John McGinnis has an excellent post over at Library of Law and Liberty (and cross-posted at our new Heterodox Academy), highlighting the rigid liberal orthodoxy of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS). AALS has just sent around the notice of its 2016 annual meeting, highlighting its "Speakers of Note." As Prof. McGinnis points out: "Of the thirteen announced, none is associated predominantly with Republican party, but eleven are associated with the Democratic Party. Many are prominent liberals. None is a conservative or libertarian." McGinnis argues that the conference would profit from including some other perspectives.
Recently in Academia Category
In the boldest endorsement of a growing national trend, the University of Tennessee is urging incoming students and teachers to junk references to "he," "she," and "them," in favor of gender-neutral "ze" and "xe."
For the better part of two decades, Columbia University law professor Bernard Harcourt has been on a personal crusade against Broken Windows policing, criticizing both its theoretical underpinnings and its policy applications. A close look at Harcourt's work, however, reveals not only the weaknesses of his arguments but also his lack of attention to other research findings that conflict with his own. His portrayal of Broken Windows policing, it turns out, is fundamentally inaccurate and incomplete. In effect, Harcourt creates and then fights a paper tiger.The misrepresentation of Broken Windows policing as "zero tolerance" policing, encouraging arrests for minor offenses, is an important element of the campaign against it. When you can't win with the truth, you have to make stuff up.
By way of background, Broken Windows is a policing tactic that emphasizes the police management of minor offenses. The authors of the Broken Windows hypothesis--George L. Kelling and the late James Q. Wilson--always maintained that Broken Windows policing should encourage proper discretion on the part of officers. Kelling in particular has discussed the importance of discretion when it comes to maintaining order, as in a recent article in Politico, where he indicates that arrest should be the last option when managing minor offenses.
Academics claim to revere open debate but often recoil when they see the genuine article. Witness the campaign some scholars--loosely defined--are waging against Heather Mac Donald for challenging university pieties about a recent surge in violent crime.* * *
The American Society of Criminology claims to pursue "scholarly, scientific, and professional knowledge," but a better description of its priorities is one-sided inquiry and activist politics.
Earlier this year former ASC president Joanne Belknap of the University of Colorado at Boulder published a call for "criminology activism" among crime experts, citing their responsibility to "advocate for social and legal justice." The society's journal has since shifted toward papers that downplay particular crime trends and emphasize a policy agenda that opposes broken-windows policing or much attention to black-on-black violence. In the process it has abandoned its old role as a forum for a healthy clash of ideas.
[T]his Article explores a form of grounded preventive justice neglected in existing scholarly, legal, and policy accounts. Grounded preventive justice offers a positive substitutive account of abolition that aims to displace criminal law enforcement through meaningful justice reinvestment to strengthen the social arm of the state and improve human welfare. This positive substitutive abolitionist framework would operate by expanding social projects to prevent the need for carceral responses, decriminalizing less serious infractions, improving the design of spaces and products to reduce opportunities for offending, redeveloping and "greening" urban spaces, proliferating restorative forms of redress, and creating both safe harbors for individuals at risk of or fleeing violence and alternative livelihoods for persons subject to criminal law enforcement. By exploring prison abolition and grounded preventive justice in tandem, this Article offers a positive ethical, legal, and institutional framework for conceptualizing abolition, crime prevention, and grounded justice together.
The Greek myth [the Rape of Persephone] has been recounted for thousands of years in hundreds of languages, scores of countries and countless works of art. It's considered a cultural touchstone for Western civilization: a parable about power, lust and grief.
Now, however, it could be getting a treatment it's never had before: a trigger warning.
In an op-ed in the student newspaper, four Columbia University undergrads have called on the school to implement trigger warnings -- alerts about potentially distressing material -- even for classics like Greek mythology or Roman poetry.
"Ovid's 'Metamorphoses' is a fixture of Lit Hum, but like so many texts in the Western canon, it contains triggering and offensive material that marginalizes student identities in the classroom," wrote the four students, who are members of Columbia's Multicultural Affairs Advisory Board. "These texts, wrought with histories and narratives of exclusion and oppression, can be difficult to read and discuss as a survivor, a person of color, or a student from a low-income background."
And no, I am not making this up. I couldn't make it up.
One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.'
'What we realised we needed was a way of thinking about what it was we wanted to allow parents to do for their children, and what it was that we didn't need to allow parents to do for their children, if allowing those activities would create unfairnesses for other people's children'. . .
'The evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don't--the difference in their life chances--is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don't,' he says.
This devilish twist of evidence surely leads to a further conclusion--that perhaps in the interests of levelling the playing field, bedtime stories should also be restricted.
This kind of stuff is enough to make Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby look sober.
BOSTON--Saying that such a dialogue was essential to the college's academic mission, Trescott University president Kevin Abrams confirmed Monday that the school encourages a lively exchange of one idea. "As an institution of higher learning, we recognize that it's inevitable that certain contentious topics will come up from time to time, and when they do, we want to create an atmosphere where both students and faculty feel comfortable voicing a single homogeneous opinion," said Abrams, adding that no matter the subject, anyone on campus is always welcome to add their support to the accepted consensus. "Whether it's a discussion of a national political issue or a concern here on campus, an open forum in which one argument is uniformly reinforced is crucial for maintaining the exceptional learning environment we have cultivated here." Abrams told reporters that counseling resources were available for any student made uncomfortable by the viewpoint.This is, of course, satire. The report is from the Onion. But it is only one step more absurd than reality.
While law firms can fire lawyers, law schools cannot cut their largest expense: faculty. Most faculty have tenure, which equals lifetime job protection -- as long as the school remains open. While faculty could be part of the solution to legal education's woes, we are actually the problem.As additional, huge problem that is neither mentioned by Brown nor considered in the notorious USN&WR rankings is a lack of diversity of viewpoint. When students hear nothing but one side of controversial issues for their entire time in school, what you have is not true education but Maoist indoctrination in the guise of education. When the academic consensus on any issue with political overtones can be predicted with 100% certainty merely by identifying the Politically Correct position, the consensus no longer means anything.
Legal scholarship is in a terrible state, with counter-intuitive incentives for faculty. Status comes with publishing, but more publishing means less teaching and interacting with fewer students. In the legal academy, second- and third-year law students select which law professors' articles to publish; while my second and third years are brilliant, they cannot select for quality the same way experts would. But even if you think the student-run system is fine, the value of legal scholarship, which is rarely read, has its skeptics, among them Chief Justice John Roberts. Scholars at the University of Florida argue in a recent study that very few articles are cited for their ideas. This broken system is also subsidized disproportionately by the tuition dollars of poorer law students.