Subscribe via RSS Feed

Narcissism as vocation

[ 349 ] December 24, 2013 |

A helpful reader points me to a remarkable ongoing research project:

As a precursor to a new research project, which I’ll discuss in later posts, I’ve done some firsthand qualitative investigation of dating websites, including Match, OK Cupid, Plenty of Fish, Craigslist, and Ashley Madison. At this point my investigation has consisted only of the following: creating two identical profiles (not at the same time) in the “women seeking men” section of each site with the same racially ambiguous photograph; identifying myself as Asian in one profile and White in the other; and then simply reading the responses that each profile generates. Different websites have different options for signaling one’s race: for example, Match provided an array of boxes to check as well as the option not to answer, while on Craigslist it was necessary to take affirmative steps to signal my race in a free form response box.

With the caveat that all of this is preliminary and anecdotal, I noticed a remarkable difference in the responses the white and Asian profiles generated. The Asian profiles received about 20-30% more responses, depending on the site. But to me the much more interesting phenomenon was the difference in the content of the responses. Not a single response to the white-identified profiles even mentioned race. Yet about a quarter of the responses to the Asian-identified profiles said something racial. Sometimes the responses were superficially flattering, describing Asian women as “exotic” or “beautiful.” “I’ve always wanted to date an Oriental woman,” one said wistfully. Sometimes the responses invoked tired stereotypes about Asians writ large: “I love your culture’s food and family values,” one message earnestly explained (because all Asian cultures have identical food and family values, obviously). There were more iterations of the phrase “let me love you long time” than I hope ever to see again. And, of course, plenty of responses were vulgar: “i know what u asian sluts like ill give u what u need,” asserted one gentleman, followed by a lengthy description of what he thinks we Asian sluts need and some distinctly unimpressive pictures.

The racialization of responses was particularly overt on Ashley Madison, which, for the uninitiated, describes itself as a website for people who want to engage in “married dating” or “have an affair.” (For those curious about how the site works, Julie Bort went undercover on the site and writes about it here.) My own experience was that people became even more uninhibited about expressing their preferences. “We should get together! I LOVE Asian women and they love me!!!” stated one gentleman, whose screen name was “AZNLUVR69.” Another explained that he “knew how to please an Asian lady,” adding, by way of proof, “my wife is also an Asian.” A number expressed “geisha fantasies.” (My background is Chinese and Native Hawaiian, but close enough, I guess.) And several noted that their favorite porn stars were Asian.

All told, my Asian-identified Ashley Madison profile received about three hundred responses within a month of its creation, and over a third of them mentioned some sort of affinity for Asian women.

I don’t want to make this primarily about Nancy Leong. I’ve never met her — for all I know she may be a perfectly admirable person in her personal as opposed to her political life — and in any case she is merely a single example of a very widespread phenomenon, rather than being herself in any way the cause of the scandal that is contemporary legal academia.

But that scandal is almost perfectly encapsulated by the fact that Leong is a rising young star in the law school world. Why is she a star? First, as Bored JD noted yesterday, she had “great credentials” when she got a tenure track job. Those credentials consisted of being an honors graduate of a top university and an elite law school, where she was also a board member of the law review. After law school she did a federal appeals clerkship, and then after spending a year in the kind of unicorny public interest fellowship that people with gold-plated resumes get, she went straight into academia, spending a year at Georgetown and another at American in VAP-type positions, during which time she published four academic pieces of various sorts, before “finally” getting a tenure-track job in 2010.

Those are, in the contemporary legal academic world, very good if not great credentials for somebody trying to get a tenure track job. These credentials don’t actually feature either any experience practicing law or any formal academic training per se, which you might assume would be a serious problem for someone trying to become a lawyer-academic, but you would be wrong.

Legal academia is stacked to the rafters with people like this, and the results speak for themselves.

Yesterday some people weren’t too happy when I described Leong as “tenuously racialized” on the basis of her photos, but it turns out that Prof. Leong’s new research project is literally an exploration of the fact that she is tenuously racialized on the basis of her photos.

