Watermelon

One of the most pleasant lunches I recall was with Chesterfield Smith. He spoke of attending law school for a semester and the returning to Bartow, Florida to pick watermelons in order to return to Law School.

I wonder how many of today's law students have summer time experiences that are as likely to be as important in shaping their perspective for years to come or a life time. Instead they seem to want to settle for so much less. Many, I suspect, go to one of the many summer programs abroad where they are taught what they could learn in the USA in a setting that is carefully selected to be not all that different from being in the USA.

Others want clerkships or externships. Others go to summer school in the US. I realize that necessity may be a factor here. Those with clerkships may need the money and those in law school may need to hasten their graduation date.

The question is not so much what the students do in the summer but why they do it. If they go to a foreign program just because it is a neat thing to do in the summer, they are missing a great opportunity to pick watermelons or something like that to learn about a life they are likely never to fully understand. If they are building their resumes and there are pressure to do that, here again, it's a missed opportunity.

I'd advice to every law student to spend at least one summer picking watermelons.

Sensitivity Training and Non Writers

Over on Prawfsblawg, Geoffrey Rapp puts non writers on the couch in order to understand why they do not write. I think he has it pretty much right for why they do not write and in a sense I want to say thank God they do not because 7200 articles a year is enough. I want to say it but that would be silly. Whose to say those writing have more to say than those who are not writing?

Professor Rapp is evidently under the impression that all those not writing are actually doing other things that benefit their schools and thus my comments comparing non writers to thieves are incorrect. I disagree that all non writers are pulling their weight other ways. But if they are I am a bit less concerned. But no matter how you cut it, they have substituted what they want to do for what they promised to do when they applied for tenure while professing to "love" scholarship.

Are they thieves, purse snatchers, car jackers or bunny molesters? That is pretty strong language but when you take money without giving back what your promised to give in return and the money you take is supplied -- in a public school -- by tax payers, what should it be called? I guess if we get on the couch and try to understand not writing we could decide that these folks are just "misunderstood." Of course, many "misunderstood" people from lower socioeconomic classes are doing time.

I truly believe I have seen actions by law school administrators and faculty that are indicative the same value system and disrespect for others that lands lower socioeconomic class people in jail. I do not put non writing in that category. And maybe it makes sense to understand non writers. After all, they are not going anywhere. But let's not let understanding them detract from the the basic point that they are doing what they prefer to do, not what they promised to do.

Class and Evaluations

Deborah Merritt has written a very interesting article about student teaching evaluations. Deborah J. Merritt BIAS, THE BRAIN, AND STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 82 St. John’s L. Rev. 235. I have commented on it over on Moneylaw. An element of the article I did not discuss there deals with the impact of class on evaluations. Merritt suggests that race, gender and class can have an impact on student evaluations. Merritt first notes experiments in which frustrated drivers are more likely to “honk” at older beat up cars. These type of cars are stereotypically associated with lower classes. Then she writes:

“Law students do not honk at professors who displease them, but the same attitudinal differences can affect relationships in the classroom. The "horn honking" studies expose a cultural tendency to vent frustration or hostility more readily against low-status individuals than high-status ones. Socratic classrooms, challenging material, and intense competition for grades are at least as frustrating to students as a stalled car at an intersection. Law students may express that irritation more readily on evaluations of professors with low-status mannerisms than in their assessments of faculty with more high-status appearances. Indeed, the horn-honking studies may explain the surprising degree of overt hostility that law students express on evaluations of some minority faculty.Those evaluations are a type of classroom "honking." (notes deleted)

I am not sure how class manifests itself in a classroom exactly but, if it does, Merritt suggests that it may affect teaching evaluations. In fact, most of the article is about how non verbal cues affect evaluations while being unrelated to teaching effectiveness. Many of these cues can be “faked” as illustrated by the example she gives of the actor hired to pull out all the stops while saying nothing and who then is rated as wonderful.

My own perspective is very limited because like every other professor I have seen very few other law professors teach. Still I have a hunch that the class distinctions are not made merely by virtue of non verbal cues. The cues come in the form of making sure the students know the professor attended an elite law school, worked for a prestigious law firm, clerked for a well known judge or simple name dropping.

The Real Class Bias

I have often wondered about the origins of public law schools. I have attempted to do a little reading but other things got in the way.

But think about it. Do you suppose public law schools were started so the cost of legal education would go down and the number of lawyers would increase and the masses could then afford legal services?

There are so many holes in that theory it’s hard to know where to begin. Law is ultimately about property and usually scuffling about it, protecting it, or getting more of it. That is fortunately not all that accurate today but it is hard to believe it was not accurate when public law schools started.

