May 01, 2012
The usual suspects are on the case, but I can't figure out why. I assume she self-identified in the AALS Directories as Native American because she is (it was news to me, I should add). Is someone denying that? It's hard to tell.
Perhaps, though, the implication is that she got hired for affirmative action reasons, and not because of her work. (UPDATE: Here's some right-wing crazies making that argument.) That strikes me as dubious for two reasons
(1) First, there is no pressure to hire Native Americans for affirmative action reasons, except, perhaps, at some law schools in states with large Native American presences (I have this only anecdotally about Arizona and New Mexico). For affirmative action purposes, all law schools care about are African-Americans and Latinos, and even in those two categories, law school commitment to affirmative action usually varies by region of the country. On the other hand, because the AALS aggressively polices the racial and ethnic diversity of law faculties, law schools are careful to make sure anyone who could count as an under-represented minority is so-listed (thus, I can recall a faculty member who was the proverbial "Jewish kid from New York" but with some South American ancestry being listed as "Hispanic," though no one would have ever so identified him).
(2) Second, her record of scholarship in bankruptcy is clearly sufficient to get her appointed at Harvard. She is, after all, one of the three most-cited scholars in the bankruptcy/commercial law field, and she is the only woman in the top ten. (I could imagine being the top woman in the field might have played more of a role than her being Native American, which surely was irrelevant.) The other scholars in her field cited as often or more than her--Bob Scott at Columbia, Alan Schwartz at Yale, and Douglas Baird at Chicago--are all obviously appointable at Harvard, despite their lack of Native American ancestry.
So the bottom line--as it usually is with right-wing craziness--is that this is all silly.
UPDATE: Still more here.
October 20, 2011
I've been dutifully ignoring our showboat charlatan from August, but readers keep calling to my attention that others have apparently been watching, and have done some good jobs on him: here (from a practitioner) and here (from a law professor; best line: "I think there's something deeply wrong with using cheap tricks to get attention [as Paul Campos does], especially when the author then repeatedly and vaguely disclaims those cheap tricks, while still employing them, leaving a residue of disgust over everything he touches"). As the last post makes clear, Campos is still busy back-pedalling and is apparently getting so desperate to rationalize his display that he's been reduced to telling stories about former students who committed suicide (but not for any reasons connected to law school!). Quite unbelievable. And made worse by this. Wow.
ADDENDUM: In case the last comment linked to gets deleted, here it is:
AnonymousSeptember 13, 2011 at 7:10 PM
Maybe the reason that "the precise reasons why Alex killed himself will never be known" to Campos, is because he does not actually care about the reasons why. As someone who knew and loved "Alex," I find it shameful that Campos would exploit someone's suicide as a way to validate his point.
I can't help but notice that Campos did not care about "Alex" enough to attend his memorial service, but now seems to care enough to presume that he knows the motivations behind his final act.
August 19, 2011
ScamProf is the failed academic who has done almost no scholarly work in the last decade, teaches the same courses and seminars year in and year out, and spends his time trying to attract public attention, sometimes under his own name, this time anonymously. These are important facts about ScamProf, since he is indeed scamming his students and his state, and his initial posts were tantamount to a confession that he's not doing his job. His colleagues, in any case, now know who he is, and are quite understandably angry, since the reckless genearlizations are naturally read as commentary on them. After we called him out Monday, ScamProf pulled back a bit, and switched gears and stopped projecting his own failures on to all his professional colleagues and started actually writing about the economics of legal education (though without noting that it is paralleled across the boards in higher education, and apparently unaware of the large literature on that topic--but at least it was an improvement). Given his track record, I expect it won't last. When his identity comes out, there will be additional ironies that will warrant comment.
ADDENDUM: A colleague from Penn writes:
I don't know who this jerk is, but I appreciate you calling him out. I clicked through to his posts and felt the urge to throw something. I bust my butt preparing for class and educating myself deeply in my fields (and, indeed, refuse to teach any class in which I don't consider myself highly qualified), and students clearly understand and appreciate those efforts, but this kind of recklessly expressed cynicism can undermine an enormous amount of good work in the creation of a cooperative and engaged learning environment. It's the functional equivalent of writing about how every man on the planet regularly violates the terms of his intimate relationships and pushing out that message with the aim of making even the happiest partners and spouses suddenly experience doubt. What a jerk.
This captures rather well why ScamProf is so offensive to those who actually do their jobs.
ANOTHER: A colleague at Maryland writes: "Scamprof is easily explained by the well known proverb that 'a thief thinks everyone steals.' Don’t let up on him." By the way, several readers tell me that ScamProf moderates comments, and will not approve those that are too critical.