Leong’s preliminary findings seem to indicate that certain ethnographic categories of gender identity are fetishized as especially desirable within a hetero-normative frame in which the social concept of “white” identity functions as an unmarked category. One problem with this research project is that such an empirical conclusion would not be considered particularly novel within the relevant literature.

Another is that this is just the sort of human subject research that universities tend to have strict protocols regarding, since trolling surveying sleazy transgressive web sites for narcissistic kicks legitimate research purposes is the kind of thing institutions understandably maintain all sorts of rules about. Hopefully Prof. Leong didn’t wing itignore relevant bureaucratic protocols before launching this particular investigation.

Yet another is that my helpful commenter explains, it seems like a badly designed experiment on its own terms:

Her experiment isn’t very interesting. It’s actually pretty puerile. Again, she posts two profiles on an infamous online hook-up website, one in the “white” section and one in the “Asian” section. She then observes that the Asian post is somewhat more popular. (Query: How many total profiles are in the respective sections? If, as I suspect, there are exponentially more women posting in the “white” section, you’d EXPECT the “Asian” profile to draw a lot more interest. Alas, Leong doesn’t address this issue.) She also observes that the people responding to the “Asian” profile seem to reference the fact that she’s identifying as Asian. Oh how shocking. Someone who logs on to the hook-up site, goes specifically to the “Asian” section, and starts browsing profiles, just might have a particular interest in Asian women. Go figure.

As I said above. What’s the point? Really, what was she trying to show? That some (presumably white) men have a predilection for Asian women? That Asian women are sexualized in a way that white women aren’t? Her experiment was really crappily designed if it’s either of those (not to mention I don’t think she’s come close to supporting the latter statement, even on the face of her findings).

This really smacks of someone who starts off with an ideological hypothesis and designs a heavy-handed experiment to prove that point. That’s not research. It’s propaganda.

And yet another is that some people might question exactly why University of Denver law students are expected to incur nearly $180,000 of expenses over three years to subsidize this sort of thing.

But as I said, this isn’t ultimately about Leong, because in the legal academy today, people like her — brandishing impressive credentials that don’t actually have much if anything to do with either carrying out serious academic work or training people to practice law — are legion. (Indeed I’m one of them).

So none of this is coming from a putative position of superiority. Not at all. We are all, as a great philosopher once observed, part of the same hypocrisy. Recognizing that is merely the first step toward doing something about it.

Comments (349)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. DivGuy says:

    The last of these threads turned into an MRA cesspool. Can’t wait to see what happens this time, Campos did an admirable job of just leaving enough chum in the water (narcissism, sleazy, etc) for them to seize on it.

    I am pretty much 100% with the argument that law schools are running a scam, but the prevalence of MRA creeps in the law school scam community is really disturbing.

    • Anonymous says:

      By MRA, I assume you mean mens’ rights activists? Why is it “disturbing” and why are they “creeps” any more than WRA?

    • Barry says:

      “I am pretty much 100% with the argument that law schools are running a scam, but the prevalence of MRA creeps in the law school scam community is really disturbing.”

      I was a regular reader on ItLSS, and OtLSS, and intermittently in a few other scamblogs. There are notably *few* MRA guys in the comments there.

    • J. Otto Pohl says:

      You mean MRE (Meals Ready to Eat)?

    • MacK says:

      Can you cite even two MRA posts … Or are you bullshitting?

      • MacK says:

        In the previous thread

      • Jordan says:

        Sure.

        here

        and

        here.

        Not hard to fine. Many more where they came from.

        • MacK says:

          If you think these are MRA comments you are delusional. MRA type comments focus ideas like women should be in the home, men should have fairer treatment (or even favourable treatment) in child custody, etc.

          The comments you pointed to ask whether it is inappropriate to note that a woman is (a) attractive and (b) that an attractive young woman in a suit remains an attractive young woman. MRA like comments would be things like “why is she taking up a legal job, when she could get a [real] man to support her…”

          Now I am not about to deny that MRA types do show up in the scamblogs – they show up pretty well everywhere. But it is a real stretch – and extreme stretch – worthy of Leong herself and the Luau Train – to call the comments you linked MRA type comments.

