University Governance

Did you learn that your fellow JDs in the law school, posing as economists, etc., and pretending that law school prepared them to speak with authority on any of the disciplines addressed by actual departments of the University, are pale comparisons of those who have paid their dues garnering the actual credentials and experience and leaning over years in the faculties of other departments necessary to engage in their respective disciplines in actual, valid and credible "knowledge generation"?

Way to take a nice post and turn it nasty, anon. Thanks for that. Actually, what I have learned is that my colleagues are willing to help others improve their work and patient in answering questions. That said, I didn't need to sit on a faculty governance committee to recognize the difference between good work in a particular field and bad work, and that good work in a field is more likely to be done by those trained in that area.

One irony of this anti-law school kick is that half the people are screaming that law schools keep hiring PhDs who have no experience practicing law, while the other halve are screaming that law schools keep hiring lawyers who are acting like they are PhDs. Talk about a catch-22! Perhaps the answer is that there is a great diversity of skills and experience on law school faculties, which leads to a diversity not only of types of scholarship, bot also quality.

Michael

Sorry you interpret an honest question as nasty. It is a fact that this is a concern shared by many folks.

Rather than respond in kind, I'll simply repeat the question/comment/observation, on the merits.

You are conflating arguments, and I believe, misinterpreting them.

There is nothing inconsistent about "screaming that law schools keep hiring PhDs who have no experience practicing law" and simultaneously contending that law schools should stay in their lane. Law schools of late have taken to posing as "mini universities" that engage in "knowledge generation" in "every discipline." I thought this point fit with your observation that "there's something to be said about breaking out of the insular cocoon" and learning "how the rest of the university works … about the differences between the colleges, and about how great my colleagues in other departments are." More of this might convince insular law school faculties that they are not appropriately attempting to create "mini universities" in the law school under the guise of "law intersects with everything."

Secondly, there is nothing inconsistent with the above in objecting that "law schools keep hiring lawyers who are acting like they are PhDs." As you know, some have contended here in the FL that "law intersects with every endeavor" and therefore law profs can quite appropriately opine, in a "scholarly" stance, on subjects that are more appropriately addressed by experts in these other fields of study. JDs rarely have acquired anything like the training appropriate to their claims of authority in these respects. Again, this is all of a piece with a notion that law schools should focus on being better law schools, not "mini universities" housing scholars and pseudo scholars in every conceivable field of study.

Lastly, you speak of "quality." Let the chorus of observations, from every quarter, on this subject speak.

Here's my observation about anon. Why? Why would someone respond to a post about encouraging faculty members to serve on university wide committees with a needlessly argumentative and obnoxious comment about a completely unrelated topic? MR's post didn't mention anything about "knowledge generation", "mini university" or anything you bring up.

Just stop.

anon – Even honest questions can be nasty, both in placement and in tone, and yours was both. Your reframing in your second comment is far less so in tone, though probably still in placement. In general, you are right that hanging out with those with more education and skill in an area tunes you in to the shortcomings of your own approach in the same area. It also helps you realize when you need a coauthor.

But you are wrong that only folks with PhDs get to do that research; there are plenty of folks who have obtained training and learned the skills to do good research without the PhD. And those folks are well advised to seek advice from others who have the experience. You are also wrong that the degree magically makes the scholarship good. I have read awful, awful work by those with PhDs and really great work from those without the degree.

That others try and fail – sure to be your retort – is something I don't have a strong view on. Peer review would help, but we don't have it.

Sorry Anonymous, but "Just stop" is, again, just an emotional response because you don't like criticism.

You say the post had nothing to do with the insular nature of law faculties and the potential that because of that insularity, it may be more easy for them to pose as the peers of those in other departments of the University.

Michael stated: "I've learned an amazing amount … about how the rest of the university works … about the differences between the colleges, and about how great my colleagues in other departments are." Yes. And, in that positive sentiment, Michael concluded: "There's something to be said about breaking out of the insular cocoon."

THis struck me as consonant with an observation that learning more about the other departments of the University might help to turn the trend in evolving law schools into something other than law schools by recruiting Ph.D.s and supporting JDs posing as experts in every imaginable field, whether the latter have paid their dues or not.

Sorry you don't agree with that hope for another benefit of law profs "breaking out of the[ir] insular cocoon." You, like Michael, perhaps take it as some sort of insult.

Anon should at least have the courage to tell us who he (she?) instead of hiding behind a generic label. By the way, why do so many commentators on this site hide behind anonymous names?

EGP

FL was to propound a policy on the matter of posting comments anonymously, but so far, I have not located it. Of course, every participant would be bound to abide by any such policy.

In the meanwhile, most people posting comments in the FL do post anonymously, for quite obvious reasons, and this seems to be especially so in the threads that garner the most comments. See, the many threads that have discussed this issue.

