Brian Leiter's Law School Reports

Brian Leiter
University of Chicago Law School

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

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

April 06, 2015

Paul Campos has trouble with long division

Somehow Paul Campos--fresh from his latest smear piece on Michael Simkovic--got an opinion piece in The New York Times reporting his latest discovery:  namely, that state spending on higher education has increased, not declined over the last several decades.  How did he arrive at this contrarian conclusion?  By looking at absolute dollars spent on education and largely ignoring or downplaying the increase in the number of students during this time.  (And nothing, as usual, about Baumol's disease, which is crucial to any serious understanding of higher education costs.)  We already knew Campos was not exactly an intellectual giant, but this latest muddle disappointed even my low expectations.  For more detailed discussion, see IHE and Slate.  And for some actual data on the growth in student population, try this, and on the decline in state spending, this.

(Thanks to Michael Simkovic for suggesting the title.)

UPDATE:  CHE collects more responses to this idiocy.

ANOTHER:  Still more on this fiasco, which will hopefully mean we won't have to hear from this ignoramus in a major forum again.


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

January 06, 2014

Paul Campos now resorting to "blackmail"!

Alas, my hopes for a Campos-free 2014 have been dashed.  After the poll went up last week about whether to identify "dybbuk," the sexist cyber-harasser, I received the following e-mail from  Campos:

From: Paul F Campos [mailto:paul.campos@Colorado.EDU]

Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:03 AM

To: Leiter, Brian

Subject: Dybbuk 

Brian,

I have been asked by somebody who has passed on (unsolicited) some potentially very embarrassing personal information about you to me, regarding your activities in cyberspace and some related goings-on in the real world, to make this information public, should you choose to “out” Dybbuk.

 Paul

I am told by a colleague who teaches criminal law that this threat is blackmail (criminal "intimidation" as we call it in Illinois, or "extortion" or "criminal coercion" as it is in many other jurisdictions).  I have no idea what fabrications Campos would produce this time, but there is nothing truthful he could post, and he knows it.  (Remarkably, this is also not the first time Campos has tried to coerce another law professor with threats.)

Several law professors and lawyers I consulted thought that I should now absolutely name "dybbuk," since it would be wrong to give in to scurrilous threats like this.  On the other hand, I noted last week some of my misgivings about  identifying “dybbuk” (in the final update), and those misgivings remain; and while it is true that Campos and dybbuk are "cyber-buddies," as it were, I have no evidence that "dybbuk" put him up to this malevolent stunt ("dybbuk" is an actual lawyer, who probably knows blackmail when he sees it).  

I'd be especially glad to hear from some of those originally skeptical about naming "dybbuk" how Campos's latest malfeasance should factor into a decision; others with thoughts on this matter are also welcome to post their thoughts:  full name and valid e-mail address required.  If you'd rather not comment in public, I understand--getting on the radar screen, even virtually, of these vile people can be unnerving.  Anyway, if you prefer, feel free to e-mail me instead.

Thanks.  (This is the first week of class, so please be patient if I do not respond in a timely way or if your comments do not appear right away.)

ADDENDUM:  A couple of readers point out the link is to multiple statutes (including the "intimidation" statute); here's the relevant bit of the statute: "A person commits intimidation when, with intent to cause another to perform or to omit the performance of any act, he or she communicates to another, directly or indirectly by any means, a threat to perform without lawful authority any of the following acts...(3) Expose any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule...."    Meanwhile, the tweet by law professor Kevin Heller (Melbourne & London) pretty much sums up the reader reaction so far.

ONE  MORE:  An alert reader calls to my attention that "dybbuk" surfaced on one of the websites where he usually spends his time insulting and ridiculing law professors to make a "statement":  "I had no prior knowledge of Paul Campos’s alleged [sic] email to Brian Leiter, and do not approve of it."  I am inclined to believe him, partly for the reasons noted earlier.  Meanwhile, thanks to other readers for their e-mails.  The funniest response comes from a colleague at Penn whose subject-line read "Campos" and whose e-mail consisted of three words:  "Oh my God."  I do think some readers are having trouble believing he would do something this stupid--even "dybbuk" apparently can't quite believe it!  Alas, it is true.