And what is even better for those with enough property to scuffle over than to have the tab for training lawyers who do the actually dirty work paid for by those who, as they say and with no intention to bring Michael Vick into this, have no dog in that fight because they have no property to speak of. Of course, they had jobs but those were and still are for the most part terminable at will. Another example of how “property” is defined by those with power.

I have made no study of this recently (many years ago I did study it for medical education and found a redistribution from low to high) but my feeling is that the net effect of public legal education is still an upward redistribution with tax programs being the ultimate examples. I do no mean simple upward to students but then to those who buy their services.

There is a way out of this. Charge every single student the full cost of their education and then subsidize only on the basis of need. Sure some of the wealthier students will opt for private schools but more of the students in public schools will be those who need the subsidization (which can be done with the same dollars used to subsidize the more affluent students) and the upward redistribution will be lessened.

Yale Recall

I guess by now most have seen or read the empirical study by
Royce de Rohan Barondes showing that the higher the percentage of Yale grad clerks a judge has the higher the likelihood that a decision by the judge will run into trouble on appeal. The correlation between other elite clerks and appellate problems is equivocal. In fact, the expected negative relationship between other elites and appellate difficulty only occurs if some classes of cases are ommitted. (I guess for the Yale grads you can get there by excluding all cases.)

What does this mean for the law firms that hire Yale grads, more importantly their clients and even more more importantly the law students who are taught by these graduates. I mean to the go straight from giving bad advice to their judges to teaching “not law” to their students. Do they give As based on how wrong the students are? Maybe they are just above the law – although the actual explanation may be an overdose on theory.

And, finally, what is up with the judges and appointments committees that continue to hire them. Talk about market failure!

Do'in the Legal Scholarship Shuffle

As I have noted before sometime in the mid to late eighties or early 90s legal scholarship took a shift to a race for lines on resumes. In think it roughly coincides with the ratings chase and the full development of symposia issues. I think it was June 17, 1991 but that could be off a day or two.

It was around then that scholarship stopped being counted as a feather in a law professor’s hat and numbers did. It was something akin to a mathematical breakthrough counter to the idea of not creating matter The question is how many different ways can a certain unit of actual scholarship be represented. One unit of scholarship is a amount of actual searching, reading, writing, and thinking. For the more fashion oriented the analogy may be to having one nice scarf and the question being how many ways you can wear the scarf. Or if you like squirting things out of aerosol cans (and what same person does not), its like filling a substance with air to make the volume increase.

So lets say you have completed 1 unit of scholarship. How can you make it 10?

1. You publish an article.
2. You write a condensed version for a symposium.
3. Slice it up into at least three stand alone pieces.
4. You give it as a presentation – may 3 or 4 times.
5. Looking for a job? Use it as your job talk a but list it as a “workshop”
6. Include in as a chapter in a book to which you contribute a chapter.
7. Write your own book composed mostly of this unit of scholarship and some others.
8. Edit a book of readings and include it.

So when your dean asks for things you did to put under the scholarship column in the decanal glossy, list all of these. And, there is a good chance your dean will give full credit for all of them. You are a star. You are also jerk but that is not a problem in legal education.

Are You What You Teach?

This is rank speculation based on very few observations but, do people spend their lives going against type: For example:

1. I have known a few people who are psychologists or psychiatrists. The number of them who are a bit wacky or have wacky people in their families seems higher than other people I know.

2. The people know who are physicians seen to exercise the least had have greater tendencies to drink and eat too much -- to say nothing of their personal lives.

3. Please tell me why people who work in hair salons have the worst, I mean THE WORST hair cuts, color and styles.

4. I am sure everyone has heard the joke about the CRIT in his $2000 suit and home in the Vineyard chatting it up with the Law and Econ guy in his jeans and tee shirt.

5. The people in law school teaching who specialize in ADR seem to be the most self-interested. This last one worries me most. First, because one of my ADR buddies agrees. Second, what does that mean, if anything, in other courses. Are those people as concerned in their own lives about what they teach? I mean do family law people care about families or were they mistreated as children? Do people who teach about defamation gossip with little attention to the truth? Do environmental law teachers care about the environment? Are procedure people disorganized and do they cut in line? Are First Amendment teachers quick to draw the line at what others should not say?

Please do not misunderstand. I think most law teachers can teach any subject offered in a law school whether they have any personal feeling for the area or not. I just wonder if there is a pattern of what attracts people to certain areas. How often is it honest interest, therapy, or some combination of those and other factors.

Noblesse Non Oblige

I am not sure what to think about Noblesse oblige. I guess if there is nobility, members should do something to help others. Around law schools the message somehow has been reinterpreted to mean Noblesse Non Oblige. For example, a law professor pipes up and complains that many students who want to take a course can not get in. When it is suggested that he teach an extra section for those students about whom he is worried, he gets very quiet.