          Incidentally, the biggest problem I have with the Men’s Rights Movement is that they start off seeking to make a fair point – that men are unfairly treated in society in various ways as compared to women (and vice versa women are also unfairly treated too in a sexist society), but rapidly descend into misogyny and rampant sexism. Indeed many of their spokesmen – usually over issues like child custody – turn out to be the last person any sensible judge would award custody to, regardless of gender. Every now and then I wonder should the English satirical magazine Private Eye run a counterpart column to its 1980′s section “Wimmin” which quoted with great effect the more extreme misandry of some in the feminist movement (it was similar to the often Pseuds corner, where much of Leong’s writing would fit well.)

          • Informant says:

            You misunderstand — “MRA” is the 2013 version of “mansplaining”: it’s a term that, while it started out as a useful descriptor of a particular type of male chauvinist behavior, has now morphed into a convenient way of putting down any male commenter (or presumed male commenter) that the speaker doesn’t like while simultaneously relieving the speaker of any obligation to actually engage with any logically valid points made by the male commenter (or presumed male commenter).

          • Jordan says:

            “MRA type comments focus ideas like women should be in the home, men should have fairer treatment (or even favourable treatment) in child custody, etc.”

            trololol. MRAs on the internet are *always* sexist assholes. This is why actual people actually working for those things where men get short-shafted by our current society absolutely refuse to identify with MRAs. Get over it.

            • MacK says:

              So Jordan again makes an argument by distorting someone’s statement – wonder why I think she may be Leong ?

              • Jordan says:

                It is because you are dumb. That is why.

                You also know MRAs drop sexist shit at the drop of the hat. All the time. Have fun in dudebroland.

                • MacK says:

                  No it is because you are unable to make your argument without setting up straw-men and suggesting that people made statements and arguments they never did.

                • Bijan Parsia says:

                  MacK,

                  I looked at both comments Jordan linked too and both seem to be on the MRA continumn, esp the second one (“feminized” is a tell). (In particular, they both seem to set up a “sexual harassment does not exist/is the women’s fault” line.)

                  Your interactions with Jordan are not fruitful. But I find your repeated insistence that Jordan is a sock puppet or that it’s reasonable to think he is to be far worse than anything Jordan’s posted by far. Your reliance on no evidence (ie you don’t like Jordan’s comments thus he must be Leong!) in support of a personal attack really isn’t good. Apologize, let it go, and move on.

              • Bijan Parsia says:

                Er…because you can’t let go of a bad move even long after it lost even a phantom of a shred of plausibility or utility?

                I wish you would cut this crap out. Jordan is Jordan. You may not like his comments but they are far better then these sock puppet accusations.

                • Lee Rudolph says:

                  Let’s start a rumor that MacK is running a false-flag operation!!!

                  …Or maybe better, let’s not.

  2. joe from Lowell says:

    Props for the novel usage of “unicorny.”

    Someone needs to add a #4 for this.

  3. Cranky Observer says:

    = = = Leong’s preliminary findings seem to indicate that certain ethnographic categories of gender identity are fetishized as especially desirable within a hetero-normative frame in which the social concept of “white” identity functions as an unmarked category. One problem with this research project is that such an empirical conclusion would not be considered particularly novel within the relevant literature. = = =

    To my non-scholarly, anecdote-ridden view these studies also seem to miss a somewhat important cofactor: a certain percentage of the human race is physically attracted to persons who are as unlike their home tribe as possible. In my personal and anecdotal experience I’ve observed about 50% of my friends, family members, classmates, neighbors, and coworkers date and marry partners who look very similar to their cousins, and the other 50% date and marry partners who look as opposite to their cousins as can be found on the globe. I understand the criticism of white guys of northern European descent fetishizing and fixating on Asian women, but would suggest that perhaps it is at least in part because they find women of greatly different physical appearance from themselves physically attractive – which IMHO needs to be added as a factor to this type of study but generally isn’t.

