Monday, January 9, 2012

Censoring ourselves: Legal academia and the code of silence

This is a story about one way in which a code of silence is enforced in legal academia.  That code is unwritten, informal, and unacknowledged -- and all the more powerful as a result.  Most legal academics have internalized it so completely that they would deny such a thing exists, and moreover they would do so sincerely.  This code, in other words, is an example of the most powerful and effective form of censorship, which is self-censorship.


Last Thursday, Michael Teter, a junior (that is, tenure-track but untenured) member of a middling law school’s faculty put up his second post on Prawfsblawg, a blog run by a collection of more senior legal academics. Teter has the status of a “guest poster,” which I gather means he has posting privileges on the blog for a limited time.  The post, entitled “Paul Campos is Right,” was a self-consciously overt and “light-hearted” (meaning awkward and anxiety-ridden) attempt to be acknowledged by the poster’s hierarchical superiors – the theory being that such a provocative title was sure to elicit a response from at least one of them.  Among other things Teter noted the first response his first guest post had elicited had been deleted as spam by Dan Markel, one of the senior professors who run the blog.

Teter’s second post inspired a quick response from Voodoo94: (preserved here)

I feel that this post is just sad. In its own way, it bolsters Campos' argument that it is nearly impossible to get most legal academics to see the human and financial toll of the law school crisis facing most recent graduates - particularly those at 3rd and 4th Tier Schools. 

Instead of taking a stand - one way or the other, right or wrong - on Professor Campos' work, the author uses the post as an obsequious ode to the "LawPrawfs" who run the blog. No opinion is even ventured about the state of legal academia or the sustainability of the current educational/financial model at schools ranked lower than the Top 50. Hell, even the candid perspective of a junior faculty member entering academia at a time of such uncertainty over the efficacy and viability of the current US News-driven business model would be helpful. After all, in a time of contraction, wouldn't the untenured be the first to go? Those of us outside the Ivory Tower, would find your thoughts on this quite illuminating. 

I do not mean to single out Professor Teter here, but isn't this emblematic of the go-along-to-get-along culture in academia - particularly among junior faculty seeking tenure? It seems that junior faculty are given a long leash to critique many subjects, but there is an unspoken rule to stay away from examining the stability of the Langdellian mothership.

My frustration extends beyond the junior faculty (who at least have the power dynamic of tenure status to explain their behavior). The uncritical examination of the status quo is also endemic to senior tenured faculty. I am especially frustrated by many of the 50, 60 and 70 somethings that comprise the remnants of the "critical legal studies" movement. If the law school "scam" (I use the term as a colloquialism, not as a statement of fact), isn't a ready-made issue for CLS examination, what is? It's got all the elements that should theoretically spur CLS inquiry. It hasn't. The silence of the CLS community also reveals that in most quarters of legal academia, it's safe to rail against many things - just not the structure of legal education itself.

Finally, I take a far less charitable view of Professor Markel's censorship than Professor Teter does. In my limited and admittedly brief time reading this blog, I find that Professor Markel's "quick draw" efforts to delete posts and close comments unsettling. I don't know why he finds differing opinions so unsettling, but he does. His recent decision to delete a benign (and on topic) comment questioning the ethics of faculty accepting free food and drink from fourth tier Drexel Law School stands out to me. Of the "regulars", he stands out as especially dismissive of any concerns raised by recent graduates and that is unfortunate. Dismissing the viewpoints of others grounded in personal experience/tragedy is unfortunate, but heavy-handed aggression towards those with different viewpoints is especially problematic. There is a special irony that this censorship occurs on a blog purportedly dedicated to "intellectual honesty." 

Dan Markel deleted this comment (which I hadn’t seen), and  I noted this in an update to a post I had published Friday morning, commenting on how there were no panels at AALS formally dedicated to discussing the employment and debt crisis, after a commenter posted this comment in a thread following an earlier post:

Thanks for bringing attention to Professor Dan Markel's censorship over at Prawfsblawg.

Yesterday, Markel deleted my post where I made several points: 1) the inane tone of Michael Teter's guest post; 2) Teter's tepid unwillingness to comment one-way-or-the-other on Professor Campos' efforts as emblematic of a risk averse professoriate; and 3)Dan Markel's unreasonable, inconsistent and hypocritical comment deletion policies.

To me, Dan Markel is a junior varsity version of Brian Leiter. Dan talks a tough game like Leiter but I think he has a very fragile self-image. He desperately attempts to silence dissent and purge those whose comments disagree with his elitist and privileged worldview (Harvard/Cambridge/Harvard Law/9th Circuit Clerk). Prawfsblawg is purportedly dedicated to "intellectual honesty", but Markel doesn't support intellectual honesty. He is the epitome of the legal 1%ers endemic to legal academia. He tries to play the imperious professor role with non-academics by attempting to silence them. Little does he realize how pathetic, shallow and mean-spirited this behavior makes him look. Earth to Dan: you mean nothing to legal practitioners or those of us in the "real world" - you are a paper tiger!

Markel recently deleted comments questioning the ethics of professors accepting free food and drinks purchased by the Fourth Tier Drexel School of Law. He then closed the thread for additional comments.

Yesterday, he deleted my comments on Professor Teter's thread.

While we need to keep the heat on Leiter, I think academic thugs like Markel deserve a little attention as well. This guy has been flying under the radar for far too long. Bullies like this need to be made radioactive. their arrogance and imperiousness speaks for itself. All means necessary must be employed.

Clowns like Markel don't realize that the firmament they stand on in legal academia erodes every day. The public isn't on their side. They have the losing hand.
Late Saturday night (that is, two and half days later) I received the following email from Dan Markel:

Paul,

greetings and happy new year.

I wanted to alert you that I recently came across some very nasty and inaccurate comments about me on your blog.http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/01/exhibit.html?showComment=1325855371740#c5145616221828013153 
I would appreciate your deleting them.
FWIW, I have a policy of not allowing Prawfs' threads to be hijacked by anonymous commenters, and sometimes that irritates folks who want to use threads to promote their agendas (in a anonymous way). Obviously you're free to run your blog as you see fit. But all the same, I'd consider it good manners on your part to not allow my name to be muddied by anonymous persons on your blog. (There were a couple comments after that seemed inappropriate too.)
Many thanks in advance. (And I'd also appreciate your keeping this request between us; I'm not sure what your general policy is on emails, etc.)
all best wishes,
danny.
 I didn’t see this email until early Sunday morning, when I sent Markel this response:

Dan,
Could you forward me copies of the comments you deleted?  If that’s not possible, what precisely was inaccurate about them (leaving aside matters of opinion)?
Paul
Markel responded to my request later that morning:

Paul, I'm surprised and disappointed you would even ask for evidence as if this was a dispute worthy of your independent adjudication.

I had hoped for a more collegial and gentlemanly response.
DM
To which I responded:

Dan,

You’re asking me to delete a comment on my blog which complains about your censorship of a comment made by the commenter on your blog. You claim the comment on my blog is inaccurate.. Unless you give me some basis for judging whether the comment is in fact inaccurate, and inaccurate in a way that’s sufficiently egregious to merit deletion, it would be irresponsible on my part to delete it, especially given that the gist of the comment on my blog is that you are trying to squelch dissent on your blog.    So again, I would ask you to explain why the comment is inaccurate (that it’s “nasty,” i.e., critical of your behavior, is in my view irrelevant, unless that criticism is inaccurate).

Paul
This elicited the following response from Markel:

Paul,
 it's not censorship of an idea. It's  deletion of an anonymous comment that was used to hijack a thread off the topic. That's why it was deleted. On my blog, if someone comments intelligently and under their own name and on a blog post that raises the issue, there is not deletion just because it's in disagreement with the post's author. (And if you were to alert me to nasty or inaccurate comments about you or others in our profession that were anonymously written, I'd happily delete them, much as I have for others.)
You can see the comment that was deleted here and I'd recommend you read the thread and the comments by me explaining my position:
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2012/01/06/when-lawprofs-troll.aspx
Moreover, I"m disappointed and surprised again that nasty language about colleagues in the profession (or anyone else for that matter) are of no significance to you. Why wouldn't you expect or demand that your commenters act in a way that would make you proud? What moral standards of kindness to the world do you hold? (I'm obviously not making a legal claim on you, but an ethical one, and this whole exchange finds me deeply puzzled by your putative ethical concern for students and their well-being, but not for your colleagues in the profession.)
DM
I’m publishing this exchange, despite Markel’s initial request that I not do so, for several reasons. First, Markel’s behavior in this matter is so extraordinary that I believe it would be a failure of professional obligation on my part not to reveal it.   Markel deleted an especially cogent, well-written and well-argued comment from his blog.  Markel of course has the legal right to delete any comments he wants to delete from the blog he manages (although it would appear he deleted this comment from the thread following another blogger’s post without consulting the author of the post), but obviously we are not talking about legal rights at the moment.  We’re talking about censorship (again, obviously not in the narrowest legal sense, as in this context Dan Markel is not a state actor – thank Tebow for small favors).   That Markel has the legal right to delete such a comment does not mean his decision to do so is defensible on broader grounds.  Indeed, the deleted comment strikes me as exactly the kind of thing law professors need to read at the moment, and deleting it from a Prawfsblawg thread seems to me an irresponsible abuse of discretion.

Second, consider Markel’s first email to me. He asks me to take what I would consider the fairly extreme step of deleting a comment from my blog (I almost never delete comments, with the exception of the occasional ongoing shouting match between commenters that’s derailing a thread), on the basis of the claim that the comment is “nasty” and “inaccurate” and muddying his otherwise good name.   At that time I had no basis for judging whether Markel’s characterization of the comment on my blog as “nasty” and “inaccurate” was itself accurate, since I hadn’t seen the comment Markel had deleted to which the comment on my blog referred.  So I asked him if he had a copy of the relevant material, and, if he did, to let me see it.  (He did, since the comment he deleted from his blog had been copied onto another blog – a fact he was aware of when I responded to him).
 
His response to this request is telling.  He is clearly taken aback -- one might even say shocked -- that he’s being asked (very nicely I might add) to produce some evidence for the assertions he is making in support of his extraordinary request that I censor a comment on my blog criticizing his censorship of dissent and criticism on his blog.  Such a request on my part is, in his view, neither “gentlemanly” nor “collegial.”  Apparently, it is part of some shared code that if someone posts a comment about a fellow legal academic on one's blog which is “nasty” or “inaccurate” in the opinion of the person being criticized, then the gentlemanly and collegial thing to do is to remove that comment, no further questions asked, if requested to do so by the legal academic at whom the criticism is directed.