AND ANOTHER (August 20 9 pm): As predicted, ScamProf's brief foray into substance ended (Larry Ribstein [Illinois] has some useful comments on his attempt at substance here), and he returned to his true métier, the fact-free smear. But he's also finally outed himself (as Blog Emperor Caron notes) as Paul Campos at the University of Colorado, where he has taught for 20 years, despite many efforts to leave (he couldn't get better offers, unsurprisingly). You can see his conributions to "practical" scholarship here. Richard Neumann's absurd over-estimation of the "cost" of a law review article (which Campos, being a hack, repeats uncritically) would still be a cause for outrage if most law professors produced the kind of junk Campos does. Indeed, the spectacle of a guy with one year of practice experience--who produced sophomoric drivel like Jurismania (which, thankfully, has disappeared down a black hole of obscurity) and then spent years writing op-eds for a Colorado newspaper, and is now an expert on obesity--lecturing the legal academy about the importance of "practical" scholarship would be farcical, were this not his latest publicity stunt in a long line of malicious behavior.
For Paul Campos is, of course, most notorious in the legal academy for going on the O'Reilly Factor--yes,the O'Reilly Factor--to call for Ward Churchill to be fired for his offensive political opinions (long before any allegations of academic misconduct arose). And this wasn't an anomaly: he also called for Glenn Reynolds (Tennessee) to be sanctioned by his university for his offensive political opinions. Fortunately for Professor Campos, his contempt for the First Amendment rights of state university professors do not constitute binding precedents on the courts, and I am confident his university won't sanction him for his irresponsible speech. They should, however, launch an investigation into whether he is performing his duties, since his blog is tantamount to an admission of dereliction of duties and his 'scholarly' record is prima facie evidence of failure to do his job as a professor at a major research university.
But back to the fact-free smear. Among the gems: (1) denying that he's met me, when we've met more than once; (2) attacking me for running law and philosophy blogs and rankings (despite my cyber-hobbies, I've produced more scholarship in the last five years than he's produced in twenty); (3) stating, falsely, that "law school costs have increased exponentially, even as the job prospects of law school graduates have declined" (law school tuition, like all higher education tuition, has increased exponentially for thirty years, and during most of that time the legal job market was strong; tuition increases have slowed considerably since the downturn in the job market that began with the Great Recession in 2008); (4) stating, falsely, that I've never held a job for which a law degree is required; and so on. And then, of course, there's the pitiful anti-intellectualism, worthy of Rick Perry's approach to higher education, but there's no need to belabor that for this audience. Given that Professor Campos's "scholarship" would not survive his Rick Perry approach to scholarship, perhaps it's time for him to resign?
I understand that Paul Campos, our ScamProf, is feeling desperate, given the hole he's dug for himself. His colleagues are furious, he was already an embarrassment to his institution, and now he's added fuel to the fire by openly insulting his colleagues. But whereas the facts about Campos that I've adduced (he disputes none of them, for obvious reasons) are highly relevant to understanding why he would lie, exaggerate and engage in reckless generalizations about his professional colleagues, the facts and non-facts he adduces about me are just irrelevant ad hominems.
It is unfortunate that some victims of the recession think, falsely, that ScamProf Campos is doing something courageous on their behalf. He's not, he's just doing what he always does, trying to surf the wave of the latest fad and attract attention to himself. For years, I've pressed for better job placementdata and cautioned students about the reality of the recent job market and relying on the data in US News. There's no dispute about the importance of that. There's no dispute that some law schools have misled prospective students; some are now being sued, and we will see what facts come to light. There's no dispute that some faculty, in all disciplines, abuse the privilege of tenure--Campos is a prime example. None of this warrants the absurdly offensive description of American legal education as a "scam." The American legal system is one of the best in the world--did that happen despite American legal education? The leading law firms continue to recruit at the leading law schools, the ones that produce all the scholarship ScamProf Campos derides. Are they simply benighted? Law professors, at least the good ones (like most of Campos's colleagues at Colorado that I know), teach substantive doctrine in many areas of law as well as analytical and dialectical skills that lawyers need. (My teaching evaluations, by the way, are a matter of public record, will ScamProf Campos share his?) There's been debates for years about the relative balance of doctrinal, theoretical, and clinical teaching in legal education, and those will no doubt continue, independent of ScamProf Campos.
I suppose we should be grateful that in the dog days of summer the blogosphere has the distraction of a showboat charlatan like ScamProf Campos. The University of Colorado has a very good faculty, and a distinguished history, and they certainly do not deserve this embarrassment. Hopefully by after Labor Day, this sorry display will all be ancient history. I intend to say no more about it.