  4. Bijan Parsia says:

    I don’t want to make this primarily about Nancy Leong…. and in any case she is merely a single example of a very widespread phenomenon

    Isn’t the simple way to make this not primarily about Leong to post about other examples instead of using her work as a “convenience sample”? Given the widespreadness of the phenomenon it should be easy enough.

  5. Anonymous says:

    My experience is that the practicing legal profession has more than its share of Narcissists. Not surprising that the same would be true with Law Profs.

    • postmodulator says:

      My experience is that tenure-track academia goddam near selects for narcissists.

      • Mathguy says:

        Maybe in the humanities and law. It is certainly not true about the sciences.

        • postmodulator says:

          I am in fact including the sciences. I too am actually a math guy.

          • Lee Rudolph says:

            Am I a turtlemath guy too? You bet your sweet ass I am!

            But I have to say that I agree with Mathguy here, that “tenure-track academia” in the sciences—including mathematics and computer science—does not “goddam near select[] for narcissists” (possibly excepting biology, which seems to have far more than its fair share of egotistical assholes—present company’s fathers excepted, of course—which I assume is more or less the same as narcisisstic), even if “tenure-track academia” in general does. In nearly 50 years of rubbing shoulders (and nothing else!) with tenured, tenure-track, and non-tenure-track mathematical academics, and people aspiring to be such, I don’t think I’ve run into (or even heard about) more than half a dozen prima donna types. (Of course, I’ve largely hung out with a geometric/topological crowd, particularly in my maturity. There are certainly some other specialties about which I’ve heard rumors…) If anything, academic mathematicians (in my experience) tend to be somewhat diffident (as in the joke, how can you tell that a mathematician is an extravert? while he [gender chosen deliberately] is speaking to you, he stares at your shoes, not his own).

            postmodulator, do you mean to include mathematicians among “scientists”, and, if so, do you want to give any examples (suitably disguised if necessary) for Mathguy and me to chew on?

            • N__B says:

              One of you has to leave if we’re going to get to an answer. There’s no solution to the three mathguy problem.

            • postmodulator says:

              Do I want to start telling professor horror stories? No. I did end-user tech support for a university for several years, although I don’t do it now. Prima donna behavior amongst professors was a given in those interactions, to the point where the exceptions were more notable than the rule. (You know the old thing about how you judge someone by how he or she treats your waitress, not by how he or she treats you? I tend to think that generalizes to the entire service sector.)

              I believe it was a bio science guy who decided that we were responsible for the porn spam he was getting, and started forwarding every piece of spam he received to us. And also to the president of the university. He said he would stop when we “did something.”

              For some of the full math profs, teaching the intro calc classes brought out the worst in them. Didn’t we know they were geniuses? Why were we wasting their time with our questions?

              I *think* it was someone in the hard sciences who wanted to know why her email address was publicly viewable and her students would be able to email her. I didn’t explain that allowing her students to email was the principal, though not the only, reason we had provided her the email address in the first place.

              The most famously prima-donna behavior we got out of anyone at the university — a person who demanded endless special treatment, literally going beyond the capabilities of what the technology at the time could do — was in an engineering specialty.

              It got to the point where the only war stories IT people traded with each other about the professoriate had to involve demonstrable idiocy, not just self-involved behavior. (Actual idiocy, not stereotypical absent-minded professor crap.) A professor who appeared to be a native English speaker who had to sound things out when reading them, like a first-grader. Another one who misspelled the name of the department in which he taught in an email to us. Twice, the same way, so we’re not talking about a typo here. It wasn’t a particularly hard word to spell.

              I ended up just telling professor horror stories after all, didn’t I?

  6. larry says:

    Here is part of a post by Nancy Leong on PrawfsBlawg.