Or faculty in a meeting are trying to decide whether the work in a course warrants 3 credits or not. A straight faced suggestion is that we should call it a 4 credit course because the teacher could justify teaching only one course that semester.

Or needed courses are taught at conflicting times because professors cannot teach early, late or on Friday or Monday.

Some courses are desperately under staffed meaning that basic courses go untaught. When hiring season starts the candidates hired teach yet another fringe course and limit the enrollment to 25 because the people who teach those courses share their politics, travel plans and the absence of a sense of humor of those doing the hiring.

Faculty hired to teach first year or mainstream courses suddenly have a change of heart a year or two after being hired.

Multiple choice machine graded exams are used exclusively because, well, it means not having to get your hands dirty by examining the actual analysis of the students to see if the reasoning is good or bad and, if so, where it went off the tracks. This could come handy if a professor cared to discuss and diagnose what happened on the exam.

Every year law schools clamor to hire Noblesse and get precious little in the Oblige department.

The Faculty Meeting Bouncer

When I was an economist I attended my first faculty meeting. After about 20 minutes of inane discussion about the exact wording of a course description I felt myself getting angry. I actually thought highly educated people were above petty speech making. Disillusionment would not be too strong a word. I think I lasted 30 minutes before I left.

When I went to law school, my fellow students were demonstrating to be permitted to attend faculty meetings. Having at that point taught economics for 5 years and avoided the spectacles of faculty meetings, I did not get it.

Nothing changes. Now I also avoid faculty meetings. It's not that the issues discussed are not important. Sometimes they are and I'd like to have a say. Its the posturing, long-windedness and the indirectness that drives me away. Does it all go back to class and entitlement? To some extent. For example, I recently attended a meeting that was scheduled for one hour. Maybe 5 people were able to speak because two or three, once they are called on had no apparent consideration for others. In fact, one habitually long winded fellow was mistakenly called on -- hand not even up -- yet manage to speak anyway like he was being paid by the word. He probably took all the food for himself when he was a kid but it really wasn't all the food because mommy or one of the staff quickly replenished the serving trays.

And then there is the posturing. Name dropping -- "when I was at Harvard," "I was just talking to Guido or Randall" or "When I was testifying before Senator ________'s subcommittee" and the broad and boring displays of irrelevant knowledge -- "In know in the Equine Psychology literature it works this way." Pleeeeze, no one impresses anyone when these games are played in faculty meetings. How about a 3 minute limit on comments. This is actually 2.75 minutes longer than necessary for most.

And then there is the BS. A committee comes in and recommends a new program and is asked about the need. "We determined there is a very high need." And how did you determine that? "Oh, well, several students actually inquired about it just last Thursday when I asked them about it." Huh? Then the question is what will the impact be on the curriculum. Answer. "We examined this and except for ordering one new book for the library there will be no impact." And how did you determine this? "Associate Dean Jones who is not here, surveyed other schools and I have a letter from Professor Smith who retired three years ago and he says it is a good idea." And this question can come up. "Isn't this actually against the law?" Answer "So what?"

Every faculty meeting needs a bouncer with one of those big hooks that yanks people right out of their chairs and out of the room if he or she talks for more than 3 minutes, drops a name, says anything irrelevant (the bouncer should be well versed on evidence) or claims to have studied something but cannot produce tangible evidence.

Introducing myself

Jeff has been kind enough, or careless enough, to invite me to contribute to Class Bias in Higher Education. When I started my own blog a few months ago, I called it Lucky Jim, J.D. in homage to my favorite comic novel. Lucky Jim recounts the misadventures of Jim Dixon, a working class lad who finds himself navigating, without noticeable aplomb, the class-bound currents of academia. Though set in post-WWII Britain, the novel raises themes that resonate in U.S. academia today.

In my sporadic contributions here, I plan to explore the various ways in which class issues get short shrift (and often no shrift at all) in legal education, from admissions to career placement and at all points between. I'm grateful to Jeff for giving me the opportunity to share his platform.

Even More Careful

One theme of this blog has been how elites want you to believe that there is give and take in the world and that life is a series of negotiations as in "we can work it out." It is a strange negotiation because they actually rarely negotiate in the sense of giving anything up. This is the result of a sense of entitlement.

In my last post I noted that one element of carefulness, with respect to oneself that is, is never taking position on the basis of principle but to wait and see which was the wind is blowing. The wind is never blowing in the direction of questioning authority. Thus, I used the example of the "I have to assume the administration knows what it is doing" in the context of a staff member being fired after decades of service. "Having to assume" is a non sequitur. Instead people choose to assume when it suits their self interest.

