The real problem with legal academia

black knight

This guy just won’t stop pontificating about something that he well and truly doesn’t know anything about.

11 comments on this post.
  1. Scott Lemieux:

    Why do you hate the rule of law?

  2. Hogan:

    And women and minorities, also too.

  3. rea:

    Not to mention puppies, kittens, baby chicks and law students.

  4. Crackity Jones:

    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.

  5. Paul Campos:

    Diamond has a PhD in political science, and bills himself as a “law professor and political scientist.”

  6. Seitz:

    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.

  7. Scott Lemieux:

    [hangs head in shame]

  8. herr doktor bimler:

    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.

  9. Michael H Schneider:

    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.

  10. ajay:

    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.

  11. Njorl:

    I think the Black Knight in that picture has far too many limbs remaining, considering the stage of the argument.

Leave a comment

You must be