    “But why is it problematic if white people exaggerate their non-white friendships, or if white people emphasize convergences between their own views and those of non-white individuals? As I see it, the concern is that white people are using non-white people as a source of social capital and racial credibility without actually attempting to engage in meaningful interracial relationships. Because of the value associated with non-white racial identity, white people see non-white people as a means to benefit themselves rather than as intrinsically valuable friends and associates. Of course this isn’t true of every relationship between a white person and a non-white person, or even of most such relationships. But the value associated with non-whiteness — a value both reflected and reinforced by the diversity rationale and the surrounding social preoccupation with diversity — creates incentives for shallow relationships and affiliations without creating parallel incentives for the harder work of cross-racial engagement and understanding.”

    http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2012/05/non-white-friends-1.html

    • CJColucci says:

      I ran this by my black wife and she said “What the fuck?” I expect when I run it by my Japanese stepmother, she’ll have a similar reaction, except she’ll probably be more polite about it. Or did I just step into an unacceptable ethnic stereotype?

    • Ronan says:

      modern america seems obsessed by race. to an astonishing degree

      • Lee Rudolph says:

        America has always been obsessed with race to an astonishing degree. The manner in which that obsession has been expressed varies from era to era and from place to place; but it never, nowhere, disappears.

  7. Blip says:

    It is shameful that, after all the sexist and other harassment that dybbuk and his ilk have heaped on this untenured professor (and encouraged from others) over the course of more than a year, that Campos has piled on with his second derogatory post about her in two days. It is shameful that he and others are parsing her wedding announcement, citing his “sources” at UCLA where she is apparently looking for a job as if he has some inside info about her. I hope she sues this tenured professor for defamation. His headline in yesterday’s post certainly sounds defamatory to me and wholly invented out of thin air.

    • flingo says:

      It’s thoroughly messed up that Campos has chosen to attack Leong by questioning her racial identity (biracial people can indeed be subject to racism) and deriding her scholarship as an exercise in pure narcissism. This is sexist, racist garbage and LGM should be ashamed for publishing it.

      • pseudalicious says:

        +1,000. My jaw’s on the floor.

      • L2P says:

        has chosen to attack Leong by questioning her racial identity (biracial people can indeed be subject to racism)…

        If you’re picking THAT up from what Campos wrote you’re saying more about yourself than the post. Nowhere does he imply Leong isn’t subject to racism; at most he writes that the scholarship is shoddy and doesn’t show anything about overall racial attitudes.

        and deriding her scholarship as an exercise in pure narcissism.

        Her “experiment,” as described BY HER, is all about how SHE is treated. She’s literally saying, “This is stuff that happened to MEEEEEEEE!” and drawing conclusions from it. What is that if not narcissism, especially in the context of the thousands of studies about racial interaction dealing with test subjects, surveys, and double blind experiments?

        Did you know, for example, that extremely similar things (they could be described as “exactly the same”) happen to white women on mostly Asian dating sites? Go to a Chinese dating site (i.e., one in China, in Mandarin) and look at what is sent to white women who post there. She has shown nothing, literally nothing, about how people treat Asians.

        That’s why it’s narcissistic. It’d be awesome if she actually did a useful study of racial attitudes towards dating. In fact, there are LOTS of them out there. But she didn’t. This is nothing more than a Jezebel post about how she was treated on a dating site.

        Which is fine, I love Jezebel, but it’s not scholarship and embarrassing to read from a law professor.

        • Nowhere does he imply Leong isn’t subject to racism

          Yesterday:

          All this is adding up to a particularly preposterous example of how some people who have spent their entire lives near the top of the American SES pyramid will strive to leverage their very tenuously racialized identities into yet more social privilege.

          And this post is explicitly a justification of that claim. If he had excluded “tenuously racialized identities” and just said “racial identities” instead, he’d have obviously sounded like a Red State poster. So the claim is extended to suggest that she’s not really a person of color, and the evidence is that she can pass for white.

        • Anonymous says:

          The comparison is apt only under the premise that the United States can be characterized as a racially white country in the same sense that China can be characterized as a racially Asian country.

        • Anonymous says:

          The comparison is apt only under the ahistorical and offensive premise that the United States can be characterized as a racially white country in the same sense that China can be characterized as a racially Asian country.