Here are two more elitist cop outs. The apology that goes like this: "If I hurt your feelings I apologize." This is the deniability apology. It accepts no responsibility and involves no admission of fault. Of course you have have to actually corner the elitist to get even this worthless apology. Can you George Bush saying "If I caused unnecessary loss of life in Iraq I am sorry." Thanks George, that really take care of it.

And this is one I have seen more recently. Suppose someone has been turned down for tenure or does not get an article accepted at a top law review after it seemed to be definite. That someone is disappointed and the response is "I am sorry that you feel bad." Notice how surgical this is. First it is probably not true that the person is sorry. Second he or she is careful to stay miles away from actually recognizing the validity of the reason for feeling bad. How about "Getting rejected really sucks and I wish it had not happened to you." The "I am sorry that you feel bad" is a bit like someone coming upon you while you are double over with acute appendicitis and saying "I am sorry your appendix seems to be causing you discomfort."

Remember as an elite, say as little as possible, let the others to the work whenever possible, and never commit. But this leads to the question. Do law professors who have no passion really only lead half a life?

Being Careful

Close to the vest: I am not sure of the origins of this phrase but for me it means the tendency of people to disclose as little as possible and to commit to an identifiable position as infrequently as possible. These are two different types of behavior that are common to law professors and elitists generally.

Let's take the information matter. Having information others do not have is a source of power but it only works if the "others" know you have the information. The strategy here is to let people know you know but then withhold. Here is an example. At my school meetings of the appointments committee are open. Everyone can attend even someone walking by the School on the way to the grocery store. So one professor says to another who is a member of the appointments committee:

"Are we finished hiring this year?"

The reply, "Actually we are talking about bringing in one more candidate."

"Really, who is it?"

The reply, "I don't think it would be appropriate to disclose that."

Thought of person asking "You really are a complete a**hole."

Information hoarding gives rise to a great deal of gossip. In fact, the same people -- very often administrators -- who are annoyed by the gossip, create the vacuum it fills. So you get announcements about "retirements coming up" or "financial problems" but no details although there would be no downside of the disclosure of the details.

The other characteristic of the elites is not to commit to virtually anything that is not ultimately self-serving at some level. Recently at my school a staff person was fired. Been here for long enough for the firing to have retirement implications. Could be he/she deserved it meaning that after decades of work something happened that meant he/she was now out of bounds. I do not know but I was curious because staff firings can be based on some over-affirmed professor getting into a scuffle with a staff person. I asked some people who knew the soon to be former employee what was up. The answer was "I have to assume there were good reasons." Let's consider that response. First the idea of "having to assume" anything seems a way to avoid the issue. Precisely what would that assumption be based on? But what is really going on? This is the sort of mentality that leads to driving by an accident or ignoring an injured animal on the side of the road.

The elites are very careful which means hoard information like your grandmother stocked can goods and never questioning authority.

Haves and Have Nots: Law School Classes

At law schools there tend to be three divisions. One is between faculty and staff. And then there is the tenure track/non tenure track faculty division. Finally the high paid and low paid tenure track people. This last division is not necessarily between tenured and untenured people. Sometimes tenured people make only slightly more than untenured faculty and much much less than the highest paid faculty.

Obviously law schools operate as though staff are second class even though the have families, children, hopes that those children go to college, etc. I have rarely seen a faculty class person stick up for a staff person when an injustice occurs. In fact, most of the elitists in legal education probably cannot image the life of someone making 20-30K a year and whose job depends on being subservient.

The tenure track/non tenure track division is only slightly less stark. Sometime non tenure track people are hired because they provide a buffer in times of economic woe. Since they are on one-year contracts, they can be fired thereby sheltering tenure track faculty from economic downturns. It's a bit like diversification except it means using people. Generally tenure track people doubt that non tenure track people can cut it primarily because those folks did not attend the "right schools."

The high pay/low pay division is less obvious but not when you think about it this way. Do the high paid people want to rock the boat? Not on your life. The high paid people are likely to think an existing administration is responsive, thoughtful and doing a fine job. They may look at an inexplicable salary structure and decide its not all that bad. The idea of taking a risk or speaking out on behave of the "low classes" is just not in the cards. Of course, they will call for collegiality when they want help. But they do not "give" collegiality when it means the outcome may upset the class system. Do not get in a fox hole with a high paid law professor.

Replay: In Praise of Incivility

Let’s face facts. Most law faculties are clubs. Once you’re in, it’s for life and as a tenured colleague on my faculty recently told an untenured colleague, “it’s not enough to be colleagues, you really need to at least act like you are a friend.” (Civility-speak for "kiss butt kid or you are out of here.")

Appeals to civility are critical as means of perpetuating the club and heading off a change. Civility standards are, after all, invariably “drafted” to protect the positions and status of those in power.