You say "hide" … I suppose that is a fair way of demeaning anonymous comments in your view, but you are sweeping up in your generalization many comments that you would support, one suspects, that would not otherwise be posted.

Great suggestion Michael. The way that you raised it, however, makes me wonder if this is uncommon. Most of my law faculty colleagues (and I) regularly serve on, or rotate through, university-wide committees. One of the law faculty is the outgoing president of the university faculty senate. In my experience, law faculty have a lot to contribute in terms of governance. (We are, for example, more likely than those without legal training to work explicitly to clarify standards that such bodies use to make their decisions, have particular expertise that can be relevant in thinking about university policies on issues like sexual harassment, etc.) And it is also a great way to connect with those, and the intellectual life, outside the law school.

Regarding anon, if I understand the objection, it is not about university committee service but rather a concern about law faculty dabbling in interdisciplinary research without the appropriate formal training, presumably more than those in any other discipline dabble outside the strict confines of their professional degrees. I am not sure that this is so. Economists, for example, now frequently draw on or "do" psychology without acquiring dual degrees. Some of this work comes off, to professional psychologists, as amateurish or hopelessly derivative. Similarly, there are psychologists and sociologists who purport to do legally relevant research without JDs and their lack of in-depth knowledge of the appropriate institutions or procedures makes the results seem irrelevant to those more familiar with the legal system. But, as with many things, within group variance is larger that between group variance and, lack of dual degrees notwithstanding, some of this sort of work is also quite good. If law faculty tend to have any failing in this regard, it might be the (definitely changing) single author norm and under-collaboration. I have a JD and PhD (and a reasonable amount of practice experience) and am very supportive of the value of meaningful interdisciplinary work, defined according to the criteria identified by the National Academy of Sciences. I also know that, as an empirical matter, dabbling on all sides notwithstanding, it is rare to find scholarship that meets those standards anywhere in the disciplinary silos of most universities, not just among law and ____ scholarship, suggesting that it is quite difficult. Even so, I don't believe it requires that two disciplines be in one head. At some level, however, two disciplines on one research team may be necessary — and it certainly can't hurt.

@Enrique,

I write in pseudonym for the same reason Publius drafted the federalist papers.

I don't want a certain philosophy professor trying to contact my place of employment in an attempt to bully me. I don't have tenure, and until recently had 143,000 in non-dischargable debt hanging over my head.

[m][@][(][k] has to use a second pseudonym to get through the filters designed to stifle dissent.

It's easy to shout "identify yourself, coward!' from a seat of power and privilege.

Erik:
1. I don't know how common such participation is. I know some of my colleagues sit on committees, but I also know that the law school has been very separate at Villanova governance-wise for many years, though that is changing. I was more reacting to the unexpected benefit/responsibility of interviewing provost candidates.

2. Your view of cross-disciplinary attempts at scholarship mirror my own. Sometimes folks should get coauthors, sometimes they don't need them, sometimes they do. I should add that these types of boundary maintenance issues are not limited to different disciplines; they also occur within specialties in the law school.

While I don't do it (and did not while untenured), I don't begrudge people feeling like they have to post anonymously. That said, I think there is little dispute (and research backs up) that anonymity tends to lead to the same ideas being expressed less pleasantly. But that's the world we live in.

That said, the idea that Mack is filtered as a troublemaker is ridiculous. This site has high spam filter. Mack is filtered either because of the alternate meaning of the word (to mack on somebody) or the closeness to spam "mac." I don't know which because I don't control the filter. And I assure you that I will have to fish this out of spam to make it show up, just as I have fished other comments out of spam by Mack and others.

Indeed, posters have the ability to depublish comments. If there were a conspiracy against Mack then no parsing of the name would save him/her. Either the IP address would be banned, or the comments would be deleted manually. So enough already.

Michael:

The idea that my name is filtered because of an obscure piece of urban slang is very credible. I mean I believe it. Just as I believe that no one gave a certain Law and Philosophy professor my e-mail.

Speaking of jargon – have you heard that the strategy of "p!ssing down my leg and telling me its raining" rarely wins cases.

You can believe what you will. I don't know how your email was learned by anyone. Or even if your name was specifically added to the list. But I do know that you're still here commenting and everyone knows who you are, and that says a lot more than whether a word automatically puts something into a spam filter

"Spam filter" is ambiguous, because Typepad moderates comments in two different ways.

First, it pipes comments through Akismet, a third-party spam filter. (http://everything.typepad.com/blog/2014/02/new-spam-fighting-partnership-with-akismet.html) Akismet is a black box that works in mysterious ways (I wrestled with it for years at my own Movable Type blog). If it's flagging comments it shouldn't, there isn't much anyone at the Faculty Lounge can do to teach it better.