The substance of such a request, apparently, is not “worthy of independent adjudication.” A colleague is being subjected to criticism by the anonymous rabble, and that, according Prof. Markel, is simply unacceptable. (Note he reveals he has deleted comments from his blog under circumstances similar to those that have led him to ask me to delete a comment from mine).

Third, when I point out – with as much gentlemanly and collegial reserve as I can muster – why his request is actually problematic, he first retreats into lawyerly distinction-making (comments won’t be deleted if they’re sufficiently intelligent, completely non-anonymous – note the deleted critic in this case was posting under a consistent handle – and sufficiently germane to the topic at hand), and then goes on to make the following remarkable observation:  

Why wouldn't you expect or demand that your commenters act in a way that would make you proud? What moral standards of kindness to the world do you hold? (I'm obviously not making a legal claim on you, but an ethical one, and this whole exchange finds me deeply puzzled by your putative ethical concern for students and their well-being, but not for your colleagues in the profession).

This is apparently going to come as a profound shock to Prof. Markel, but the actions of the commenter whose comment he deleted do in fact make me proud.  They make me proud to know I belong to a profession in which not everyone keeps his mouth shut and his head down in the face of the suffering caused in no small part by the apparently bottomless narcissism of people like Prof. Markel, who, when confronted by an eloquent description of just one aspect of the human tragedy unfolding before his eyes, reacts by placing the potential hurt feelings of law professors who might read a blog comment critical of their behavior on par with the economic and emotional devastation that has shadowed the lives of countless law graduates over the past generation.

This, then, is just one illustration of the code of silence with which we all live.  It is a code that, as the commenter whose words Markel tried to silence so perceptively noted, ensures that “in most quarters of legal academia, it's safe to rail against many things - just not the structure of legal education itself.”  The code of silence demands that, when your school publishes egregiously misleading employment and salary data, you say nothing about this to your students, or potential students, or most especially the public at large.  The code of silence demands that you leave matters such as skyrocketing tuition and crushing debt loads to be dealt with by the dean and central administration who, after all, are paid to deal with these important topics.  (I’ve seen considerable evidence that until a few people finally started asking uncomfortable questions recently, an astonishing number of legal academics didn't even know how much it costs to attend the institution which pays their salary). The code of silence demands that you hide even from yourself the misery and desperation of so many of your graduates, including many who are “practicing law,” so that there’s even less risk that you might say something to someone -- or at least someone who matters -- that could be considered less than gentlemanly and collegial.

But that code is beginning to break. 

153 comments:

  1. On behalf of all of us who are less concerned with the feelings of people making $100,000+ in tenured positions than the feelings of people who spent $100,000+ to be unemployed in their chosen field: f**k you, Dan Markel.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I was the one who posted the comment that was deleted. Thank you Professor Campos!

    Free speech + pluralism > The Professoriate's hyper-sensitivities

    ReplyDelete
  3. Professor Markel's actions in this whole affair are a pretty good explanation of why he is a law professor and not an actual practicing lawyer.

    And his explanation, both to you, and over at the simple justice blog, that his problem is with anonymous commenting, and not the content of said anonymous post is perhaps the most disingenuous, stupid thing I've ever heard.

    And now, for the gratuitously nasty part- he is a big pussy. And yes, I'm saying that anonymously.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wow. Campos is (even) braver than I thought. As he notes, law professors just don't *do* this sort of thing. Hats off to Professor C! This may be the best argument for tenure I have ever encountered.
    And fwiw, I am not a regular reader of Markel's blog, but I did check out the "Paul Campos Is Right" post. I thought it was cringe-inducing toadying, but harmless enough. Then I read Markel's notes about comment deletion, which I found pretty shocking. I don't know the man, but he does not come off well in on said post.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Professor's Markel's handling of this situation is a pretty good explanation of why he is a law professor and not an actual lawyer. Being affronted by the request for a little detail and evidence to support his claim. Cute.

    ReplyDelete
  6. These "professors" have a direct financial stake in seeing the current "legal education" model remain intact. They will do and say anything, in order to keep the gravy train running. Campos, and a few others - including several adjunct professors - have the integrity and the sack, to be honest about this sick industry.

    In the final analysis, graduates, their families, and society are not well-served by seeing tens of thousands of young people annually walking with their law diploma - while incurring a mountain of non-dischargeable debt and facing piss poor job prospects. How will these people afford to become married, start families, or purchase homes. These are not only life milestones, but they do typically help spur the economy. (If you need further explanation, then you must be a "law professor.")

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nando (10:02),
    What's brave about an adjunct critiquing law schools? (I'm serious -- not trying to bait you.) Adjuncts have other jobs which are their main means of support. Unless they are angling to become full-time professors, then aren't they are just opting to participate in the "scam" by teaching a room full of students for pay of a few thousand dollars a semester? It's not as if students get a break on tuition because they opted not to take a class from a regular prof. Shouldn't adjuncts just refuse to participate in the process?
    Just askin'.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thats pretty much it in a nutshell...well written (and dull) butthurt over nonsense while all around you (especially below you) everything burns. Hope you sleep well at night Markel, you empty suit of a human being.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's uncanny. These people really just have no shame. It's too bad that a little truth hurts the delicate sensibilities of poor scamming Professor Markel.

    Fuck that guy. The clock is ticking on you and your kind, asshole.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Amen campos. Reminds me of a scene from my pseudonym's movie.

    It's a Crucifixion

    ReplyDelete
  11. A lawyer called me the other day and told me his client would settle the case if my client were willing to pay $100,000. I asked him to specify the evidence upon which a jury might base a $100,000 verdict. He responded to me that he was surprised that I would even ask for evidence and told me that he had hoped for a more collegial and gentlemanly response.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Its crap like this that makes it so hard for me to vote for Obama or support Elizabeth Warren (as much as I agree with her stance on financial reform)....if you're a law professor and you're not loudly decrying the mess that is law school and student loans then 99 times out of 100 you're just a clueless windbag.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I understand the drawbacks of posting to this conversation, but I'd like to add a few words. Dan and I don't always agree on the deletion of blog comments; I have deleted a few, generally when I think they are personally and unnecessarily insulting to me or others, but I keep it to a minimum and wouldn't have done it to this particular comment, which I thought was mistaken but was neither nasty nor (since it involved an opinion) inaccurate. Indeed, I was quite happy to leave up, and respond to, a comment on the same topic -- with the same commenter. (http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2012/01/the-aals-conference-and-the-law-school-crisis-.html) Whether I agree with Dan or not, the "code of honor" you soliloquize about does not even apply universally on a *single* blog--namely, Dan's *own* blog.

    And that, in a nutshell, is really my objection to the broader post here. I think you're totally free to disagree with Dan, and with the many, many legal and other blogs that don't allow comments at all or engage in varying and often fairly standardless acts of "censorship"--including, of course, your own. But you have constructed a whole sermon around a single datum, and it just won't bear that much weight.

    Plenty of legal blogs have even more liberal comments policies than your own. (Most of the time, for that matter, my own corner of Prawfs has as liberal, and probably more transparent, a comment policy as yours.) Plenty of legal bloggers, including law professors, have written critically of all kinds of law school practices, including practices similar to those of Drexel (although I disagree with the commenter about Drexel's actions). It certainly sounds dramatic to intone that a "code" is "beginning to break." The problem is that it's nonsense. Some bloggers, including law professors and including those writing about these issues, allow free-for-alls on their blogs and some don't, and so it has been as long as legal blogs have been around.

    Again, I have no quarrel with your quarrel with Dan; that's for the two of you to fight out. But in a situation in which the same point is made quite freely by the same commenter on the same blog, I think it's a little premature to lecture, let alone so self-assuredly and sweepingly, about the omerta of the legal academy. As you said the other day, you and I hardly disagree on the fact that many serious problems, both structural and otherwise, in the legal academy need to be addressed. In my view, however, the facts themselves are bad enough that nothing is lost by focusing directly on them, rather than treating a dispute like this as sufficient excuse for a monologue that, by sweeping implication if not directly, damns all and sundry.

    When it comes down to it, it seems to me that the most the facts at your disposal in this case prove is that you think Dan has a lousy comments policy--one that, it again bears noting, doesn't even apply to the whole blog. Again, that's for the two of you to fight out. But they hardly come close to proving your broader point. I'll stay out of the rest of the conversation.

    P.S.: I'm still not sure what the phrase "middling law school" has to do with anything, other than its snob value.

    -- Paul Horwitz

    ReplyDelete
  14. This post is a good example of why I keep up with this blog.

    A related concept (maybe. not really.) I had rolling around in my head this morning is that Campos has, it seems to me, grasped the power and scope of the internet and blogging. Many others, Professor Markel being an example, are disconnected (generationally or otherwise) from the way things work in the world these days. Running a blog is not like conducting a lecture where one is in a position of authority over the attendant student body, and thus can control the conversation and stifle dissent where the opportunity affords itself. Blogging is instead putting oneself at the same level as the blogs readers and commentators. A blog commentator has not paid tuition, does not have to sit there because of some ABA attendance policy, will not be graded at the end of the term, and basically doesn't give shit if the blog author has his or her feelings hurt. It is an invitation to conversation on wholly equal terms. Merkel hasn't grasped that yet, and his effort to control the conversation via deletion and requests for others to delete comments is telling.

    There is a way forward for legal education in this country, and men like Campos have intuitively grasped the ways in which it will be realized. And that gives me great hope.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "P.S.: I'm still not sure what the phrase "middling law school" has to do with anything, other than its snob value.

    -- Paul Horwitz"

    Apparently you're unaware that this profession is one where educational pedigree and school affiliation are of paramount importance. It has to do with everything.

    ReplyDelete
  16. All these professors remind me of nothing so much as the ones in Hesse's "Glass Bead Game" blissfully unaware of the outside reality and utterly at peace with the mistaken belief that none of this will affect them and they can continue writing mathmatical analysis of J.S. Bach or Latin grammar changes in the 3-4th century forever

    ReplyDelete
  17. Professor Campos,

    Thank you for this important and courageous post. I am "Voodoo94" and an avid reader of your blog (I can also definitively state that poster 9:50 above is NOT me). I had no idea until your post this afternoon that I was at the epicenter of such a controversy. You have many topics to write about, but I'm glad that you chose to weigh in on this one. Saying that Professor Markel's actions are disappointing is an understatement in the extreme. The back channel messages you posted make his behavior appear even more egregious.