In the prissy world of law professors-- the world of the velvet mob -- it’s nice to think civility is about respect and the form of discourse. That is a fantasy. It is just as likely to be about disrespect and anti-intellectualism. When questions of civility are raised, it is rarely about form. Instead, it is a means of defining the topics of discourse and even the positions expressed. It does this in two ways. An unpopular view expressed civilly can be ignored because no one in the club need pay any attention. The same view expressed loudly and aggressively is obviously to be ignored since it comes from a person who is behaving unacceptably.

If the quietly expressed view seems to be gaining traction at all, the response will be "I am offended!!” or “That is inappropriate”(the latest most overused word which actually means "I do not like what I am hearing"). Those charges are brick wall discourse stoppers exactly at the point at which the discourse gets interesting -- most likely when something substantive is said that could have an actual impact on the club.

Let me give an example. At my school for years faculty had family members in their classes and generally the family members got A’s. It was evidently an accepted benefit of being a club member. (Think of it as a discounted green fee at the country club.) Trying to begin a conversation about whether this was a good practice – no matter how politely -- could quickly be met with “I am offended, you are accusing me of being dishonest.” Eventually, agitation embarrassed the faculty to take action and forbid the practice but appeals to civility retarded the action for several years.

Now think about the prospects for having a civil conversation about whether tenured faculty have been sufficiently productive or whether a program should be discontinued. It this really going to be carried on in carefully measured tones with appeals to reason? Or, is the very topic likely to raise the hackles of those threatened to the point that there are “friends” and “enemies” and “offense” is taken? Those threatened will be the first to raise the shield of civility. Behind that shield are some very nasty goings-on and the velvet-gloved mob. Civility is like a giant thumb on the scale in favor of the status quo.

Volunteers Yet Again

One of the more fascination ploys of the upper classes is the volunteer “move.” That is, no matter how much they want something, when they get it, it was a result of their charitable instincts. Once I described asking a committee of law professors in a meeting who “wanted” to go to a out of town meeting. Not one person “wanted to.” Within days every person on the committee contacted me privately to say he or she was “willing to go.” And then when I announced I had too many people who wanted to go, I was quickly corrected. Yet each one insisted on going.

It is pervasive. I was in a meeting a few days ago when one faculty member described how he did not want to hold an administrative post, a position now held by that person with an iron grip with no signs of change. And, a past Interim Dean was described as being forced to be Interim dean and, as you would expect, the faculty nearly had to use a fork lift to get him out of the office.

My favorite recent one involves the director of a set of programs that involve traveling to interesting places. When I asked to go, I was told that he had already “volunteered” to do it.

What’s up with this. Do these people learn this in law school or at their parents’ knees? It is all part of life is a negotiation and you never appear to want something because, if you get it, you should not ask for more. And privileged people always want more.

Ways to be a Big Shot

I guess this is for new law professors because all the veterans know how to frame things to may themselves look more important. So

1. The third level law journal at Harvard has agreed to publish your article: From here after you refer to this as "My article at Harvard."

2. One of the second tier law schools near or in Boston invites you to give a talk. From here after you refer to this as: "I will be in Cambridge [be sure to book a room there] giving a talk."

3. You get a brochure about a opening for dean at a law school. From here after you refer to this as: "I am talking to the University of ________, with respect to an administrative post."

4. Your parents live in Dade City Florida. You visit them once a month. From this point forward, "I'll be in D.C. for a few days."

5. At a huge cocktail party you are in the receiving line and meet the governor. From this point forward: "I was just taking to Charlie about that problem the other night."

6. You spot Al Sharpton in a coffee shop where you are having breakfast. From now on: "I was having breakfast with Al just the other day."

Your Poor Baby!!

Yes, I practically weeping. And what about? It's those working conditions for Law Professors. No I am not talking about the secretaries who come to work everyday at 8 and leave at 5 and must use sick leave to take a sick child to the doctor.

I am talking about law professors who are so very important that their teaching schedules have to be just so or perhaps they "just cannot take it."

Think about it:

1. Some need Friday off because they go to so many important conferences where there are many other important people.

2. Some can't teach after 3 because that means hiring a care taker for the kids. By the way, who is taking care of the secretary's kids?

3. Some can't be on campus all that much because they live so very far away.

4. Some can't teach early in the morning because that would mean driving in when traffic is at a peak.

5. Some can't possibly teach more than 2 days a week because they have so much research to do. Poor things!!

6. Some just can't be in class more than 9 hours a week because, again, it would get in the way of all that important research.

I am so sad.

What's a Dean To Do?

When I first started writing for Moneylaw and for this blog I was very hard on deans. In part as a result of comments I have softened my view and come to realize what a pickle deans are in.