Second, Typepad blog administrators can use the Block List feature to filter comments by IP address or by keyword (http://help.typepad.com/block_list.html). If it's one of those settings, then the Faculty Lounge administrators could modify them to let comments through.

I don't know which of these two the case. The Faculty Lounge administrators could put this matter to rest by clarifying whether it's Akismet or the Block List that's trapping some comments.

"I don't know which because I don't control the filter."

Have you asked the person who controls the spam filter?

It's just a coincidence that the m word got filtered during the discussion of one philosophy professor who will not be named.

The administrators of this blog are not know to close comments when the discussion veers from a narrow range of opinion.

To think anything else is ridiculous.

I'm sort of troubled by the "everybody knows who you are" comment.

How is that?

An explanation of policy and practices would be very much appreciated, though I know, Michael, that you are likely not responsible to provide that explanation.

I know that many on this site have expressed concerns about the "nasty" nature of anonymous comments. Others have expressed concerns about vindictive retribution arising out of comments made sincerely but anonymously on a blog. (There is evidence to support both concerns.) It seems important to many to either stop allowing anonymous comments or state some sort of policy.

Some alternatives: stop allowing comments altogether, allow only filtered comments (so that only positive comments or very mildly stated criticisms are seen), allow only "signed" comments thru a registration process, or continue to allow anonymous comments (but with assurances in that regard). There are probably others.

To be sure, this comment is not on topic. However, others have commented above and it seems that many moons ago it was promised that a discussion would be allowed and a policy derived. Again, I have been able to locate that discussion or the policy.

Actually, regarding closing comments when unpopular ideas are expressed, I think something else and I'm as paranoid a commenter as they come. I've been part of a number of extended discussions where the topics have been, shall we say, less than flattering to the legal academy and law schools that were not closed (or at least not closed before there had been a robust discussion).

Michael:

Who is everybody and how do they know?

Maybe somebody can tell me who (M)([a)(c)(K) is so I can solicit him for a donation? I kid, but not really.

Paranoia strikes deep…into your heart it will creep.

1. Everyone is everyone who reads this blog
2. They know who (M)([a)(c)(K) is because (M)([a)(c)(K) signs all comments with (M)([a)(c)(K)
3. I am reasonably sure of this, because other people respond to (M)([a)(c)(K) by moniker in responses
4. Thus, post authors like me could depublish comments by (M)([a)(c)(K) at any time, and yet (M)([a)(c)(K) remains a commenter on many posts
5. I can see the spam posts (though I cannot unspam any of them other than on my own post). While sometimes some get missed, there are few non-spam (and non-repetitive) comments in the list. The repetitive comments are ones where they went to spem and the commenter reposted the same thing, but only one of the two was fished out.

As James Grimmelman notes (and I had to fish his post out of spam), some get blocked and some don't outside the control of the board operators. It's not my blog, and not my job to figure out which it is. Terry Malloy, or any other commenter, if this is a concern to you, email the blog operators under your name or under a pseudonymous gmail account.

(1) the m word was referencing when one of the faculty lounge favorites outed his real name and libeled his recently deceased father.

(2) "It's not my blog, and not my job to figure out which it is."

yet you spoke not a moment ago that the "idea that Mack is filtered as a troublemaker is ridiculous." Ha.

As a note, I believe there was a brouhaha some months back regarding the privacy and use of comment email addresses and information after some was leaked for use against one of the regular posters.

many requested clarity. If I recall the blog owners stated that they would publish a policy. that has yet to occur.

Michael

FYI, and I'm sure brackets will speak for himself, but I seem to remember that a while back he was named, by name, and reference was made to his family as well. He was outraged, and I was too. It was all based on comments on this blog to which someone took offense.

I can understand that sometimes "nasty" sounding comments can anger persons, perhaps justifiable anger. But, the claim that these persons can then resort to vindictive "outing" – and worse, affirmative vindictive efforts to engage in retribution IRL – is more than just paranoia.

It has actually happened. In any definition of "self defense" retreat, where possible, proportionate response, least onerous response to defend and not retaliate, etc. are all elements. FL has a means to exclude all anonymous comments, if it chooses, or only allow flattering comments, or require registration, or any number of other techniques to "insulate" (to use your term) law faculties even more.

So far, FL has not chosen these methods. By allowing anonymous comments, without a policy regarding same, however, there does seem to be a problem with the design that could be and should be, in the interest of ethics, corrected.

Michael,

All very convincing,

If you don't mind I need to shake out my trouser cuffs,

How about I send you the dry cleaning bill

"He was outraged"…I never thought MacK as that thin skinned!

I don't know anything about outing, doxxing, etc. All I'm saying is that there isn't a vast conspiracy to send particular people to spam. You can take up the rest with someone else, I'm just a guest blogger here that seems to attract these types of concerns because I respond to comments rather than ignore them like many bloggers.