    Although I could be categorized as a "winner" of the law school game (at least in terms of career satisfaction and modest debt load), I've really been drawn into the law school transparency/scamblog movement during the past two years. The more I read, the more I find the behavior of some in legal academia to be unconscionable. To me, Dan Markel's behavior is particularly unconscionable. I find his suggestion that you lack "morals standards of kindness to the world" especially arrogant (and hypocritical). In sum, I don't know if Professor Markel could have tried any harder to cast himself in a worse light during this affair.

    I can't tell you just how infuriating it was to have my comment deleted by Professor Markel. His justification was simply baffling given the tone of my post and the care I took to compose/edit it.

    Thanks again for the important work that you do. You ARE making a difference and there are legions behind you.

    Keep Up the Fire!!!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Loved it, Paul.

    He deserved to be "outed," and you sure did the job.

    Avor

    ReplyDelete
  19. I salute you, LawProf. You have a courage that so many in the profession do not. Congratulations for taking a stand and for being a voice for many, even though I am sure you have experienced some negative repercussions for doing so. As one of the above posters stated, you are making a difference, the tide is starting to turn (largely because of your efforts), and there are legions behind you.

    You are an example of courage for many others. Thank-you for fighting for us - for doing what I wished I could have done had I had a chance at entering the profession, which I do not. THANK-YOU!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Since my blog has long featured many profs railing against the "structure of legal education," I don't understand the basis for thinking that my comment policy is somehow ideologically supportive of the status quo re: legal education. FWIW, I personally feel a good bit of sympathy with much of the reformist critique of legal education; I've never said anything to the contrary with the exception of a post I wrote having to do with determining the metrics of success or failure of legal education.
    In any event, I don't know why my desire not to have my name sullied is pernicious. I suspect that's why many people comment anonymously here too. But not being called names is different than not being criticized and I frequently engage with critics of various sorts, both in scholarship and on my blog. The comments policy on my blog is designed to ensure that it's an inviting space for serious and signed conversation about a range of topics. As I mentioned in another comment, I think that comments policy is defensible:
    http://blog.simplejustice.us/2012/01/06/when-lawprofs-troll.aspx#Comment

    But others might disagree about the merits of that policy, and that's their prerogative. I don't understand why mere disagreement with that issue should subject oneself to the kind of claims or names Campos and some of the commenters here feel free to use. I suppose in that sense, one of the commenters above is right: I am indeed removed from a world in which an appeal to basic decency and the avoidance of name-calling seems bizarre. Must be because I'm Canadian or something.


    all best,
    dm

    ReplyDelete
  21. Campos for President?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Meh.

    This doesn't even qualify as a tempest in a teapot. Tempest in a thimble, perhaps.

    This is a "good" blog post insofar as it's entertaining to read, but let's no fool ourselves that it's actually germane or somehow representative of the real problem.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Sorry, gotta agree with the Horwitz comment above. One guy acting like a d-bag is not enough to indict the entire legal education industry.

    But I must say I find hilarious the very thought that someone believes there should be no name-calling on the internet. Anonymous name calling is the third most popular use of the internet, behind watching porn and downloading pirated entertainment. Perhaps this says more about the concept of "blawging" than it does about law schools.

    ReplyDelete
  24. As a law student at the school where you are currently working, may I kindly and respectfully ask why you are working in legal academia - a field you seem to so utterly despise?

    Sincerely,

    A Student

    ReplyDelete
  25. Professor Markel,

    I am a member of the Class of 2011. Most of my class will never have the opportunity to practice law, yet we will carry life changing debt through the remainder of our mortality. Your salary is paid through this debt. The Class of 2012, currently at your school, will face the same outcome, as will the Class of 2015, which your school is actively recruiting as we speak.

    Do these outcomes bother you? If so, what are you doing about it? If not, what is your message to us?

    Thanks in advance for your response.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 11:54,

    I do not wish to speak for Professor Campos, but the answer to your question should seem obvious. He speaks out because he cares about the profession and the academy. He is obviously very disturbed by how law schools ruin lives. He stays because he cares enough about students, clients and the public to advocate for change.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous name calling is the third most popular use of the internet, behind watching porn and downloading pirated entertainment.

    LOL.

    I believe the top ten uses of the internet are currently something like this:

    1. Porn
    2. Facebook (i.e. non-anonymous name calling)
    3. Trap Porn
    4. Playing Call of Duty: Black Ops Modern Gears of War Nuke 'Em Up 17 (i.e. anonymous name-calling by fourteen year olds whose Xbox Live accounts allow them to occasionally say words other than "nigger" "faggot" or "fuck" online)
    5. Porn Illegal in most states
    6. Shopping
    7. Shopping for porn
    8. Managing your fantasy football league
    9. Fantasy- and football-themed porn
    10. Torrenting a variety of copyrighted works (mostly porn)

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dan,

    You write:

    "I don't know why my desire not to have my name sullied is pernicious. I suspect that's why many people comment anonymously here too. But not being called names is different than not being criticized and I frequently engage with critics of various sorts, both in scholarship and on my blog. The comments policy on my blog is designed to ensure that it's an inviting space for serious and signed conversation about a range of topics."

    It seems to me that Voodoo94's comment which you deleted in no way violated your blog's policies, unless "signed" means "signed with one's real name," in which case the blog's policy is unenforced except in cases where the critical substance of a comment offends you.

    The account of your actions that Voodoo94 posted here was couched in a harsh tone, but again I don't see anything inaccurate about that account. How any of this "sullies" your name is thus very unclear.

    Naturally

    ReplyDelete
  29. Yes, Paul, signed does mean with a real name and an email address that is verified or verifiable.

    As I've said before and elsewhere, "voodoo's" diatribe was not relevant to the humorous post by Teter. And yes, we don't allow critical comments by anonymous or pseudonymous people. At least not generally, but sometimes, you're right something might slip by unless I'm alerted to it. I don't have the time sadly to monitor everything but I try to be somewhat vigilant.

    I would say Voodoo's comments, along with those that followed, on this blog were more than critical and that's why I asked you to delete them. Voodoo argued that "all means necessary" are important to shutting me, this lil Canadian, down; that's not far off from making people worried about their homes or private lives being targeted. In addition to being a prof, I'm a husband, son, father, and brother. I'm a person. It's true that internet name-calling prevails, but there's no reason criticism can't be made without it. I made a simple request to you, which you ignored, and instead made it into this "tempest in a thimble."

    I realize you're a hero to your readers (assuming they're not sock-puppets), and you deserve praise for spotlighting the issues you do, but it would be nice, in my opinion, if you could do so w/o the unnecessary ways in which your blog makes the world a less enjoyable place to be.

    Anyway, if you want to continue the conversation, you know where to find me.

    Best wishes,
    dm

    ReplyDelete
  30. Dan,

    You're worried about your home and private life being a target?

    What about your graduate's homes and private lives? (Or lack thereof?)

    You know, in addition to being law school graduates, the class of 2010 are, collectively, sons, daughters, husbands, wives, brothers, and sisters.

    AND? YOU'VE RUINED THEIR LIVES YOU FOOL.

    So yes, "all means necessary" are important to shutting people like YOU down.

    Law school scammer.

    Signed,

    ReplyDelete
  31. Prof Markel,
    I'd like to hear some examples from you of what you think would have been a comment that would be on-topic or "relevant" to Teter's post.

    "Lol!!! funny post Teter!!!"
    "I agree, the Orin Kerr part was sooo true, OMG"

    Was this the sort of discussion whose integrity you were protecting from Voodoo's comment?

    That justification is clear BS. Voodoo critically addressed the substance of the post by pointing out the context in which it was made. Teter chose to use Campos' name in the title of a post that could not be exceeded in frivolity, instantiating so much of what is wrong with the attitudes of law school faculty. Pointing this out was wholly "relevant."

    Also, in his subsequent post, I think it's clear that Voodoo wasn't suggesting that you be attacked physically but that you be subjected to the criticism he feels that your actions merit.

    In other cases I can sympathize with your comment policy. Especially in discussions of controversial issues that attract "flamers." Sometimes it is important to protect your comment section and assert proprietorship.

    In this case though, it's not clear what you were protecting. That's why everyone is pissed. You touched a nerve when you deleted that incisive, thoughtful comment. You should offer a sincere apology and learn from this mistake.

    You're acting like a schmuck right now. Be a mensch.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Dan Markel,

    I keep having have to remind myself that your posts aren't meant to be satire. To me, your new found "concern" for personal safety strains credulity.

    You first approached LawProf and requested that comments be deleted because they were "nasty and innacurate." Law Prof asked you for evidence, you offered none, and were told to "pound sound." Now, days later, you are claiming that a line in a blog comment makes you concerned for your safety. HAVE YOU NO SHAME? Anyone following this kerfuffle can plainly see this is just your latest canard to get critical comments deleted.

    Seriously, you are coming across even more negatively as this saga unfolds (if that is even possible). To put it charitably, folks who have never even met you are inclined to see you as an obsessive, egomaniacal, control freak.

    ReplyDelete
  33. What's amazing about Dan Markel is that he is a criminal law professor. He teaches his students about crime and how those who victimize others will be punished. Yet he teaches for a third tier toilet whose entire business model is based on publishing fraudulent job placement statistics to trick people into giving them money, that pays his salary. But fraud is a crime.

    How does someone become so utterly hypocritical, dishonest, and valueless that they have the gall to teach criminal law, at an institution whose entire profit model is based on crime?

    ReplyDelete
  34. "As I've said before and elsewhere, "voodoo's" diatribe was not relevant to the humorous post by Teter."

    Voodoo's post was no more a "diatribe" than Teter's sad toadying was "humorous."

    ReplyDelete
  35. "HAVE YOU NO SHAME?"

    Why do you people keep asking questions like this of law professors? They are psychotic. They have zero empathy and they lie as easily as they breath. NO THEY DON'T HAVE ANY SHAME.

    Stop using language that excuses them, and start using language that rightfully accuses them and seeks recoupment for the harm they do.

    ReplyDelete
  36. The Markel excuses for blog deletion remind me of the excuses a government uses when it wants to put down a protest. On the surface, the government cites "security" concerns in shutting down a protest. However, the real reasons for the shutdown (in many cases) is due to the fact that the government does not want the protesters to expose corruption, or incite other people to join in on the protest.

