The real problem with legal academia
This guy just won’t stop pontificating about something that he well and truly doesn’t know anything about.
This guy just won’t stop pontificating about something that he well and truly doesn’t know anything about.
Scott Lemieux:
January 21st, 2013 at 3:48 pm
Why do you hate the rule of law?
Hogan:
January 21st, 2013 at 4:28 pm
And women and minorities, also too.
rea:
January 21st, 2013 at 5:16 pm
Not to mention puppies, kittens, baby chicks and law students.
Crackity Jones:
January 21st, 2013 at 5:30 pm
I was involved in a student committee on diversity hiring. I think in many cases you have people who want to be called professor but don’t feel like getting a phd, and want to publish but aren’t into peer review. I dunno. It’s depressing.
Paul Campos:
January 21st, 2013 at 5:58 pm
Diamond has a PhD in political science, and bills himself as a “law professor and political scientist.”
Seitz:
January 21st, 2013 at 6:11 pm
So I went back through the link in Scott’s post to the original brouhaha and noticed a list of CA law schools and their tuitions. Holy shit! I can’t recall exactly what I saw at the time, but I started law school in 1998, and I want to say that UC Davis (where I did not attend) was about $10k for in-state. It’s almost $50k now! Illinois was about $18k for an out-of-stater, and it’s now $48k! At Arizona, where I almost went, the additional amount for an OOS student is 50% greater than the entire cost for an out of state student in 1998 – just the additional amount. In total it has increased by 650%.
I’ve been reading and buying into Paul’s “don’t go to law school” arguments with the idea that tuition had probably increased modestly, but roughly correlated with inflation. Those numbers are flat out ridiculous. If I was 15 years younger, I think I’d still be working at the driving range.
Scott Lemieux:
January 21st, 2013 at 6:21 pm
[hangs head in shame]
herr doktor bimler:
January 21st, 2013 at 6:59 pm
Perhaps there is 650% more law to learn these days, what with all the GUBMINT BUREAUCRACY and OUT-OF-CONTROL LEGISLATION. Not to mention the political-correctness-gone-mad.
Michael H Schneider:
January 21st, 2013 at 7:11 pm
He doesn’t hate the rule of law, he just hates the 1st Amendment
He fails to recognize that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and that facts or law to the contrary don’t deprive a person of this right.
It’s a lawyer’s duty to maintain beliefs no matter what. Indeed, some of most respected jurists and legal minds hold – and advocate for – beliefs that are beyond nonsensical.
Anton Scalia still sits on a court which some people respect, despite his claim that a cross symbolized respect for the dead in general, rather than being a particularly Christian symbol.
John Yoo still has a tenured position at Berkeley – perhaps a more highly regarded school – despite his written opinion that the Steel Seizure Case doesn’t have any bearing on questions of the limit of presidential power.
We won’t even talk about David Addington, Carmen Ortiz, Orly Taitz, Ann Althouse, or any of the other fine lawyers who embody and exemplify this principle.
With examples like these of what it means to think like a lawyer, it’s patently unfair to criticize Dr. Diamond. He’s just doing what respected lawyers do.
ajay:
January 22nd, 2013 at 5:10 am
This guy just won’t stop pontificating about something that he well and truly doesn’t know anything about.
Indeed, this is a real problem with legal academics.
Njorl:
January 22nd, 2013 at 12:47 pm
I think the Black Knight in that picture has far too many limbs remaining, considering the stage of the argument.