        • justaguy says:

          Her “experiment,” as described BY HER, is all about how SHE is treated. She’s literally saying, “This is stuff that happened to MEEEEEEEE!” and drawing conclusions from it. What is that if not narcissism, especially in the context of the thousands of studies about racial interaction dealing with test subjects, surveys, and double blind experiments?

          And what about all of the ethnographic studies of race, wherein people use their own experiences to draw conclusions? Sorry, participant observation is a central mode of social science inquiry, and is not inherently narcissistic. Surveys and experiments can’t investigate social situated interactions in everyday life, ethnography can.

    • Anonymous says:

      defamation? Really? You must be a sock puppet and a Law Prof because you obviously don’t understand the term.

    • Evan says:

      Bullshit.

  8. RPL says:

    Holy shit! Did she actually take this through an IRB? Because she has identified a specific human subject by a specific internet handle, which may, or may not, be anonymous. Many, as you know Paul from your stint as “Lawprof,” as vey thin shields. Permitting the ID of a specific human subject to be discovered is a matter about which IRB’s have very little sense of humor.

    • djw says:

      That jumped out at me, too.

    • LeeEsq says:

      Its like the “experiments” short men do to porve that tall guys have it easier in dating than short guys, publish the same profile but have two different heights one short and one tall and see what gets more results. I’m only 5’5″ but it really shouldn’t be that surprising that height is considered a physically attractive feature in men.

      People fetishize traits in other people. Maybe its something that humans shouldn’t do, it certainly has a fair amount of negative consequences. I can’t figure out away to stop it. Most people simply fetishize whatever trait they like, don’t think about it too much, and go on with their lives. They often don’t like being a subject of fetishization but people are hypocritical that way.

    • Blip says:

      From the very beginning of the link to Human Subjects research regulations in OP:

      “This guidance document applies to research involving human subjects that is conducted or supported by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).”

      Is OP claiming that this project is covered by an HHS grant?

      • Warren Terra says:

        1) Campos linked the HHS guidelines thing; Leong didn’t, so far as I can tell.
        2) You can imagine that journals in relevant fields might require that the authors affirm guidelines were followed with human subjects, etcetera. If this is so, any professional work aimed at publication would be well advised to follow those guidelines, even if it didn’t receive funding from HHS.

      • Not a Philosophy Professor says:

        All research universities have strict regulations regarding research involving human subjects. The University of Denver certainly does.

        • Lee Rudolph says:

          There are, however, exceptions—at least there were at my university of last employment, where one exception was for research with human subjects used only for teaching purposes. Perhaps Denver’s IRB guidelines have some exception (even, perhaps, that one) which can colorably be applied to the research project in question.

          • RPL says:

            Not if she publishes it on a public blog, which she has.

            • Jordan says:

              So, your contention is that identifying pseudonyms on a public blog related to a topic that you have a research interest in violates IRB standards?

              Or is it identifying a specific human person behind an internet pseudonym that violates those standards?

              If either is so, I don’t think you are advocating for Campos as well as you could be.

              • Bijan Parsia says:

                First, I think people who do human research should always aim for very high ethical standards regardless of a specific IRB. The IRB is there to help us, not to be gotten around.

                Second, I think that if you identify something as part of, even if a precursor, to research on humans, you should be super careful. We want a strong ethical culture here.

                There are a lot of potential issues with the preliminary study as published including (lack of) informed consent, privacy, and harm to participants (eg through exposure). And of course the value of the research has to justify the risks and costs.

                • Jordan says:

                  Yeah, this all makes sense. I just honestly don’t see the difference between Yeong quoting AZNLUVR69 saying “We should get together! I LOVE Asian women and they love me!!!” on her personal blog on a research topic she is interested in and any of the active academic frontpagers here citing pseudonymous commenters in blog posts they make on topic related to their interests.

                  /Well, I do, because AZNLUV69 is terrible, and people the other front pagers might quote are less terrible, but you know what I mean, and if anything it helps my point.

                  I mean, have you or others got on to the other front pagers for doing this in the past? If not, why not?