ANOTHER:  A commenter below writes:

I thought you'd be interested to know that Mr. Campos has posted on JDU [a chat room] the following explanation for his e-mail:  "I contacted Leiter because I assumed he would want to know that someone is trying to get me (and perhaps other people with media platforms) to participate in this person's scheme to embarrass him. And of course this person might act on his or her own."   That's a ridiculous defense given the message he sent and given his clear hatred of you.  Someone in the same chat observed, “In what world does Paul Campos give a shit about fucking Brian Leiter's reputation enough to inform him of a threat to release embarrassing information?”

This "explanation" is remarkably absurd:  if Campos had wanted to warn me of danger, he would have assured me he would never publish such trash, would have warned me about the content, and alerted me to the person making the threat.  I guess he now realizes the mess he is in--"blackmailing" another law professor from his university e-mail account--so he is floating this silly story as a trial balloon to see if anyone is stupid enough to believe it!  Amazing.


January 6, 2014 in Law in Cyberspace, Law Professors Saying Dumb Things, Of Academic Interest | Permalink | Comments (2)

January 05, 2014

The Winter Quarter starts here at Chicago this week...

...and no doubt others are returning from their winter breaks and/or AALS (barring winter weather fiascos!).  Here then a few blog items from the winter break you might have missed:

Judges do read law reviews after all!

Paul Campos defending cyber-harassment and sexist abuse

Michael McConnell on Why Tolerate Religion?


January 5, 2014 in Jurisprudence, Law in Cyberspace, Law Professors Saying Dumb Things, Legal Profession, Of Academic Interest | Permalink

December 30, 2013

Paul Campos is back for the holidays, defending cyber-harassment and sexist abuse!

I've been enjoying a holiday from the sordid nonsense in the law-related blogosphere, but multiple readers have e-mailed me over the last few days to point out that Crazy Campos ("CC") spent his Xmas week attacking an untenured law professor for having the audacity to object to sexist cyber-harassment.  (Some have blogged about it already.)  This latest malevolent stunt by CC goes well beyond his delusional cyber-rampage against me earlier this year, though like that last one, it appears to have been brought on by the fact that CC felt he was defending some of his loyal cyber-followers. 

Some background:  CC continues to blog at a site called Lawyers, Guns & Money, which Glenn Greenwald memorably described as "a cesspool of unprincipled partisan hackdom" and "a filthy cesspool."  CC's primary contributions to this "filthy cesspool" consist in continued smears of law schools and law professors. 

As we noted a couple of weeks ago, Denver's Nancy Leong filed an ethics complaint (which I have now seen) against "M," a criminal defense lawyer in his mid-40s here in Chicago, who has spent hundreds (!) of hours over the last year or so harassing, ridiculing and defaming Professor Leong and lots of other law professors using the pseudonym "dybbuk" (and variations); among other things, he has written multiple blog posts and thousands of words devoted to ridiculing articles overwhelmingly by female and minority faculty.  Here are some examples of his sexist harassment of Prof. Leong (all taken from the complaint and verified by screen shots of the postings):

On August 12, 2012, M described Prof. Leong as a “law professor hottie at Sturm School of Law” in a comment disparaging her scholarship and professional qualifications.

 

 On August 12, 2012, M said of Prof. Leong's attendance at a professional conference:  “All [the law professors] have to do is attend some ‘annual meeting’ of some ‘society’ where they pretend to listen to Leong yap about ‘pragmatic approaches of reactive commodification,’ while undressing her with their eyes.” 

 

On September 11, 2012, M described Prof. Leong as a “comely young narcissist” in a comment disparaging her scholarship and professional qualifications. 

 

On September 22, 2012, M described Prof. Leong as a “comely young scam defender” and emphasized that a link contained “Leong’s CV, photo included!” in a comment extensively disparaging her scholarship and professional qualifications.

 

On October 18, 2013, M defended his various “wisecracks and other offensive comments about [Leong's] pulchritude” by explaining that “[I]t is an unsayable truth that attractive persons, of both genders, are sometimes rewarded in ways they do not necessarily deserve.  I believe social scientists call this ‘sexual capital.’”

 

M wrote two lengthy plays that depicted Prof. Leong using illegal drugs and connected those plays to her scholarship and professional life.

 

M is one of the regular bloggers [at a scam blog].  Comments on the blog are moderated before appearing and can be removed.  Entire posts are sometimes removed...M’s posts about Prof. Leong on that blog generated a large number of comments that were sexist, racist, harassing, false, or defamatory.  Despite being the author of the posts, he did nothing to discourage or remove the comments. 