    Markel, in the comment section of his blog, does not care about insults or petty bickering or whether or not someone uses a real name or real email address. No, Markel does not want his BS exposed. Everyone here has to remember, Markel wants the law school status quo to remain the same no matter what. As such, any comment or idea that exposes the hypocrisy and wrongdoing of the status quo will be met with censorship by him. Commenting anonymously and/or not being civil are just a cover by this guy to practice censorship and inhibit idea sharing.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Dan Markel's bad breathJanuary 9, 2012 at 1:09 PM

    HEY DAN MARKEL, YOU FUCKING DOUCHEBAG (ANYONE WHO HAS A WEBSITE TITLED WWW.[THEIRFIRSTNAME][THEIRLASTNAME] IS A DOUCHEBAG, AND DAN IS A DOUCHEBAG FOR MANY OTHER REASONS.)

    ANY WAY, DAN, YOU DOUCHEBAG.

    FUCK

    YOU

    GO SPEND THE MONEY YOU GOT VIA YOUR SCHOOL'S SCAM.

    AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR BREATH YOU FUCKING POS.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Markel - Campos is not my hero, any law professor who stays on their job is no hero of mine. But at least he is honest and is revealing the scam that morons like you try to hide behind mountains of words and rationalizations.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "His response to this request is telling. He is clearly taken aback -- one might even say shocked -- that he’s being asked (very nicely I might add) to produce some evidence for the assertions he is making . . ."

    Law professors and law schools have gotten so comfortable with lying that things like "evidence" simply do not compute in their warped minds.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Nando, I hope you have something good coming up for Markel!

    ReplyDelete
  41. I meant Dan Markel's Bad Breath's comment was a proper diatribe. It's hard to keep up on here.

    ReplyDelete
  42. This is one of the best posts I have ever read on the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  43. What I understand from Dan's response is the following:

    "I'm canadian, I can't be willfully blind to the scam I perpetrate on my students, or the lengths to which I will go to continue this scam. Again, in case you forgot, CANADIAN."

    If you're going to be a jerk, at least own it.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Wow, so he got his legal education up in Canada where it's cheap, but he decides to teach in the United States where - due to teh scam - law professors are paid double what they're paid in Canada?

    He sure knows how to game the system.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Look at this douchebag trying to get a job at NYU.

    http://www.law.nyu.edu/centers/adminofcriminallaw/facultyandstaff/scholarsinresidence/2011/index.htm

    I seriously hope NYU can do better.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Prospective 0L at Florida State Law School (Dan Markel's school): Can I please see the raw data behind your employment numbers?

    The Dean of FSU: "I'm surprised and disappointed you would even ask for evidence as if this was a dispute worthy of your independent adjudication. Please go apply elsewhere."

    ReplyDelete
  47. I second the call for Nando to feature this piece of shit next.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Its the re-structuring of youth as a vehicle for debt.

    ReplyDelete
  49. To 1:17

    Be fair -- he got his legal education at Harvard. Which isn't in Canada.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "my blog has long featured many profs railing against the "structure of legal education,""

    Is that how he reads Prawf's Blawg?

    Prawfs discuss law school reform in only the most meaningless ways. Should more writing instructors get tenure? Should administrative law be 1L or 2L curriculum? Should the interests of the consumer play a small role or no role at all in course offerings?

    Professors are not suggesting major, meaningful reforms, such as replacing half of tenured professors with much cheaper (and more experienced) adjuncts. The "reforms" are largely restricted to things that would either cost professors nothing, or actually improve their situations.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Dan,

    Do you have the empathy to compare the terror that goes through a 26 year old's life, when a student loan bill comes due and he can't pay it? When he can't even get a job at Walmart, because the education you sold him under false pretenses is so worthless that it won't even advance his candidacy at retail?

    Now compare that terror, that terror of having your life and financial future pass before your eyes, to the minor annoyance you felt at having your "name" sullied. Get over yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  52. His profile at Prawfsblog refers you to his old Harvard email rather than his current one at Florida State. I wonder what his students think about that.

    ReplyDelete
  53. "His profile at Prawfsblog refers you to his old Harvard email rather than his current one at Florida State. I wonder what his students think about that."

    Evidence that Markel is the douchebag's douchebag:

    1. Uses his @post.harvard.edu e-mail instead of the email at his TTT.

    2. Has a website with his name, danmarkel.com.

    3. Is trying to get into a better school (NYU) for the "presteeeeje."

    4. Gets all upset when people don't respect his authority.

    Dan, how did you become such a total douchebag? I mean, what happened in your life to make you this way? Holy shit man.

    ReplyDelete
  54. This is the best legal website out there today.

    ReplyDelete
  55. How do you know he's trying to get a job at NYU?

    ReplyDelete
  56. I hope all of his many relations google his name and find this post first.

    ReplyDelete
  57. He's a "scholar in residence" there. That's basically how the interviewing process works at top law schools.

    As an NYU alumnus I can tell you that being too full of yourself definitely does not fit in with NYU's culture.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "Why wouldn't you expect or demand that your commenters act in a way that would make you proud? What moral standards of kindness to the world do you hold?"

    Mr. Merkel's illuminating comments often remind me of my overseas life in China. Contrary to what most people think, censorship by the Chinese government isn't of the heavy handed variety, as the focus is often on self-censorship. The internet police and community managers that run websites often resort to pleas for "moral decency" and "internal stability" that quash dissenting opinion and allow for societal stability. What's controversial however is by definition impolite and is summarily removed. The status quo shall be supreme.

    ReplyDelete
  59. No, not every visiting position is a look-see.

    ReplyDelete
  60. The ones who didn't get offers were not look-sees.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Not always true. Sometimes look-sees don't get offers. And for others it was never on the table.

    ReplyDelete
  62. "As an NYU alumnus I can tell you that being too full of yourself definitely does not fit in with NYU's culture."

    That's more of a Columbia thing.

    ReplyDelete
  63. @ Paul (Horwitz) - I wanted to acknowledge your comment above and note (as an anonymous Prawfs commenter and current practitioner who is critical of many of legal academia's practices spotlighted on ITLSS) that you have in fact not deleted various critical/substantive but anonymous comments of mine before. IMO, your point that censorship is not ubiquitous even at Prawfs is well-taken. Thanks for raising it here.

    @ Dan (c/p'd from post below): Dan --

    Your job is secured by tenure. You do not have to worry about adverse career consequences if your blog comments are Googled and scrutinized by current or future employers. Particularly given that this blog is dedicated to those whose legal employment is much less secure, it is quite ironic and unseemly for you to make comments (as you did in Campos' post below this one) like "hope you'll have the strength to do so under your own name." It does not take much strength to sign one's comments when one has no fear of serious professional consequences; similarly, it takes more strength than you can appreciate from your tenured vantagepoint to sign one's comments when they can have future consequences for years. (E.g., imagine that an unemployed commenter here signs her comments that are critical of the legal academic establishment - and then is disqualified from a law school staff position as a result.)

    You may have no legal or moral obligation to permit dissent on your blog - though, as I stated above, it surely diminishes your blog to delete substantive dissenting opinions that are politely expressed. However, I do find it morally problematic that you are pressuring another academic blogger to censor comments on their blog. Let me put it to you politely and substantively: you're out of line.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Also, Dan, if you prefer signed comments, I think many of us here can endorse the "signed" comments at AALS about your field from Circuit Judge Jose Cabranes:

    http://chronicle.com/article/Federal-Judge-Hands-Down-a/130264/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

    ReplyDelete
  65. BLESS YOU JUDGE CABRANES.

    ReplyDelete
  66. The only law school I know of where students don't have to take Property is Cabranes's own Yale.

    ReplyDelete
  67. The AALS conference could be a good thing, if it discussed the biggest issues facing legal education today

    - the growing crisis of legal-employment for new and pending graduates,

    - the impending crisis in student loan defaults,

    - the hugh ethical problem that law-schools (organisations run by an profession with professional obligations of candour and honesty) have been "cooking the legal employment" books,

    - the hugely inflated cost of law-school, the entire mission conflict between accredited law-schools' role as gatekeepers to the trade of law

    - and professors desire to be seen as academics, the growing chorus of complaint that law graduates are poorly prepared for the profession,

    - and finally the sense that no entity, not the ABA, nor the professoriate seems to give a toss about the everyday practitioner.

    And I say this as someone who after 20 years is pretty successful as a lawyer - earning in the mid six-figures, with publications, books, etc. I have to interview the kids coming out today - I see the resumés. Oh and yes, I had an e-mail deleted on Profblawg in which I criticised its members (I think they were talking about maximizing the deal when negotiating tenure) in which I stated my overall view that no-one on that blog should be hired by any law school concerned about the issues I have raise. By the way, I do have some influence, and no - if I have anything to do with it Dan Markel is not moving up in a US law school - and is not welcome in Canada...

    And a little hint to Professors Markel, Leiter and their friends - a surprising number of senior lawyers, large firm partners, general counsels, etc. that I know share my views of the current law professor population - oh and I am not economically interested in being a professor, full or part time, it would mean a 60-70% cut in earnings. The only reason I would do it is for the good of the profession, and I am not sure I could do much good.

    ReplyDelete
  68. 2:55 - thanks for sharing your experience with comment censorship over at Prawfs. I was shocked when several long, well-thought-out comments I had posted (without name-calling or slurs against professors) were deleted from that blog, and I'm at least relieved to know that I'm not the only practitioner who has received this treatment.

    One idea for our consideration: I wonder if we should create a ResponseBlawg via blogspot or similar - essentially, we could have a comment response thread for every Prawfs thread of interest to us (i.e. to the need for reform in legal academia). All comments censored by Markel could be reposted there; anonymous comments would be allowed; and it would be a law student and practitioner friendly space. We can of course continue to use ITLSS threads for this purpose, too, but I know that sometimes commenters here complain when we hijack comment threads to repost comments deleted from Prawfs.

    ReplyDelete
  69. I am no fan of blog comment deletions but 1:09 today should be deleted. It is a vulgar personal attack that conveys neither ideas or information. It in no way speaks to this discussion. William Ockham

    ReplyDelete
  70. "Its the re-structuring of youth as a vehicle for debt."

    This is beautiful...Ive always used the imagery cannibalizing our young but this...this is perfect. Totally stealing it.