                  (Or, again, most likely scenario: I am being stupid and missing something).

                • (the other) Davis says:

                  I just honestly don’t see the difference between Yeong quoting AZNLUVR69 saying “We should get together! I LOVE Asian women and they love me!!!” on her personal blog on a research topic she is interested in and any of the active academic frontpagers here citing pseudonymous commenters in blog posts they make on topic related to their interests.

                  The differences seem pretty obvious to me.

                  One is a private message, solicited by the recipient in a private forum, which the sender was unknowingly contributing for research purposes. The other is an unsolicited statement in a public forum, which the sender knowingly contributed as part of a public conversation.

                • Bijan Parsia says:

                  (the other) Davis gets at key aspects of it. There are significant differences between public and (somehow) private data and between spontaneous and deceptively provoked behaviours and between discussion and experimentation.

                  If one of the front pagers were running an experiment on trolling leftier than thou types, I would have similar concerns but I suspect they would be more easily satisfied.

                  Again the specific differential risk of harm is lower, the reasonable expectations are different, and we’d have to ask what the aim of the research was.

                  And note that I don’t claim she has definitely crossed the line, only that the fact that its preliminary and only a blog post does not provide an absolute shield and that her current behavior doesn’t exhibit best practice.

                  Here’s an example. I’m pretty interested in examining commenting trends on this blog esp differential responses to perceived male and female front pagers. I’m interested in both techniques and results and would consider both publishable.

                  If I were just doing this for “internal to the blog” purposes (ie to add a feature to the troll management tools) or, as I’ve done in the past, in order to make a point in a discussion, I’d be pretty comfortable with no solicitation of ethics review. If I were planning to publish stuff about the commenters, I would check in with the ethics officer. It’s probably perfectly fine, but a key point of modern research ethics is not to depend on interested researchers judgements.

                • Lee Rudolph says:

                  If one of the front pagers were running an experiment on trolling leftier than thou types,

                  “If?”

                  “One”??

                • Jordan says:

                  Cool, thanks for the well thoughtful response, Bijan.

              • justaguy says:

                The ethical issue is informed consent. People have to be given the opportunity to make an informed decision to consent to their participation in research. Leong’s description of her research is dishonest – she is creating interactions with people under the pretense that she’s looking for a date, not informing them that they’re participating in a research project.

                And this is why law professors without actual training in social science research methodologies shouldn’t be doing research on human subjects. That’s something really basic and fundamental to ethical research.

                • Jordan says:

                  Still don’t think she is really doing “research” in any more meaningful sense than the front-pagers are here, but thanks.

              • justaguy says:

                The ethical issue is informed consent. People have to be given the opportunity to make an informed decision to consent to their participation in research. Leong’s description of her research is dishonest – she is creating interactions with people under the pretense that she’s looking for a date, not informing them that they’re participating in a research project.

                So, it doesn’t matter if she never publishes their names or any of her correspondence with them, she elicited their interaction with her under false pretenses. It might lead to interesting data, but you can’t lie to your research subjects.

                And this is why law professors without actual training in social science research methodologies shouldn’t be doing research on human subjects. That’s something really basic and fundamental to ethical research.

      • RPL says:

        Blip: There is no chance HHS would fund this drivel. But all research universities have adopted these regs, or very similar protocols, for all human subjects data research. If she is collecting data from human subjects on attitudes toward race and sex without IRB approval it is a very serious matter, far more serious than publishing drivel in a law review (which is pretty much par for the course). If she breached the privacy of a human subject on a public web log the IRB at DU will not be amused.

        • postmodulator says:

          That part of it, the breaching identity part, is literally on a level with some 4chan pranks of a decade or so ago. Post phony dating profile, get perverted message, mock the perv.

          I can see potential benefit to the research — in particular, guys with “a thing for Asian women” skeeve me the fuck out, and I’m all for shaming them in a general sense — but my feeling is that one’s research proposal should not cite Encyclopedia Dramatica.

          • Jordan says:

            True. And that is why this isn’t a research proposal. Or even an abstract. It is a stupid blog post.