MORE FEEDBACK: From a colleague at UCLA: "Kudos for beating the crap out of the jerk." From a colleague at a school in the New York area: "Thanks for your straightforward remarks against the Campos blog. From the perspective of this junior person who is just starting up, one of the most disheartening parts about the blog was the indiscriminate trashing of legal scholarship." From the Dean of a leading law school (not Chicago or Texas): "[G]reat Campos posts. He deserves all the pilloring he gets. Heaven help the deeply unhappy, anxious students who cling to him as a hero." Indeed.
AUGUST 25 UPDATE: For those who would like to know what an ad hominem argument actually is.
August 12, 2011
It was obvious to me after reading the blog, with its reckless and inaccurate generalizations (cf. Paul Horwitz's commentary), since the author has written in this vein under his own name in the past. And the clues as to his identity the author provided--the number of years in teaching, best law school in his state, a "tier 1" law school, etc., as well as the interview he gave--just confirmed that impression. Since he teaches at a state law school, and in a state that has shown it is willing to fire tenured faculty under the right circumstances, I am somewhat amazed he would do this, since the blog is tantamount to an admission that he is not really doing his job and doesn't deserve his salary (given what I know about him, I'm inclined to believe that). More seriously, when his identity becomes public, as seems inevitable given how poorly he has disguised it, he will have humiliated his colleagues and his school, neither of which deserve his latest exercise in seeking the limelight. I hope he has the good sense to just delete the whole thing before he makes things worse. Out of respect for his school and his colleagues, who deserve much better, I will not be posting his identity.
UPDATE (8/13): I'm glad to see he's already starting to back-pedal on some of his irresponsible rhetoric, perhaps because, as I know from my e-mail, some of his colleagues already suspect he's behind it. (I did laugh out loud when he protested, "I don't think all of legal education is a scam." He might have looked at the title of his blog.) But the entire blog remains essentially fact-free, just anecdotes buttressing wild generalizations about legal education, plus the kind of amateurish theorizing about law and legal scholarship that he's published under his own name in the past. His identity is important because a lot of what he says correctly describes him: not a real interdisciplinary scholar, doesn't produce scholarship any longer, and probably doesn't put much effort into his teaching. I still hope he has the good sense to delete the whole blog. I and his colleagues will be glad to treat this all as "our" secret.
ANOTHER: The fact-free ruminations of our Scamming LawProf might be usefully contrasted with the criticisms of law schools and legal education by Brian Tamanaha (Wash U/St. Louis), which, while not always persuasive, are always based on pertinent evidence, and avoid wild generalizations: we've noted them previously here, here, here, and here, among other occasions. Perhaps part of the difference is that, unlike our Scamming LawProf, Professor Tamanaha is a productive scholar, who is actually doing his job.
June 09, 2011
After reading our example from earlier in the week, a reader in New York kindly sent another example of acute moral insight from Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds (who is apparently already renowned for his enthusiasm for murder, genocide and war!); in this case, Professor Reynolds is responding to a reader's query: "Why should we be all fired up about women's health and not men's health? Is there a special role of government in taking care of women? Why?". Reynolds' answer:
Because women want an Uncle Sugar to take the place of a husband?
Certainly that must be the reason.
June 06, 2011
February 25, 2011
December 22, 2010
A student just forwarded to me a discussion thread from "Top Law Schools" in which someone claiming to be a law professor (and apparently was believed to be a law professor by the students asking question) posted the following:
To most professors, Georgetown is far more prestigious than, say, Duke or Michigan because of its location and (because of its location) it attracts many more heavyweight scholars than the more isolated schools.
The Internet: it's still the nonsense and misinformation superhighway!
August 19, 2010
Ilya Somin (George Mason), libertarian true believer, thinks regular Republican Rick Hills (NYU) has "a good critique" of my views on tenure. Except Rick mostly doesn't discuss my views on tenure, as I pointed out in the comments, though Rick makes up some views he ascribes to me. (Commenters on Rick's thread then make the points I made originally, which is even funnier.) Somin says: "Some of the exchange between Hills and Leiter has do with possible conflicts of interest in the debate. For example, Leiter attacks Columbia professor Mark Taylor for criticizing tenure when he is about to retire and no longer needs its protection." But Leiter never attacked Taylor for this reason, since it would be silly. (Read what I wrote.)
Another triumph for rational dialogue in Cyberspace!
CORRECTIONS THAT AREN'T QUITE CORRECTIONS: Professor Somin updates his post in order to describe as "my statement" someone else's statement (really a fragment of a sentence in a lengthy quotation that had nothing to do with Professor Somin's misattribution of a view about conflicts of interest to me). But I am grateful that he acknowledged the 'misinterpretation.'
July 29, 2010
(Thanks to several different readers for flagging this curiuos back-and-forth. Professor Lindgren appears never to have met a non-story or triviality about which he couldn't blog.)