    ReplyDelete
  71. 2:55 and 3:01: You might find this comment interesting:

    "One of the most astounding traits I encountered among law professors during my 15 years (now ended) in legal academia (after 12 years of practice at the highest levels of NYC commercial practice) was the almost universal resistance to disagreement and challenge. It astounded me because disagreement is what lawyers live with moment to moment. Every representation involves an adversary who tells you you’re wrong. Clients tell you you’re wrong all the time. Judges revel in telling you you’re wrong. As a result, one of the most fundamental attributes a young lawyer must earn is the ability to judge for him or herself the merits of his or her position and the points at which he or she wishes to take a stand. In short, you need a thick skin and a willingness to trust in your own judgment.

    And yet it is almost a universal among mainstream legal academics that disagreement is taken as personal affront, that a request for support is taken as an attack on one’s integrity. Is this the way we are supposed to be training our future lawyers?

    I suppose it reflects in part that mainstream legal academics do not consider the training of future lawyers particularly important to their professional endeavors.

    It also is convenient: each professor considers his area of specialty beyond the capacity of other professors’ understanding. If that is indeed the case, disagreement is uncalled for. The person disagreeing simply doesn’t have the capacity to understand the specialized knowledge being questioned.

    If all the law professors act that way, they all remain beyond disagreement. It is very convenient.

    It is also quite pathetic. It is the rare legal argument that someone from outside the field is incapable of questioning critically."

    http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/01/censoring-ourselves-legal-academia-and-the-code-of-silence/comment-page-1#comment-208208

    ReplyDelete
  72. Add Judge Cabranes to the list of people who get it.

    Sure, maybe law school shouldn't be a trade-school. But it also shouldn't be an all-purpose humanities and social sciences grad school for the benefit of people who chose to get JDs instead of Ph.Ds and have their articles reviewed by 25 year old kids instead of peers.

    Law school is a professional school. It has an obligation not only to the students, but to the profession. That obligation includes maintaining rigorous entrance standards so that the market is not flooded with lawyers. It includes training students to be professionals who serve clients, not policy wonks or legal philosophers who go through contracts without reading a contract or property without reading a lease.

    Maybe this latest tiff will stimulate more interest from law professors in the substance of what Lawprof, Tamahana, Henderson, Cabranes, their growing list of allies, and most importantly the students have to say about legal education. But I'm not optimistic. I predict we'll see some comments by certain usual suspects for a few days, and then silence.

    ReplyDelete
  73. "But it also shouldn't be an all-purpose humanities and social sciences grad school for the benefit of people who chose to get JDs instead of Ph.Ds and have their articles reviewed by 25 year old kids instead of peers."

    Excellent.

    ReplyDelete
  74. lmao @ this post and the comments.

    ReplyDelete
  75. The first rule of Legal Academia is: You do not talk about Legal Academia. The second rule of Legal Academia is: You do not talk about Legal Academia.

    Man, this stuff just writes itself...

    ReplyDelete
  76. Where's your Harvard now Dan? lol

    ReplyDelete
  77. DanNAAAY!

    If you're looking around for a hole to hide in, I'm selling them. Good prices for the desperate and ashamed!!

    ReplyDelete
  78. I think you may be making him more attractive with all of this.

    ReplyDelete
  79. right now Dan is obsessively sending himself emails from his @post.Hahhvard while repeating the mantra "they're wrong; I went to Harvard; I'm better than them."

    lol

    ReplyDelete
  80. ...in which case, 6:08, he should be aware that some of us who disagree strongly with his censoring decisions are also HLS alums.

    (I have long wondered why Dan chooses to use a post.harvard address on his personal page. It's unusual and it seems like a clear indicator of shame in his own institution/employer. I suppose the more innocent explanation would be that his post.harvard address redirects to a personal email address, and he'd prefer to keep his emails from website visitors separate from his work account. But in that case, using a post.harvard account seems pretentious; he could just use his personal email address.)

    ReplyDelete
  81. I'm pretty sure Florida state's email system has forwarding, so. . .

    ReplyDelete
  82. HLS alum? "long wondered"....

    ReplyDelete
  83. Haha, are you saying that I'm more or less likely to be an HLS alum because I used the phrase "long wondered"? Sorry for the awkward phrasing.

    Anyway, the "long wondered" is because I've followed Prawfs for the past couple of years, so I'd noticed and been curious about Markel's choice of email addresses a good while before Markel and Campos started their back-and-forth.

    - 6:39

    ReplyDelete
  84. The "long wondered" thing went totally over my head. Can someone explain it?

    ReplyDelete
  85. It does seem like a small thing to wonder "long" about.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Perhaps a hat tip to SJ for Voodoo's comment?

    ReplyDelete
  87. Wow, y'all are as good at parsing a throwaway phrase as the Prawfs. Essentially: over the couple years I've been reading Prawfs, I've clicked over to Dan's personal homepage maybe five times. His post.harvard address is listed prominently at the top, and each time I saw it, I thought, "Huh, that's weird" - for the reasons I gave above. Given that the first time I had this thought was a couple of years ago (long in e-years), I typed "long wondered." No idea why my use of the phrase was so interesting to people, but, as we used to say back in the AutoAdmit days, HTH.

    - 6:39

    ReplyDelete
  88. To share a personal communication after having been specifically asked not to has nothing to do with "breaking the silence" of the legal community.

    It is simply unprofessional, disrespectful, and a sign of poor personal character.

    I suggest you raise your standards. It is not about collegiality; it is about common decency.

    A man or human of honor would not publicize something that someone has respectfully asked to keep private. Too bad few people seem to know what honor is these days.

    You are the bully.

    ReplyDelete
  89. I completely disagree with you Victoria. An ethical person has the duty to expose behavior such as Mr. Markel's. Mr. Markel's belief that no one other than him has any right to "adjudicate" matters that affect more than just him - is endemic throughout law school. For example, law schools refuse to allow their career placement statistics to be audited. These are the very statistics they use to induce attendance, yet they believe that no one other than them has any right to judge their accuracy.

    Behind the refusal to let others "adjudicate" is a desire to lie, and that's what Mr. Markel was doing when LawProf exposed him. I thought it was very refreshing to see such morality and respect for truth in an otherwise disreputable profession.

    ReplyDelete
  90. P.S. If you post something on Markel's blog he will delete it, but here it's allowed to be said.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Personal responsibility is the only thing that matters. A student who applies to law school should educate him- or herself about the competitiveness, the importance of attending an ABA approved school, the importance of avoid third and fourth tier schools, etc.

    There is no easy way a great career, and a legal career is not for everyone. But do not talk about a "scam," it is the students' responsibility to do the necessary research and weigh the benefits and risks of attending law school.

    The "poor young people are being induced to attend this sham schools" argument is a product of our current society where self-responsibility is fading.

    If one is indeed "induced" to attend a sub-par legal institution, then there is no one to blame but oneself.

    ReplyDelete
  92. They do educate themselves, Victoria, by looking at the school's placement statistics and then by calculating an expected return and then deciding whether the loans and tuition are worth it.

    The problem is that the schools lie. They commit fraud, a crime, to swindle poor kids out of their money. Even the most ardent libertarian believes that you must enforce fraud laws, because if fraud is allowed personal responsibility is impossible (unless you want to live in a world of vigilantes who shoot up those who defraud them; old west style).

    Thank you for exposing yourself as a scumbag and a bitch.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Victoria:

    Shame on you for making it the student's responsibility when the law schools are reporting lies and have been doing so for years. Look at the stats of even the lowest schools and you see high 90s employment. You are either an academic or completely out of touch. Try turning on your brain and making a real argument. Explain to me how a person makes an informed decision based upon a set o lies? Tell me you are not this stupid.

    You think that printing an email after being requested not to do so is a character issue and unprofessional but piling 100K of non-dischargeable debt onto the backs of young people based upon a set of lies is ok, not to mention the fact that you blame the victim?

    If anyone has revealed their dubious character in just a few statements, it is you. Fuck off.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Victoria,

    I'm an attorney who is looking to sell my house and purchase another. Now I fully agree with you that personal responsibility is important - I have to research the market in which I'm looking to buy, check public records, learn about crime statistics for my new neighborhood, etc. But if I reasonably rely on seller disclosures that I have no way way to verify, and it turns out after closing that the seller brazenly and willfully lied in order to sell me the property, then does that make me an irresponsible idiot...or a fraud victim?

    It's not clear to me why the youngest members of our profession are entitled to any less honesty from law schools than I am entitled to from potential home sellers. Nor is it clear to me that those law students/attorneys who relied on willfully deceptive statistics released by their law schools were being irresponsible.

    ReplyDelete
  95. It makes you a fraud victim, you dumb bitch.

    ReplyDelete
  96. 10:14 - wtf? I'm not Victoria, I'm fairly sure you and I are on the same side, AND that was a rhetorical question.

    ReplyDelete
  97. That is the problem, isn't it? Everyone is a victim these days.

    I am a lawyer (newly-graduated). I was solicited with vigor by third and fourth tier schools, but I knew better than to fall for their "statistics" and other fraudulent information.

    It does not take much to research a school and to judge its credibility.

    And please, stop using derogatory and sexist language. It shows the complete lack of substance to your commentary.

    To 10:12 - what you describe is fraud. However, the analogy is flawed.
    Are you telling me that a potential law-student who is intelligent enough to pass the LSAT cannot distinguish between a third tier school and a decent first tier school based on quick online research?

    One major hint to the potential student is that the higher ranked schools are difficult to get into, have been ABA approved for years, are highly ranked by the US News Report, etc. etc.

    Meanwhile, third and fourth tier schools are desperate in soliciting students, are not ABA approved, recently became ABA approved, or otherwise lacks a long legal history. Such schools will also not appear on the top 100 list of ANY rankings.

    So now, tell me, how can a person intelligent enough to become a lawyer possibly be fraudulently tricked into going to a sham school?

    ReplyDelete
  98. Victoria:

    There were people who went to law school prior to 2008 and graduated prior to 2011....duh. This problem (lies) has persisted for a very long time, even in the mid-nineties BEFORE the internet is what it became today. There was NO information up until a few years ago. Wake up. You are the bigger fool for CONTINUING your legal education post 2009 because you stated that you did research and as such, you must have known about the scam.

    Furthermore, you just graduated, wait a few years after you have been paying your loans and you want to start a family, see how hard it is.

