation.  Yet there seems precious little basis to jump into a matter whose complex issues are essentially private, despite the efforts of many in and around the school to make this into a public spectacle.  Perhaps bloggers should neither aid nor abet these efforts.

The hubris of the unknowing. 

Sometimes Stephen Diamond (Santa Clara) has been a voice of reason amidst the mindless blather about law schools in most of cyberspace (and I have linked to him on a number of occasions over the years), but here he has completely missed the boat:  the general legal market has been improving, true, but it is hardly mysterious why an institution would close a law school where far fewer than half the graduates even pass the bar.  Diamond just politely ignores all the relevant facts about how this school's graduates have been faring, and, of course, is ignorant of the actual finances of the school.

But far more egregious is the presumptuous intervention of Robert Anderson, Associate Professor of Law at Pepperdine.  Faculty members at Whittier are going to lose their jobs, and some may never work again as law teachers or work again at all.  Yet Anderson has the audacity to scold them for not having taken an early retirement in the financial interest of the school.   Seriously?  Does Prof. Anderson pay the bills for any members of that faculty, does he know about their college-age children or their elderly parents or their chronic medical conditions that require a salary and a health insurance plan?  Does he know that a job is not just a paycheck for many people (maybe not Robert Anderson), but a focal point of purpose and meaning in a life?  Does he know that many did take early retirement a few years ago, and that others might have quite reasonably believed that the school's fortunes, now that both its faculty and student body were smaller, would rebound?

I'm sure Anderson doesn't know any of these things, he's just another blogging blowhard who has decided to use someone else's misery as an opportunity to attract some attention to himself.  Anderson is guilty of far worse than unknowing hubris.

UPDATE:  Some choice quotes from Prof. Anderson's posts:

"The reason Whittier is closing is because of intransigent, highly paid, unproductive law professors hang around for decades even when they haven't published anything or updated their courses since they were doing the Macarena."

 

"The unfortunate truth of this story [about Whitter] is that none of this needed to happen..... The number of retirement-age faculty was (and is) enormous, likely larger than it has ever been. If faculties had looked beyond their own personal financial self interest they could have easily contracted to meet the market demand and avoided the disastrous effects that have afflicted law students and now law schools. Sadly, the very faculty members whose institution provided them an outrageously rewarding career over many decades seemed the least likely to 'pay it forward' by helping to reduce expenses....Thus, the story of Whittier is a story of generational wealth shifting that is seen throughout tuition dependent law schools, and indeed throughout our country."


April 27, 2017 in Law in Cyberspace, Law Professors Saying Dumb Things, Legal Profession, Of Academic Interest, Professional Advice | Permalink

November 02, 2016

University of Oregon law professor went to Halloween Party in blackface

Yikes!

UPDATE:  Now 23 of the professor's colleagues have called on the faculty member to resign if the allegations are true.  That reflects poorly on them, and suggests they have no regard for  contractual and constitutional rights to academic freedom, including the right to engage in racially insensitive extramural speech.  Absent a finding that the professor treats students or colleagues in racially discriminatory ways, there is no reason for the faculty member to resign (apologizing might be a good idea though!).

ANOTHER:  The Daily Mail (not my favorite source, though they often get the facts out quickly on stories like this) reports that the offending faculty member was Prof. Nancy Shurtz, and gives some context for why she was dressed that way at the Halloween party.

HERE IS A BETTER SOURCE identifying Prof. Shurtz, and includes a statement from her.

STILL ANOTHER:  Prof. Shurtz issues a written explanation and apology.  She exercised bad judgment.  Her 23 colleagues exercised even worse judgment.  It's now their turn to apologize!


November 2, 2016 in Faculty News, Law Professors Saying Dumb Things, Of Academic Interest | Permalink

September 22, 2016

Tennessee Law Prof. Glenn Reynolds--aka, "InstaIgnorance" as I used to call him back in the day--has Twitter account suspended after encouraging motorists to run down protesters in Charlotte

Several readers have flagged this story for me.  Reynolds is a benighted soul, alas.  A criminal law colleague calls to my attention:

TN Code § 39-12-102 (2015)                           

(a) Whoever, by means of oral, written or electronic communication, directly or through another, intentionally commands, requests or hires another to commit a criminal offense, or attempts to command, request or hire another to commit a criminal offense, with the intent that the criminal offense be committed, is guilty of the offense of solicitation.

(b) It is no defense that the solicitation was unsuccessful and the offense solicited was not committed. It is no defense that the person solicited could not be guilty of the offense solicited, due to insanity, minority, or other lack of criminal responsibility or incapacity. It is no defense that the person solicited was unaware of the criminal nature of the conduct solicited. It is no defense that the person solicited is unable to commit the offense solicited because of the lack of capacity, status, or characteristic needed to commit the offense solicited, so long as the person soliciting or the person solicited believes that either or both have such capacity, status, or characteristic.