I am not thinking here about a top 10 or 15 school but a School ranked lower, let’s say 50th with little hope of moving to the 30s and unlikely to drop to the 60s. What does a School like that want from a new or old dean? For example, do the faculty want the dean to move the School to a higher ranking? Probably yes if it means doing so by increasing placement rates and entering GPAs or LSATs. Probably no if it means raising bar passage rates by revising the curriculum or increasing national prestige through increased scholarship. What’s the difference? That’s easy. What 50 wants is 39 while making 50 effort.

The dean could hire more productive people. That might work but, unless there is a huge number of retirements or resignations, the dean cannot hire enough at the margin to push 50 to 39. The dean could pay more to more productive people. But, when you think about it, deans do not have much money to play with and it takes more than a few more productive people to move a faculty up. Plus, if they are productive enough to make a difference, they are likely to be targets of other schools. What’s worse is that the group the dean really has to worry about is the 75-90% who are not leaving, ever. Those are the people who must be kept happy if the dean is to keep his or her job. Push too hard and the dean may be looking for another deanship. Thus, to avoid trouble the dean is well advised not to make too many distinctions.

Back to a version of the original question: How do you determine whether the dean at 50 has been successful or not? It cannot possibly be by keeping faculty 50 happy. That’s like telling the Devil Rays manager not to worry about a losing record as long as the players are happy. Moving the school’s ranking up by somehow making the faculty more productive is not in the cards. If that could happen, they would already be more productive. Perhaps it is to move the ranking up with smoke and mirrors. This means all kind of decanal glossies and advertising five-page articles as “meaningful” scholarship. Maybe that is the answer: The dean of 50 keeps his or her job by being a magician who attempts to make everyone, including the faculty at 50, appear to be something it is not. Poof!

Privileged Hats

As a law professor, one of the many things I cannot figure out is whether we are management, workers, or professionals. It seems we are all three. Supposedly in the context of governance we determine rules about the operation of a law school. In this role we make decisions ranging from courses offered to our own work loads. As workers we complain about management and policies unilaterally made without consultation. We see ourselves as working for a specific school. As professionals we have primary allegiance to the role of “law professor.” We can move from school to school and fit right in fairly seamlessly. Our focus is on profession-affecting developments.

Here is an example of the different perspectives. Two professors have offers to leave for other schools. One, the professional, says to the administration. “What package can you offer me to get me to stay?” “Me” is the operative word here. The other professor says “I’d like to stay but I would like the School to be a better place. Please tell me what it will be like here in the future.”

Here is another one. A huge meeting is called to discuss modernizing the curriculum. The discussion is about what the School might do if resources were available. See the division here? Now professors take on the worker mentality and the focus is on what could be done if management did its job. No one notes that every proposal is possible without additional funding if faculty would agree to work a bit harder and give up some activities that may have run their course in terms of effectiveness. In this context, faculty have no ownership in the operation; they are hired hands.

On the other hand, when an administration begins to take the lead and actually treat professors like workers, their role shifts. For example, an administration, after careful study, designs a fall schedule that includes all appropriate courses and places them in slots that minimize overlaps. Professors are notified with due consideration of their teaching specialties. The Administration quickly learns that this is unacceptable. Professor X says, “But it is my turn to teach Advanced Rigatoni.” And Professor Y, “I told you I do not want to teach in the first year.” And Professor Z, “I only teach two days a week.” In unison “We were not consulted!”

The problem is not that professors wear three hats. That seems unavoidable. The problem is how quickly so many switch hats when it suits them. Those less privileged have only one hat -- two at the most.

T.O., Law School Stars, and the Team

Over on Moneylaw, Jim Chen has noted the importance of playing for the team as opposed to oneself. He is writing about the Louisville basketball team but suggests the question can be applied to other university units. No doubt, he is thinking about law schools.

When it comes to a law school, is it possible that trying to rack up individual statistics detracts from the success of the team? Before thinking about this, one other factor should be noted. If players are too self-serving and the team suffers, the team loses. If the team loses enough, the coach is fired. Consequently, there is a control. A player who tries to run up his or her score by taking the shot and not passing to an open teammate will be benched.

In the context of law schools there are, therefore, two issues. How do we know when a law professor is detracting from the team and is the dean comparable to a coach who can control this problem?

Running up individual stats for a law professor may mean publication after publication -- lines on a resume -- without any real consequence. This means being on the "take" for every 10 page symposium opportunity, accepting every opportunity to speak even if it has all been said before, patronizing the students to inflate teaching evaluations and so on. In the individual race, all of these things look good and enhance the image of the individual especially to fellow self-promoters who want to legitimize these activities. Much of this activity is "froth" that is unrelated to the actual overall quality of the team's effort.