Anon,

Specifically, Steve Diamond, to whom my name had been provided, presumably by his buddy the legal-philosopher married to a lawyer (who he invokes to quench the guffaws at his legal skills) thought it was appropriate to not just name me, but to suggest that my recently deceased father, who had spent his career opposing various terrorist groups, to the point that he ended up on hit lists, was a supporter of a terrorist group.

Worse to my outraged reaction I received emails from the philosopher-moral bankrupt asking if I was threatening personal harm to Diamond.

Quite a pair, those two.

I am not violent, but those two have earned some karma, as did the person who facilitated them

The doxxing occurred. It was a intended to intimidate. It was perpetrated Steve Diamond, the bagdad bob of the law school establishment and crony of a certain law and philosophy professor renowned for cyber-bullying.

Does this answer your question, Enrique?

Prof. Risch, do you now think "enough already" was the correct response?

[plus I think my last post got caught in the filter]

As this about the fifteenth time that this guy has alluded to this issue let's set the record straight.

In the context of debate about the impact on the rule of law of the baseless attack on law schools underway for months on this site, I pointed out that his late father – a widely respected Irish Republican diplomat – would in my view have differed in his view of American law school than his son. As an Irish citizen and the grandson of a member of the original Irish Republican movement myself and someone familiar with the long and well respected track record of his father, I felt reasonably confident of this view.

In response he who shall not be named suggested that by stating the fact that his father was a Republican (as in Irish Republican, i.e., what we would consider more or less a leftwing democrat) I was implying that his father was somehow connected to the provisional wing of the IRA. I can understand why some might think it out of bounds to have ever mentioned his father, but that is entirely separate from what he did which was to engage in a kind of trolling by leaping to the conclusion that I implied any connection between his father and the Provos.

Of course, I never brought up the Provos – he did that – and it would have been an absurd connection to make.

That some opponents of Irish republicanism would attempt to stain that movement by glibly associating it with terror (in a manner akin to the way that some tried to stretch the association between Obama and Ayers) was certainly no justification for him to raise the connection himself.

He who shall not be named was not content with a robust exchange of views including his trolling but decided to demand that my university take disciplinary action against me which they explained would not be consistent with their longstanding commitment to academic freedom.

Michael

As acknowledged above, I think we all realize that you do not set policy in the FL.

But, as stated above, this discussion has started – using your post as a vehicle!!! – and some comments have strayed into a policy issue that has lingered for some time.

Someone chose above to respond to a comment by demeaning the commenter as a coward. This commenter basically called anonymous commenters cowards, while simultaneously seeming to complain about civility.

Michael, you too have been sort of snarky in response to bracket's concerns (quoting "for what it's worth" and sort of engaging in a condescending explanation for "We all know who you are" by claiming you were only referring to his alias).

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps you didn't know, as most of us know the back story here: that bracket's identity IRL was revealed in a quite notable manner, causing an outpouring of commentary and as I recall weeks of discussion in this thread and others. Perhaps you were completely unaware of this.

Notably, I don't recall that any thread was started in the FL to address this issue, and to develop or state a policy on anonymous comments, despite, again as a recall, a promise to do this. Hence some concerns are voiced here in response to the comment above attacking anonymity.

YOu may be justifiably wondering about the reason that this thread does not return to its subject. I feel your pain!

how did you know who his father was?

Here's an idea: (1) everyone should avoid ad hominem or other personal attacks or personal comments, including against anyone commenting anonymously; (2) people who comment anonymously should feel particularly constrained to stay on topic, and to avoid incivility or nastiness, because they otherwise exploit an asymmetry with those bloggers who do use their names. FWIW, the freedom of anonymous participants to violate the second rule is the sole reason I am commenting anonymously here.

Oh, and a third suggestion — if you ever find yourself trying to win a long thread, imagine yourself taking BP by yourself in a dark, empty basement.

terry malloy asks: "Prof. Risch, do you now think "enough already" was the correct response?"

The answer is "Yes. Yes, I do." Why? Because there is no evidence I can see that one particular user is blocked. I gave my evidence, and I stand by it.

I have no idea of the other issues people have decided to duke out on my post. Maybe one day I'll study the facts and figure out my own view of what happened. Today is not that day. My responses to [M][@][c][K] were not snarky. They were the basis for my view that there is no conspiracy to block comments. I'm sorry that everyone's baggage makes a simple statement of fact — that someone who uses the same moniker is easy to block if the desire is there — seem snarky.

And, with that, I'm closing comments on this thread. This is not intended to stop this discourse, but instead to stop a comment thread that has hopelessly derailed. By no means do I mean to silence the airing of past wrongs. I just think this is not the forum for it.