I doubt there will be a prosecution, but who knows?  His real mens rea is more likely "dumb and insensitive" than "malicious."

UPDATE:  Lawyer Jason Walta writes:

I'm kind of bemused by the seemingly shocked response of the chancellor and law dean. Have these people never met Glenn Reyonolds? Were they previously unaware that he's on faculty there? 

The fact of the matter is that this stuff is Reynolds's entire métier, stretching back to when he called for vigilante executions of "looters" during Katrina or lauded  William "Gosh I didn't mean to shoot my wife in the head" Burroughs as some kind of Second Amendment hero.


September 22, 2016 in Faculty News, Law Professors Saying Dumb Things, Legal Profession, Of Academic Interest | Permalink

February 19, 2016

Melodrama at Georgetown Law in the wake of Justice Scalia's death

IHE reports.

UPDATE:  There's a longer article on this brouhaha here.  I find I agree with a lot of what Mike Seidman (Georgetown) is quoted in the article as saying in the wake of this dispute.  In general, institutions should not adopt positions; faculty should adopt positions.  But the convention of recognizing and mourning the passing of a member of that community is so well-established that I don't think anyone could imagine that such official expressions mean that everyone in the community has the same views about an individual's life and career.  I doubt there has been a more severe critic of Justice Scalia than my colleague Judge Posner, and yet Chicago, of course, also mourned Justice Scalia's passing and recognized his professional career, as one would expect.  I am sure no one thinks this means that Judge Posner is now retracting his previous criticisms of Justice Scalia's jurisprudence!


February 19, 2016 in Law Professors Saying Dumb Things, Of Academic Interest | Permalink

October 08, 2015

Another ignorant apologist for gun carnage exposed

October 06, 2015

Another mass shooting, and another set of pathetic rationalizations by law professors

MOVING TO FRONT FROM OCTOBER 2--UPDATED

Glenn Reynolds (University of Tennessee) leads the way as usual.  President Obama is disgusted, as well should we all be.  Reynolds's disgraceful irrationality on this subject is of longstanding.  He really is "part of the problem."

UPDATE:  A reader sends along this apt 2012 article about gun control.  He writes:  "This is an issue where there aren't really two sides to the debate that should be seriously considered.   This is an issue where there are the facts about gun control and mass killings, and then there are awful rationalizations for the carnage offered by the likes of Glenn Reynolds.  As someone who fills out the U.S. News surveys, I am factoring in to my assesment of the reputation of the University of Tennessee the "disgraceful" as you said antics of this facilitator of murder."

ANOTHER:  William Page (Florida) sends along another apt piece, noting the utter insanity of thinking that it would contribute to public safety to have armed civilians in the middle of an unfolding crime scene.


October 6, 2015 in Law Professors Saying Dumb Things, Of Academic Interest | Permalink

September 25, 2015

You can't make this stuff up, Part II

You know who actually criticizes Donald Trump for being a narcissist in need of constant media attention.  Really.  The "spirit of the age" indeed.

(Thanks to several readers for sending this along.)


September 25, 2015 in Law Professors Saying Dumb Things, Legal Humor, Of Academic Interest | Permalink

August 31, 2015

William "let's kill law professors" Bradford resigns from West Point

Interesting development in the wake of this.

(Thanks to David Gordon for the pointer.)


August 31, 2015 in Law Professors Saying Dumb Things, Of Academic Interest | Permalink

August 25, 2015

You can't make this stuff up

Paul Campos, who has admitted in writing that, as an academic, he is a "fraud," takes to the pages of CHE to question the scholarly integrity of an actual scholar, mostly through innuendo and repetition of points made already by Steven Lubet (Northwestern).   Campos writes:

How did a book consisting of so many [sic] unsourced, contradictory, and improbable events get published by a prestigious academic press and praised to the skies by prominent scholars and intellectuals?

Quoting this line to me in an e-mail, a colleague elsewhere offered an answer:  "Well, Paul, the same way you got tenure! Academia is weaker than people think."  To be clear, the criticisms of the Goffman book are underwhelming (contrast this investigation, which largely supports Goffman), while the evidence, including his own words, that Campos is a malevolent fraud is overwhelming

Looking on the bright side, I suppose it's a sign that the "law school crisis" is over that Campos has found a new bandwagon to join in his relentless quest to remain in the media spotlight.


August 25, 2015 in Law Professors Saying Dumb Things, Of Academic Interest | Permalink

April 13, 2015

Paul Campos's final implosion

Stephen Diamond (Santa Clara) has the details.  He won't be missed, it's fair to say.

UPDATE:  Ohio Northern Dean Richard Bales raises the question whether Campos should be fired, without even noting that Campos himself has confessed in print to being a "fraud." 


April 13, 2015 in Law Professors Saying Dumb Things, Of Academic Interest | Permalink