It's actually worse than that:  M clearly encouraged the harassment, and posted appreciative comments to fan the flames.  (Prof. Leong documents this in the complaint.)   

As Professor Leong noted in one of her prior posts about cyber-harassment, M's sense of "humor" is of a piece with his puerile sexism, as in this charming item about an unemployed female law graduate:

Slipper

M is a creepy and pathetic individual, but as Prof. Leong noted, he also made the mistake of having "posted specific information about his alma mater, the city where he lived, his job, various professional organizations to which he belonged, and other miscellaneous information.  It took fifteen minutes to find out who he was using google and other publicly available databases.  The result was troubling in itself: he was a public defender in his late forties who apparently has nothing better to do than harass an untenured professor."  (Amusingly, M's response to all this was to claim Prof. Leong was "harassing" him!  You really can't make this stuff up.)

Astonishingly, CC has now come to M's defense, taking it upon himself to ridicule Professor Leong for daring to object to sexist and racist abuse in cyberspace!   Interestingly, even the commenters at Campos's "filthy cesspool" of a blog were appalled by these posts, which they describe better than I can:

 

#1:  It is shameful that, after all the sexist and other harassment that dybbuk and his ilk have heaped on this untenured professor (and encouraged from others) over the course of more than a year, that Campos has piled on with his second derogatory post about her in two days. It is shameful that he and others are parsing her wedding announcement, citing his “sources” at UCLA where she is apparently looking for a job as if he has some inside info about her. I hope she sues this tenured professor for defamation. His headline in yesterday’s post certainly sounds defamatory to me and wholly invented out of thin air.

 

#2:  It’s thoroughly messed up that Campos has chosen to attack Leong by questioning her racial identity (biracial people can indeed be subject to racism) and deriding her scholarship as an exercise in pure narcissism. This is sexist, racist garbage and [this blog] should be ashamed for publishing it.

 

#3:  I’ve been enjoying reading this blog in the last few weeks, and finding an interesting mix of labor issues, feminism, and anti-racism. These two posts about Leong, however, are utterly shocking and disappointing. It’s perfectly possible to criticize problems in legal academia without minimizing racist and sexist behavior, or engaging in it – perfectly possible but not, it seems, in this case. Other people have asked Campos to stop posting on this issue. I would like to see an apology for what he’s already said before I decide whether to continue reading his posts, or indeed this blog.

Continue reading


December 30, 2013 in Law in Cyberspace, Law Professors Saying Dumb Things, Of Academic Interest | Permalink

August 03, 2013

Curious and misleading "defense" of Tamanaha by one of his colleagues at Wash U

I find it hard to believe that the author of this "defense" expects to be taken seriously given that he just makes so many things up.  Prof. Rosenzweig writes, regarding Failing Law Schools [FLS], that, "Tamanaha has made an  invaluable contribution to the academic literature and to the betterment of the world. The posting of the Simkovic & McIntyre paper should provide the opportunity to make this clear. That it has led to the exact opposite by some in the legal community has proven  distressing."   Prof. Rosenzweig is, remarkably, completely silent on how Tamanaha's own hostile and careless response to the Simkovic & McIntyre paper triggered the need for a systematic response by the authors to address Tamanaha's misrepresentations and mistakes.  I assume Tamanaha responded as he did because he recognized that the Simkovic & McIntyre paper undermined his posture in FLS. 

Even more strangely, Prof. Rosenzweig writes:

Let us recall what the state of the debate about the future of legal education looked like prior to the publication of FLS. Law “scam” blogs accusing law schools and law professors of exploiting students, a “cesspool” of threats and slurs, anonymous posts making scandalous and vicious  personal attacks on individual law school faculty members, and public statements by law schools, faculty, and the ABA making it appear as if the entire legal community was oblivious to the crisis facing students graduating law school during that period.... 

Look at the state of the debate after the  publication of FLS. Almost all public statements on the issue are now clearly attributed to their authors. Academics publicly publish data under their own names. I am assuming, since it is cited in the paper, that FLS in part led Simkovic and McIntyre to pursue their project in the first place. In other words, FLS has done precisely what the highest and best scholarship can and should do – it increased the amount of knowledge in the world at the time, led to a better and more informed debate, and began the process of replacing emotion and opinion with facts and analysis.