    Regarding your last sentence: If you have to ask that question, you ARE NOT READING THE RESPONSES mentioned so many times prior....they were tricked by a set of lies from the ABA, NALP, etc.... Tell me, you are not this stupid, are you? If you are a lawyer, my opinion of this trade just went even further down the ol' commode.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Victoria:

    10:12 here. I certainly agree with you that it's possible to distinguish between first and third-tier schools. Unfortunately, as Paul Campos has detailed at great length on this blog, the problems with fraudulent and/or incomplete statistics extend well into the first-tier (including his own institution, which is towards the bottom of Tier 1), and in some cases, even into the so-called "Top 14" schools.

    I don't have time to pull all his posts on the top schools for you, but here's an example of how Michigan's (in the top 14) employment statistics were noticeably incomplete: http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2011/12/startling-gap-in-michigans-salary-stats.html#comment-form

    ReplyDelete
  100. "Are you telling me that a potential law-student who is intelligent enough to pass the LSAT cannot distinguish between a third tier school and a decent first tier school based on quick online research? "

    What's "passing the LSAT"? Do you get a certificate of completion or something?

    In any event, evidently, the answer is yes. The LSAT doesn't test anything like the ability to perceive deceit. I've expressed doubt previously the LSAT tests for jack other than the ability to read and manipulate information. But even if those are skills lawyers need (and they are, but certainly do not form a sufficient, let alone exhaustive, catalog thereof)--it doesn't do a damn thing to test naivete, willful or otherwise.

    Also, to paraphrase Prof. Campos because it's a good line, *the intelligence of a mark is not an affirmative defense to fraud.* Nor does it ethically or morally excuse outright lying about, omitting, making misleading statements regarding or misrepresenting facts.

    Why did so many people go to law school, and take on serious debt to do so, if not because they genuinely believed it would assist them in finding gainful employment? It certainly wasn't for the fucking entertainment value.

    If you wanna call me a retard, fine. That doesn't hurt my feelings, and hell, it's probably true. I'm dumber than Homer Simpson, Philip Fry, and Michael Caboose put together. Whatever makes you happy or content; I came to terms with it long ago.

    But it's no excuse. This bitch, at least, was not asking for it.

    "One major hint to the potential student is that the higher ranked schools are difficult to get into, have been ABA approved for years, are highly ranked by the US News Report, etc. etc.

    "Meanwhile, third and fourth tier schools are desperate in soliciting students, are not ABA approved, recently became ABA approved, or otherwise lacks a long legal history. Such schools will also not appear on the top 100 list of ANY rankings. "

    I know people love lists because it makes an argument seem stronger, but that "age" metric seems at best weakly correlated.

    I went to the twentieth (or maybe twenty-first, I'm not double-checking) oldest law school in the country, and until very recently the only law school in this state. Too bad 1)they didn't stop there, in both regards, and 2)I don't think "age of institution" is one of the components of the USNWR's goofy-ass ranking standards.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Blind belief in statistics is not wise. Most stats are fudged. Is this really news to you?

    Every profession that requires a higher education carries a risk for the one pursuing it: risks of failure, risks of making the wrong choice, risks of a downturn in the market, etc.

    It seems as if people go into law with a disillusion of making good money, which no school (even Harvard or Yale) can guarantee.
    Frankly, I don't care if Michigan's stats were fudged or questionable, it's still a top 14 school and its graduates will have good opportunities upon graduation.

    It is all about individual effort and choice, nothing will ever be handed to you by anyone.

    Blaming universities or statistics for not making your dream (whatever it might be) come true, is pathetic. Be happy for the fact that you live in a country where one can at least attempt to achieve one's dreams.

    And no, I will neither drown in student debt nor start a family due to the choices I have made - and continue to make - in my life.

    Sorry for bursting the bubble.
    I enjoyed law school.
    I had wonderful professors who truly cared.
    I was never tricked or promised a splendid career by anyone; I knew it depended completely on my own efforts.
    And today I'm extremely happy with my career, and I would recommend anyone who sincerely aspires to become a lawyer to go for it.

    I would like to know what exactly Professor Campos is trying to accomplish here?

    Is he arguing for fewer law schools?

    Does he want warning labels of the dangers of law school on applications and acceptance letters?
    (I.e. "please note that you may not pass the bar or ever work or earn money as a lawyer upon attending this school") - would that be sufficient?

    To me, that message was pretty clear, but I guess we need warning labels for everything in life these days.

    Or does Professor Campos want the government to shut down all third tier schools?

    Or make Congress legislate a limit for the number of law students who can be accepted into a school each year?

    In essence, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE of this so-called scamblogging?

    ReplyDelete
  102. To provide an alternative, perhaps more truthful, and probably less self-interested, source of information to prospective law students, so that they will go into the process with far fewer illusions--extrinsic and intrinsic alike.

    If this happens to reduce the number of applicants, and damage revenue for the legal education industry to the point that many schools must close, then that would be pretty cool.

    Furthermore, it exists to provide an emotional outlet, and emotional support, to those who've been ground up by the process already. You're human, right? You must understand this impulse.

    Oh, and also to advocate for shit that has no realistic chance of happening, at least in the near future, like sweeping education reform, a realist approach to the regulation of the profession, and a whole constellation of orbital weapons platforms equipped with kinetic impactors that drop on law school administrators who lie like lethal turtles from heaven. It's important to have dreams!

    But Goal Number One is to tell people the truth--at the very least, the truth as we see it. That should probably be everyone's goal.

    Too bad it ain't.

    And that's what makes it a fine purpose indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Answers (In CAPS):

    Blind belief in statistics is not wise. Most stats are fudged. Is this really news to you?

    NO, NOT NEWS BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PUFFERY AND FRAUD. LOOK IT UP, FIRST YEAR CONTRACTS. IT IS ESPECIALLY DANGEROUS WHEN PUBLIC MONEY IS AT STAKE.


    Every profession that requires a higher education carries a risk for the one pursuing it: risks of failure, risks of making the wrong choice, risks of a downturn in the market, etc.

    TRUE, BUT WHEN LOWER TIERED SCHOOLS ON THE US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT ARE REPORTING 99% EMPLOYMENT, THE IMPRESSION IS GIVEN THAT THE CHANCE OF FAILURE IS SMALL.

    It seems as if people go into law with a disillusion of making good money, which no school (even Harvard or Yale) can guarantee.
    Frankly, I don't care if Michigan's stats were fudged or questionable, it's still a top 14 school and its graduates will have good opportunities upon graduation.

    NO, NOT GOOD MONEY, NOT EVEN GREAT MONEY, MOST OF US JUST WANT A JOB. FURTHER, NOT ALL OF ITS GRADUATES WILL HAVE GOOD JOBS, AS THE STATS ARE BEGINNING TO HOW. GO BACK AND LOOK AT THEM.


    It is all about individual effort and choice, nothing will ever be handed to you by anyone.

    NOT ALWAYS. SOMETIMES IT IS LUCK AND WHO YOU KNOW. I THINK A PERSON WHO GOES THROUGH THE RIGORS OF LAW SCHOOL EXPECTS NOTHING HANDED TO THEM. TRY TO AVOID ALL OR NOTHING STATEMENTS, THINKING IN ABSOLUTES IS THE SIGN OF A PERSON WHO HAS A LOW IQ AND LAZY MIND.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Blaming universities or statistics for not making your dream (whatever it might be) come true, is pathetic. Be happy for the fact that you live in a country where one can at least attempt to achieve one's dreams.

    ????? I BLAME THE UNIVERSITIES WHEN THEY BENEFIT FROM THE INDENTURED SERVITUDE THEY HAVE CREATED. THEY GET RICH OFF PUBLIC MONEY, LIE TO THEIR PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS WHILE LIVING IN THEIR IVORY TOWERS.

    And no, I will neither drown in student debt nor start a family due to the choices I have made - and continue to make - in my life.

    YOU ARE A FOOL. YOU JUST MENTIONED THAT YOU GRADUATED. IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHERE YOU WILL BE IN A FEW YEARS AFTER THIS "PROFESSION" AS SWALLOWED YOU UP AND SPIT YOU OUT. BRIGHT-EYED BLIND OPTIMISM IS WHAT THE CURRENT SYSTEM NEEDS, YOU ARE CLEARLY THEIR PERFECT VICTIM.

    Sorry for bursting the bubble.
    I enjoyed law school. SO DID MOST OF US. THIS COMMENT IS OFF-TOPIC.
    I had wonderful professors who truly cared. DITTO.
    I was never tricked or promised a splendid career by anyone; I knew it depended completely on my own efforts. AGAIN, SEE ABOVE, AND PRIOR COMMENTS.
    And today I'm extremely happy with my career, and I would recommend anyone who sincerely aspires to become a lawyer to go for it.

    YOU ARE NEW. YOU HAVE BARELY STARTED PRACTICING. COME BACK IN A FEW YEARS, UNTIL THEN, STFU.

    I would like to know what exactly Professor Campos is trying to accomplish here?

    ReplyDelete
  105. WHY? YOU HAVE ALREADY JUDGED IT. THE BIGGER QUESTION IS, WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?

    Is he arguing for fewer law schools? MAYBE, MAYBE NOT. NOT A BAD IDEA THOUGH.

    Does he want warning labels of the dangers of law school on applications and acceptance letters? NO SWEETIE, JUST THE TRUTH ABOUT EMPLOYMENT STATS, IN WRITING WITH EASY COMPARISON BETWEEN SCHOOLS.
    (I.e. "please note that you may not pass the bar or ever work or earn money as a lawyer upon attending this school") - would that be sufficient? ITS A START. SHOWING THAT GRADUATES MAY NEVER GET JOBS AT ALL IS AN EVEN BETTER START.

    To me, that message was pretty clear, but I guess we need warning labels for everything in life these days. ? YOU ARE REPEATING YOURSELF.

    Or does Professor Campos want the government to shut down all third tier schools? AN EVEN BETTER IDEA DEPENDING UPON WHERE THE THIRD TIER BEGINS.

    Or make Congress legislate a limit for the number of law students who can be accepted into a school each year? GOOD IDEA AS WELL. OF COURSE STOPPING THE FLOW OF FED MONEY WILL CONTROL THIS PROBLEM AND THE ONES LISTED ABOVE.

    In essence, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE of this so-called scamblogging? REALLY? IF YOU NEED IT SPELLED OUT TO YOU, THEN YOU ARE STUPID. MAYBE YOU SHOULD COME WITH A WARNING LABEL.