Deans have a choice. They can facilitate this process or take a closer look at what is good for the team and, thus, the school. Specifically, a dean can be a counter -- how may times has your name appeared on an article, how many talks did you give -- and ignore actually "nose to the grindstone" efforts. To this dean, a 5 page symposium piece is the same as a 60 page article. That type of dean is a disaster for the team. By encouraging individual stats the nature of the game is set. Competition among team members means more wastefulness. Or the dean may choose to put some faculty on the bench by indicating what is best for the team. This means not counting but actual attention to depth. For example, is the work original? Does it represent painstaking research? Does the work represent a new direction for the faculty member or another safe effort?

Finding a losing law school team often means finding a coach who does not know the difference between running up individual stats and winning.

Dylan: Is there A Way Out Of Here

"There must be some way out of here," said the joker to the thief,
"There's too much confusion, I can't get no relief.
Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth,
None of them along the line know what any of it is worth."
B. Dylan


No, I do not mean UF where I teach and have what I think is the second best job in the world -- reading, writing and talking about interesting things.

I mean the confusion of legal education. Think about it.

Those wanting to improve teaching rail against the Socratic Method. Problem: No one uses it.

Law Professors want to be regarded as academics but have become sales reps for themselves and rarely search for answers. Instead, consistent with their training, they start with the answer and research in order to prove they are right.

Schools are torn between making legal education widely available but have their national rankings depend on the homogeneity of their student bodies.

Appointments Committees talk about diversity but hire nearly exclusively from elitist school even though there is no relationship between productivity of any kind and credentials. When push comes to shove the real questions is: Will this person add to my comfort level.

Law Professors fight for tenure and waste it by being the ultimate conformists in their research, positions, and well . . . everything else.

Dean's operate schools to please faculty while the actual stakeholders -- students and taxpayers -- are largely ignored.

Law Professors talk about the rule of law and then use all the tricks of the adversarial trade -- omissions, half-truths, ambiguous words -- to avoid the rule of law. The often live by a perversion of the saying "Do not do anything you would not want reported in the New York Times" Instead it has become, "Don't write anything down that you would not in the New York Times."

Think of what legal education could be like. You cannot get there from here. Sorry Bob!

The Dean Thing

I have from time to time written about law school deaning as have Jim Chen and Nancy Rapoport over on moneylaw. When they do it is with a perspective I cannot have. There are things I just do not “get.” In fact, I have four questions and an observation.

Questions 1. Who decides who is an expert on deaning?

Lately there have been books and symposia on deaning. Does just any dean get to participate? Is it like symposia in other fields where someone calls up a bunch of pals whether or not they have anything to say? For example, when I read one of these articles or book chapters they are usually written by a dean at a so-so school which did not distinguish itself during the writer’s tenure there. So, who is qualified to write about effective deaning? Just anyone?

Question 2. Am I imagining it or does Jim Chen seem like the opposite of most deans?

I mean he says what he means, announces his values up front and says he will work for those goals. If this type of behavior will not cut short his tenure as dean, why are other deans so afraid to say these types of things? Or course maybe they do not hold the same values or any values other than maintaining their jobs. That is scarier than just being silent.

Question 3. Can a Principled Person be a Dean for very Long?

When I observe deans closely, and I have only been able to do that a few times, there seem to be strategies for keeping the job. These strategies have little to do with the welfare of the School or students. Here are a few:

1. Do not come even close to doing anything that might remotely mean you could be called racist or sexist. The issue is not whether you are racist or sexist but do you make any decision that opens you to that charge. I have seen too many decanal candidates get passed over on the basis of rumors, murmurs or idle chit-chat dealing with race and gender.

2. Reward those who kiss your behind. Why not? The only people a dean cannot afford to loose and keep his or her job are the butt kissers. Every other person is expendable.

3. Reward the self-promotional. So what if Professor X writes 4 good articles and 17 short pieces in symposia or Professor Y takes 3 articles for which he was rewarded 5 years ago and turns them into a new book or Professor Z has written variations on the same topic of ten years. Numbers, not quality, good scholarship or originality fill decanal glossies. University presidents do not know the difference.

4. Always appease the biggest voting block. So what if you agree with Professor X and believe he or she is right. The critical question for the dean is how many people also agree with professor X.

5. Keep former associate deans happy. Once they go back to the faculty they can be appointed to important committees and given other assignments. It’s like having two layers of associate deans – current and those that act as though they still are working on behalf of the administration.

Is this unfair to deans? Almost certainly it is to some. In addition, to the extent these strategies exist it is result of the bizarre allocation of power within law schools.

This leads to question 4. Why be a dean if it requires any of the above strategies to keep the job?