I must say this is pure fiction from top to bottom.  It omits, for example, the active role that Tamanaha played in legitimating a number of deranged "scam" blogs that were, and are, still "'cesspools' of threats and slurs" with "anonymous posts making scandalous and vicious personal attacks on individual law school faculty members."  (If anything, they've gotten worse since Tamanaha's book, and are even more visible.)  He did this by referencing them favorably in his book and, more remarkably, by sometimes posting encouraging comments on some of them.  For this alone, he would deserve condemnation by his professional colleagues, even before we get to the damage done to the debate through the carelessness of significant parts of Failing Law Schools (some of that has come out in the recent debate, but when the detailed review of the book, and its reckless allegations, by Simkovic & McIntyre goes on SSRN, this will be clear to all).

But I do agree with Rosenzweig, as I said previously, that FLS collects good anecdotes, has an interesting (and unflattering) history of the regulation of law schools, and sensibly recommends a lighter regulatory hand to permit more experimentation with models of legal education.  Its anecdotal approach to systematic issues, however, has seriously distorted the discussion of those issues, as the Simkovic & McIntyre paper makes clear. 

I note, finally, that Prof. Rosenzweig, like so many, doesn't know the meaning of ad hominem.  Prof. Simkovic was the victim of many ad hominem smears after his paper came out; Prof. Tamanaha has been spared them entirely.

UPDATE:  Paul Horwitz (Alabama) has found a nice example of the "state of the debate" after Tamanaha's intervention--this from a "scam" blog on which Tamanaha has posted encouraging comments, I should add.


August 3, 2013 in Law Professors Saying Dumb Things, Of Academic Interest | Permalink

July 21, 2013

The Economic Value of a Law Degree: Week 1 Summary

In The Economic Value of a Law Degree Frank McIntyre and I measure differences in annual earnings and hourly wages between those with law degrees and similar individuals who end their education with a bachelor’s degree.   We account for unemployment and disability risk.

We also control for many demographic, academic, and socio-economic characteristics other than law school attendance that predict earnings. In a supplemental analysis using data from the National Education Longitudinal Study, we incorporate additional control variables and tests for ability sorting and selection.

The Economic Value of a Law Degree was covered by:

Our first blog post at Concurring Opinions ends with a presentation of annual earnings premiums at the mean and median, as well as at the high and low end of the distribution. 

Questions and Critiques

The low and and high ends of the distribution

  • We pointed out the error.
  • Brian Tamanaha posted and emailed several new questions and comments, which we will begin to respond to this week.  

Representativeness of the data

Present Value and Net Present Value
  • Paul Campos, Jack GravesBrian Tamanaha (in a comment below the post), and Derek Tokaz (in a comment below the post) misunderstood net present value and double-counted opportunity costs.  Campos, Graves, and Tokaz arrived at median after-tax, after-tuition net present values for a law degree that are too low by hundreds of thousands of dollars. 
  • Tamanaha erroneously included undergraduate debt as a cost of attending law school.
  • Stephen Diamond explained Net Present Value and Opportunity Cost and performed the correct calculation, and noted that the median after-tax, after-tuition net present value of the law degree was approximately $330,000 as of the start of law school.

Forecasting

  • John Steele at Legal Ethics Forum reports that according to NALP, median full time starting salaries increased dramatically between 1996 to 2011.  He forgets to take inflation into account. In real terms, median starting salaries exhibited a pattern of cyclicality.

Tuition

Confusion at Above the Law

 


July 21, 2013 in Guest Blogger: Michael Simkovic, Law Professors Saying Dumb Things, Legal Profession | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 05, 2013

Comedy gold: Paul Campos offering advice to untenured law faculty...

...at another blog (yes, that Paul Campos). A commenter sums up the absurdity of the advice aptly:  "Making a pain in the ass of yourself does not sound like a great way to hold onto your job when the axe comes down."   

Campos is prompted to dispense his wisdom by the recent events at Vermont and Seton Hall (though in keeping with his pathological dishonesty in all matters Leiter-related, he complains that law blogs that cover faculty comings-and-going ignored these events).  Up next:  Campos will offer advice to tenured faculty on how to do well on their annual reviews.


July 5, 2013 in Law Professors Saying Dumb Things, Of Academic Interest | Permalink