    THERE ARE CERTAIN PEOPLE WHO HAVE EYES BUT DON'T SEE, EARS BUT DON'T HEAR. YOU SOUND VERY NAIVE. I HOPE ONE DAY, YOU WAKE UP TO THE TRUTH THAT SO MANY PEOPLE ARE DESPERATELY TRYING TO TELL.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Victoria -

    Are you a lawyer - I mean it is obvious that you are a legal academic - but you are in fact a lawyer?

    Cast you mind back to the time one of the Supermarket tabloids tried a defence in a Libel case - Judge, everyone knows are article are made-up/fiction (i.e., that we are liars), therefore no reader would have believed what we published - therefore it is (a) not libel because it did not communicate a believable falsehood; and (b) there are no damages. It was the Globe or the Weekly World News I think - I was sent the pleadings by e-mail in the 90s and remember the guffaws.

    Your argument comes down to - only a fool would have believed what the law schools published - ergo it is the law students' who believed own fault for the mess they are in.....well that is the same argument as Professors laughed at when the tabloid tried it....

    But worse, as I point out, you are a lawyer. As far as I know almost all law school deans are lawyers. If I as a practitioner was called before the bar, accused of lying to someone I owed a duty to - a client, the court, other counsel, and I tried the argument that it was the other party's fault for believing my lie - what would happen? Come to think of it, if I had tried that at my bar interview, would I have been admitted?

    What I am saying here, bluntly, is that law school administrations that engaged in the sort of deceptions that they still engage in ought to face serious bar discipline. I am also saying, frankly, that you should not be a member of any bar. The law is supposed to be an honourable profession - the games played by las schools have sullied its honour.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Oh and Victoria - I am 1:00 AM and 2:55PM - and I am very happy and successful in my career (own law firm, International lawyer, income large) and I am still disgusted and angry at what laws schools have done.

    You may be happy in your career - but if you do not have a problem with the falsehoods of the law schools, I am upset to be sharing the profession with you

    ReplyDelete
  108. "Sorry for bursting the bubble.
    I enjoyed law school.
    I had wonderful professors who truly cared.
    I was never tricked or promised a splendid career by anyone; I knew it depended completely on my own efforts."

    OK, not to beat a dead horse deader, but really? Really? This is one of the silliest of all myths. This is only slightly less silly than believing the world is flat--and that's only because you can look off a beach and see a horizon as the ocean curves away from you.

    Forget that it's technically untrue in a million different ways--starting with the fact that no human, that I'm aware of, was involved in their own conception and got to pick which sperm fertilized which egg, and leading into more banal matters such as no American living today invented a light bulb. What you seem to be saying, Victoria, is that you're a top performer.

    Good for you.

    Now turn around--or look down, since that seems to be your style--and take a good look at your classmates.

    You're standing on their shoulders.

    This is a rank-obsessed profession, from the school to individual.

    So when you tell people to work harder, what does that really mean? What does that mean at all in a field like this, where 50,000 enter, and 40,000, or 30,000, or 25,000, or even fewer, leave? It means that most of them shouldn't have within a mile of Thunderdome, but they did. They were enticed to do so because they did not know you and Master Blaster were in there, ready to kick their ass to the bottom of the class ranks and then out into the cold, cruel world where their Participation Trophy didn't matter.

    Hard work is surely important. But those that "didn't work hard enough"--or weren't smart enough, or didn't "network" enough--why were they even there?

    Someone let them in. They were there to fail so that others could succeed. More pertinently, they were there because they were bodies with access to student loans; they were there, ultimately, to subsidize the success of those who would "achieve."

    Well, congrats, top performer, you newly graduated lawyer, you--oh, surely you've made the big time already, my friend. You've reached the summit and can see the valley! Just like the Russians on the Pratzen Heights. Hey, who are those blue guys?

    P.S. I think I've got your number and I doubt you are constitutionally able to care about other people at all, let alone their problems. But remember those blue guys. They're real top performers, too.

    ReplyDelete
  109. What danny/DM/Prof.So&So doesn't get: These aren't sockpuppits, these are legitimately pissed off people, and its a system that's going to keep creating legitimately pissed off people. Try getting to know some of your students and their outcomes. I know the Ivory Tower isn’t made of visual thinkers, so let me simplify it for you:

    How indentured millennials, fighting for work just to maintain interest payments on their loans, view people like danny/DM:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggy50aunhmU

    How indentured millennials view Paul Campos and the scambloggers:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYFlzJyxWlw

    Campos is Phil Jackson, Nando from Third Tier Reality is clearly Dennis Rodman. BL1Y from Constitutional Daily is the Pip.

    It’s not clear who MJ is yet, and s/he may not emerge. Not like it matters, once the economy picks up and law grads are still S.O.L. Professors like Danny will be left holding the bag. I look forward to reading PRAWFLAWG! at this time.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Victoria seems like a troll to me.

    Still, I find it fascinating how popular the "if you're not smart enough to do your research, you're not smart enough to become a lawyer" line is.

    Even if this were true, this is not a defense of the system but an indictment. It means that the majority of persons admitted into law school each year are not actually smart enough to become lawyers. They are doomed to failure right from the start.

    These people should not be admitted to law school and its a scam that they are. Admissions standards should, at a minimum, exclude persons not equipped to practice in the profession. And we can't blame the applicants for not knowing better, they are too dumb, so of course they don't know better.

    ReplyDelete
  111. My opinion is that Victoria is a man with gender issues, and a very affected writing/talking style.

    Please come back Victoria!

    ReplyDelete
  112. 6:14,

    I bet that "Victoria" is a confection of Dan Markel or one of his consiglieres. I mean, if you were getting hammered left and right (rightfully) for inexcusable behavior, what better strategy than trying to derail the discussion.

    After watching Markel's behavior throughout this affair, the inescapable conclusion is that he has some seriously obsessive tendencies. Like a bug to light, he just can't stay away - even when coming back further damages his already eroded image.

    Take a look at his wildly inconsistent and shape-shifting arguments/rationalizations over at Simple Justice. This guy is one arraogant buffoon!

    ReplyDelete
  113. " . . . what better strategy than trying to derail the discussion."

    You think it's that "do a hilarious troll bit to change the topic" thing? Maybe, but I would like hear "Victoria"'s personality on other issues as well. Come back Vicky!

    ReplyDelete
  114. How hard is it to get a job at this book store?

    http://www.harvard.com/index.php?/

    It will give me havard DOT COM email address, which is so much more impressive than Markel's @post.harvard.edu" email.

    Dot.com > dot.edu

    ReplyDelete
  115. Hammered left and right...by blog comments?

    ReplyDelete
  116. Victoria - you are very simplistic and not very bright. You've entered the right profession.

    ReplyDelete
  117. To 8:04

    "Perhaps a hat tip to SJ for Voodoo's comment?"

    Very kind of you to notice.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Wow, I really fired some people up on this blog.

    I am not a troll; I believe in individual responsibility.

    Everyone is a "victim" in America these days.
    Everything is a "disease."
    And no one is responsible for the choices they make in life.

    You guys think that Professor Campos is some hero from inside the ivory tower, when in fact he is being paid by the very students he believes are being fooled!

    Campos bread and butter comes from the very system that he despises.

    That makes his "mission" despicable.

    ReplyDelete
  119. On the contrary, it makes his mission laudable. He is publicly advocating for positions that run directly against his own financial and professional self-interest.

    ReplyDelete
  120. How does it run directly against his own financial interest when he is raking in money from students taking exorbitant loans each semester?
    Knowing that they will all fail in life and be unhappy (according to previous commentaries)?

    ReplyDelete
  121. I suppose he would less despicable if he continued to collect their money and said nothing. That makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Because a central function of his blog is to warn students against doing just that. Can't you read?

    ReplyDelete
  123. Victoria:

    Get a life. You are either an academic, troll, or both. Your questions have been answered repeatedly despite your questions to the contrary. If you cannot figure out how the act of one academic speaking out is against his own interest in this specific situation, you have no hope at all in this world. The fact that Campos' says anything at all exemplifies the veracity of this blog and emphasizes its importance. After all, his SILENCE would be better for him but he chooses to speak. You have to be stupid if you cannot see the writing on the wall. Times are a-changing....say goodbye to your obtuse and deceiving ways, "Victoria."

    ReplyDelete
  124. If a buyer makes a choice based on false or misleading but material information from a seller of goods and services, then yes they are a victim. But according to "victoria", sellers can lie and mislead all they want, it is all on the buyer to research and uncover their lies nevermind that the seller is in the position of having the benefit of asymmetric information.

    This is so asinine. We might as well get rid of all consumer protection laws and torts since sellers are completely blameless and can lie and mislead all they want. If you didn't do enough "research" well its your own dumb fault.

    Students have the responsibility to research carefully their choices but law schools have the responsibility to provide full and accurate information so that an informed choice can be made in the first place.

    Also while I doubt LawProf is any kind of martyr that is sacrificing himself, I don't see how it helps him financially when his advice and articles tell people to avoid law school (including his own) or drop out.

    Clearly a troll but the "caveat emptor" defense always comes up again and again.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Calling a person "obviously stupid," a troll, and other derogatory names that I do not personally use in my own language is not conducive to a discussion.

    I would not hire any of you to clean my bathrooms (and yes, I have several of them) when you cannot even use decent language.

    No wonder you cannot get hired anywhere.

    Keep indulging yourselves in this "cause" you deem so worthy.
    I have work to do.

    Best of luck,

    Victoria

    ReplyDelete
  126. Victoria:

    Fuck you. You can come clean my bathrooms anytime.

    ReplyDelete
  127. On the one hand, Victoria needs to read this entire blog from the beginning because she clearly hasn't absorbed enough of the information out there yet. She's destined to be Lathamed in a few years anyway.

    On the other hand, every time someone on a scamblog latches on to someone with a feminine handle and starts using words like 'bitch' and 'sweetie' and questioning the commenter's gender (funny how no one does that to people with masculine handles like 'Terry Mallory'), I start thinking that maybe you do all deserve your indentured servitude after all. I sure as hell don't want to share a workplace with people who jump straight to using sexist language as soon as they notice a woman on the internet, and I hope that no boss of mine would ever hire any of you.

    At any rate, seeing as Victoria does not like the word 'victim' we clearly need to make up a new word for people who have been subject to crimes. Oh come on, if someone's been told that a school's median graduate income is over $100k per year when in reality it isn't even half that? That's fraud. There are no two ways about it.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Absolutely unbelievable. Has that idiot read 3 sentences of your blog? Did he really think you'd blindly honor his 'gentleman's request'?