"I am SO mad" and Efficiency

That line appears in a children's book I must have read to my own kids a few thousand times. Like every other parent I know I would try to vary it. Sometimes I read the title, author and all publication information including the ISBN. Other times I just added things like "I am so mad [I just got my hankie caught in a weasel's woofer.]

Now it is coming back. I think it was a book that featured the "little critters." Their chests were pumped up and their little arms straight down and fists clenched. BOY they were really mad!

At my law school we have had an nasty incident. Someone who may or may not be a student here (I don't know since I avoid the gossips) wrote a blog that most people (including every single person I know) will think tasteless and cruel. I will not give you the site because I'd prefer not to be someone who aids in this. Plus, I do not know it.

Now remember, every person I know and I think have ever known would be put off and even angered by this blog. I'd go a step further. I think every person every law professor knows would find the blog offensive at some level.

But that's my point. If everyone everyone knows would find it offensive what kind of courage, thinking, or risk is involved in all the complaining emails that have bounced around my school and others. I mean, where are these heros when there is some risk and actual controversy?

It's just way too predictable. Its' like pushing buttons on a panel. Push the right one and 15 people pipe up. Push another one and zero pipe up. In fact, on my campus there was another speech issue and the targets were a less sympathetic group than the target of the blog I have described and I think there was one person on the faculty who spoke up.

I've got an idea. Just to be efficient about it, on every email where you have your phone number or maybe just on your business card or tattooed to your arm have this:

"If anyone has said something racist, sexist or hateful about (here you add what ever you want -- environmentalists, vegans, Federalist society members, Republicans, Latinos, pizza tossers) whether or not I know about it, I am SO mad and I want someone else to do something about it."

Now you never have to worry about missing a chance to chime in and you yourself never take a risk or make a sacrifice. In the alternative one could decide not do this because, as I said, no one reading this blog or any other blog by a law professor and no one any of those people know do not already agree. This would leave you the time to think about actually taking a risk someday.

Doing Chen Ups

Most people reading this blog get here via Moneylaw. If you have not read Jim Chen's latest post over there please do. There are two aspects of Jim's post that are important. One is his general message. As a former construction laboror and someone who pays attention to the background of his colleagues, I agree that you cannot fully appreciate a law teaching job and treat it as the privilege it is unless you have worked at the other end of the spectrum. I have written before that I think law schools would be well advised to hire people who have experience the other side of the socioeconomic line. I have nothing empirical on this but it would be interesting to study. The other part of this general point -- althought not made by Jim -- is the expectation those who have not worked hard expect those who are working hard to pay for their life time jobs of leisure. I am talking about the belief that there is justice in asking the convenience store clerk, secretary, tire shop worker, or bus boy to contribute to a lardass law professor's salary. One thing I have discovered in the world of law professors is an inability to feel shame.

The second aspect of Jim's post is not the message itself but his willingness to state his values and to let it be known whose side he is on. I have not worked at a law school with a dean that comes close to this. Evidently the prevailing "best practice" is to say nothing and certainly not to state what one's expecations are (of course this assumes there are expectations). Most deans seem to hide. Jim does not. What a breath of fresh air!!

The Tenured Life, Part 5: Complacency and Blaming the Students

One thing the tenure life breeds is complacency. There is one test that determines most of the decisions that may people make: what does this mean for me?

In two articles by Robert Lloyd, both of which are now over ten years old, he captures the idea of going with the flow. The title of one article "Hard Law Firms and Soft Law Schools," 83 N.C.L.Rev. 667 tells the story. Law schools are soft, teachers are not rigorous, they teach "soft courses." In a wonderful passage found in the other article he writes in reference to higher and higher grading curves, "When it reaches A+ there will be nothing left to give, and faculty will have to find new ways to ingratiate themselves. " 45 J. Leg. Ed. 551. Actually legal education, although not arriving at the A+ curve, has found out a way to give something new. When grades can't go any higher, the only thing to do is to expect less in class. When you have life-time employment no matter what you do, teaching (I mean actually teaching) less becomes easy.

And teaching less seems to be generally accepted. One colleague in a committee meeting noted that students 1) do not read and follow directions, 2) do not carefully read fact patterns 3) merely state the law without applying it to the facts (this is a big one, they seem to not understand what legal analysis is or why the facts are important) 4) fail to spot large issues. Not a single person in the meeting disagreed. And yet, many of these things are what law teachers are supposed to be teaching. No one suggested the problem actually begins with what takes place in the classroom.

The topic of teaching rigor is evidently off limits. As far as I know, nothing came of Robert Lloyd's warnings 12 years ago. In my own school, and I am willing to bet 90% of other law schools, conversations about rigor have not taken place and I doubt can take place. Call it a lack of leadership, complacency, or whatever but students will only learn what they are taught.