    This guy teaches criminal law? Talk about diminished capacity.

    ReplyDelete
  129. 5:26 - definitely share your concerns about the sexist language used to refer to commenters identifiable as female. I also dislike that commenters who are not clearly one sex or the other are almost always assumed online to be male.

    I agree that it is hard to feel sympathy for people who default to sexist language when a woman online makes arguments they disagree with.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Oh boo frickin hoo. A few frickin sexist comments were made about a woman online who calls herself a lawyer yet fails to see the argument of the other side. In turn, she calls people who cannot find jobs stupid and blames the victim. In essence, she admits that the schools lied but the consumer (student) should have known about the lie. Somehow that makes it ok. Reminds me of another horrible defense used by certain criminals against women.

    While making sexist comments on a board is wrong, the lies perpetrated by the law schools are a heck of a lot worse. Let's try to stay focused and not be a bunch of overly sensitive American assholes.

    ReplyDelete
  131. I know that I am two days late to this comment party, but I very seriously want to reiterate my undying allegiance to Paul Campos.

    Without a doubt this is the best non-porn blog I've ever read. No question about it.

    PS I am also male.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Also late, but I'd like to reiterate my undying allegiance to Victoria/Brian Leiter.

    ReplyDelete
  133. 10:41 - if you are referring to me (5:26) I am not American, and while obviously Victoria's reading skills and legal reasoning are both extremely faulty, this isn't just about Victoria. It's not even the first time I've seen this behaviour on comments on this blog. There are consequences to being so permissive about very blatant sexism; half your potential supporters are going to decide you all deserve to be unemployable, and female law grads are going to be reluctant to join a movement that is openly hostile to them. You might compare it to the problem the Republicans have with minority voters. Are you okay with taking those consequences on the grounds that this one person, Victoria, is wrong? Or would you rather have a movement that the other half of the human race can feel included in?

    ReplyDelete
  134. Forget the worries about sexism; reading the comments here about how Campos is a hero -- because he's acting against his professional interests in running this blog (including 10:54's and 6:24's above) -- brought me to a startling realization. You've all been duped! I can't believe you fell for it. Hero be damned: Campos is the closest thing to the devil in this hell you've been describing. Do you really think, if the story about abuse you've told is true, that the moral evil of Campos continuing to cash his paychecks is outweighed by the "good" of providing a zero-impact forum for you to vent your spleens? Didn't you have scamblogs before Campos where you could do that? What, exactly, has he done to be of additional help to you? And don't say "he's made the debate more mainstream by putting his academic's name on it" -- he hasn't. Campos was regarded as a nincompoop within the academy long before this blog. Why do you think Leiter knew immediately who it was, and wasn't surprised, back when Campos was anonymous? Campos is PROFITING -- in the form of enhanced personal fame and the expurgation of personal guilt (assuming, that is, that he really does give a shit about any of this) -- from your misery. The more you squeal, the better he feels about cashing those paychecks. And he *does* keep on cashing them.
    Here's the worst part: His idiotic tendency to attack serious, mainstream people who are actually trying to effect some positive changes to the system you claim to have been victimized by -- Tamanaha, Henderson, Horwitz, others at recent conferences, and yes, Leiter, Markel, and others -- is transparently designed to keep his name, not others', in the spotlight and, even more insidiously, to keep the misery level exactly where it is right now. Wake up -- you're on display in a zoo! He'd rather profit from the spectacle of all of your rage than contribute to the work of people with serious agendas who, if they actually fixed things, would steal his thunder and end the circus in which he, for now, is the ringmaster with the giant hat.
    Campos has tenure and, for the moment, the spotlight. He didn't have any academic reputation to ruin, so he risked nothing professionally in starting this blog. Without all your misery he'd sink back into obscurity. That means SOLVING the law school "crisis" is what actually runs counter to his personal interests! If you can't see that, you truly are doomed. He drinks your tears and feels *happier* because you shed them.
    Continue to frequent this blog if you like, but make no mistake about the moral status of its owner and his relationship with the "huddled masses."

    ReplyDelete
  135. Given the subject of this post, no matter how much LawProf might want to delete 11:11's comment, he can't!

    ReplyDelete
  136. Yes this criticism of LawProf that he is still a law professor and continues to cash his paycheck has been made many times. But that's the thing, if he were just another law grad scamblogger or even a successful practicing lawyer, no one would care. So its the price to pay.

    At the end of the day, all that matters is whether he has brought the problems of the legal profession to light or not and whether I largely agree with his posts or not. I and others believe so and that is all that matters.

    I could care less if he had "ulterior motives" or not. Maybe he does and maybe he doesn't but to me its his effect that matters.

    But we do know that those who attack LawProf clearly do so to discredit what he says even though most of what he says clearly ring true. Leiter, et al know the day of reckoning is coming and attacking LawProf won't stop it!

    ReplyDelete
  137. @11:46

    He has allowed such comments and much worse thrown at him in this blog. Even when they were not polite or really substantive. AFAIK, he rarely deletes comments.

    Meanwhile you, Dan Markel and his supporters, are nothing but cowards who delete comments even when they are on point and polite.

    That's all that needs to be said.

    ReplyDelete
  138. That's just delusional. He's done nothing to "shed light" or "add credence" or "reveal" anything -- the scambloggers did all the work and Campos is just taking credit. You're a fool -- and your hero is a fraud.

    ReplyDelete
  139. What the hell did that have to do with deleting comments? 11:11 said your leader is a morally reprehensible mercenary profiting from your misery. Do you think the fact that he doesn't delete comments pointing out that fact actually changes the reality that you are his dancing, singing clowns? Or can you point, instead, to one thing that Campos has ADDED to this "cause"? All I see is LST doing some work, Tamahana keeping the heat on, etc. From Campos, we get only the same never-ending display of misery we got from every other scamblog that ever was.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Nobody is going to buy the line that Campos is somehow the problem, or that Campos is worse than the law school apologists. That law schools are lying about salary and career prospects is a fact. Campos, by writing about the issue, is doing some part to expose this fact to people who may not have known or believed it. That is a good thing and he deserves credit for it, as does anybody else who does the same.

    ReplyDelete
  141. I couldn't agree more with the anti-Campos posters above. Campos' clowns willingly ignore the fact that over the last decade Professor Leiter "(and others) have been remarking on the fact that the job placement data that law schools report and U.S. News reprints without audit were essentially fiction." Citation missing.

    ReplyDelete
  142. I'm going to get a job in a auto repair shop. And when someone like Victoria brings her car in for service, I am going to do to her exactly that which caveat emptor allows. In short, I'm going to lie, cheat, and steal. If she doesn't understand that I am over-charging & under-performing, well, no skin off my back. She should have known better than to believe anything I told her when she left me with the keys.

    ReplyDelete
  143. I look forward to supervising Leiter (or, I'm sorry, Victoria) on a doc review project.

    ReplyDelete
  144. I have to say I'm getting a good laugh out of all of Leiter's sock puppets. He's the most obsessive little freak on the internet.

    Just for the record I've never criticized Brian Tamanaha or Bill Henderson either in public or private.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Oh, Leiter and his "cyber hobbies."

    ReplyDelete
  146. I'm not a lawyer or law student, but I am interested in the politics of media, and so I've rubbed elbows with lawyers. I find this blog to be gripping reading, and I commend the author for making these posts. I've never responded to this blog before, but I feel compelled to do so to this post because the topic of this post echoes some of my own media activism work.

    The Code of Silence described above echoes the code of silence I've found from media professionals or those who work in the major media regarding media policies. I've worked for nearly a decade in grassroots political activism on media, on issues ranging from media concentration, network neutrality, community internet, and the like, and the hardest part in working on these issue is to making such topics an issue in the first place.

    The recent debate over the SOPA bill is illustrative; the corporate media has mentioned next to nothing about the bill or the online furor it has caused. And for good reason: the corporate media have a vested interest in the outcome. And rank-and-file journalists would be loathe to break the story: try holding a press conference where the topic is smearing the bosses of the journalists who would attend.

    It speaks of high chutzpah to repute those who have been blinded for their lack of eyesight (as John Milton put it). But one thing I have learned is that when these issues do reach front and center, they spread like crazy, and people understandably get outraged and ultimately demand change. Similarly, we may well see a breakthrough moment on the Code of Silence, and having lived through such breakthrough moments time and again in media policy over the past ten years, mark my words: A breakthrough will come, and will come sooner than anyone thinks.

    ReplyDelete
  147. In my time at law school, I came across many Dan Markels: imperious, pompous, know-it-alls who fell apart at the slightest hint of a challenge to their fragile worldview.

    I laud you, Paul, for your forthrightness in posting that exchange.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Prof. Campos, you're a hero. I am a lawyer; I have done an adjunct in a U.S. law school; I have a degree from a so-called fourth tier, based on U.S. magazine standard; I also hold a law degree from the number one university in the U.K., based on U.K. standard. I am comfortable in my current employment. Therefore, I have no incentive to inveigh against law schools. However, I cannot help but notice how this Prof. DM's dolts have been deployed to attack you, Prof. Campos. Just know that no matter whatever tricks they use to try to discredit you, you have more soldiers behind you than the pompous ones can ever muster. The practicing lawyers who deal with reality on a daily basis support you. Those who believe that they are more important because of their academic pedigree or number of law review articles written have nothing to say to convince the victims of law school scams to think otherwise. Prof. Campos, we are behind you.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Atκins diet progгam to help you burn fewer cаlоriеs.
    Rаspberry ketoneѕ were аpproved fοr use of a гasрberry kеtones budԁy.
    The conglomerаtes that are consіdeгed to be embarгassed if you suffer frоm
    thyroid medicatіon, meаnwhile, еphedrine,
    it maу be. Eѵen walking 15-20 minutes. Hеаlth care ρrofessionals about the boy will burn through
    activity, than to have an open mind and your anaerobiс system so your
    body to buгn thе excess weіght and keep it off by the body.
    If thеy ωork and lack of ԁаilу portions
    of hеalthy saturated fats.

    Look at my hοmepage; lose weight quickly

    ReplyDelete
  150. 55 frеe ԁating in Foreх market іs loosely regulated bу the eхсhange in the cоuntry.
    Yοu seе -- Turner has been liνing
    іn prіor to that neωs, its Free Dаting have been a direсt result, layѕ eνer stronger сlaims to the bοdies
    of our deаd.

    Heгe is my web site - 2datingtoday.net

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.