            • postmodulator says:

              Yeah, that does soften it some.

            • Bijan Parsia says:

              There’s lots of preliminary research work which, if low risk, doesn’t necessarily need IRB approval. Publishing stuff on a weblog is a grey area but, in general, the strong presumption should be in favor of the participants.

              Which is why I think, Jordan, that you’re overstating your point. Yes, this is super preliminary but it’s best to begin as you mean to go on. If Leong is going to do this sort of research there are a lot of ethical issues to be dealt with (informed consent, privacy, risk to participants). And I don’t just mean generically: the sort of thing she already did needs some thought and care.

              • Jordan says:

                Yeah, I am probably just angry because my (american) football team got destroyed tonight, and that is clouding my judgment. (Well, also, beer).

                But, honestly, what has Yeong done that Campos has not on this this issue with regards to identifying people on the internet? Naming on a public blog a pseudonym? Publicly identifying the real name of someone behind a pseudonym? Both have to do with their research, after all.

                Anyways: there are two things here. Her treatment of this dybbok person, and her treatment of AZNLUVR69.

                For Dybbok, her treatment seems excessive and wrong, (but what do I know) and in any case not related to any alleged IRB type of infraction.

                The (very) alleged IRB infraction is her citing of AZNLUVR69 on her personal blog. And that was simply an elicited example of skeevy behavior.

                I mean, suppose Erik Loomis makes a blog post quoting a pseudonym saying something anti-labor as a part of his research projects. Suppose Robert Farley makes a blog post quoting a pseudonym saying something pro-Air-Force as a part of his research project. Suppose Lemieux makes a blog post quoting a pseudonym saying something about the bully pulpit could turn everything around as a part of his research project.

                I wouldn’t be surprised if those things had happened. What is the difference here? That she explicitly said it was a precursor to her research project? That doesn’t seem good enough.

                I mean, I guess what she does needs to be done carefully. But … doesn’t every other single academic who blogs ever have to be done carefully as well?

                (and, honestly, I could be very wrong. Like I said: angry and drunk. Let let me know if I am wrong).

                • wjts says:

                  I wouldn’t be surprised if those things had happened. What is the difference here?

                  To play devil’s advocate, I suppose that one could argue that there is perhaps some expectation of privacy on the part of someone who emails someone else within the confines of a dating site. That said, noting that someone with a username like “AZNLUVR69″ said something obnoxious about a woman of Asian descent does not strike me as a particularly egregious invasion of privacy.

                • Jordan says:

                  Yeah, I guess. But it is pretty tenuous. Emailing a random person you don’t know because you are a racist and want to skeeve on them doesn’t seem *that* much more deserving of privacy than commenting with a pseudonym on a blog, really. But, I suppose, it is a difference.

                  And yeah. I guess I just don’t believe that blog/twitter/whatever posts ought to come under academic sanction (who does that sound like?) and that you ought to suffer the consequences for your online speech (who does that sound like?).

                  Obviously, that is a way simplistic and POLITICS HOT TAKE and over the top way of putting it. But still.

                • Jordan says:

                  “contradiction” in there on purpose, just so everyone knows

                • Bijan Parsia says:

                  First, let me say that I don’t know that Leong has crossed any ethical line. But I don’t think downplaying possible issues is a good idea.

                  But, honestly, what has Yeong done that Campos has not on this this issue with regards to identifying people on the internet? Naming on a public blog a pseudonym? Publicly identifying the real name of someone behind a pseudonym? Both have to do with their research, after all.

                  For me the core difference is that Leong has performed an experimental intervention, and , afaict, intends to do more such. At that point, issues with informed consent rear up. The fact that deception was used and the risks are potentially severe also weigh in.

                  In all your hypothetical examples people are quoting unsolicited public materials. It seems quite different.

                • Bijan Parsia says:

                  And yeah. I guess I just don’t believe that blog/twitter/whatever posts ought to come under academic sanction (who does that sound like?) and that you ought to suffer the consequences for your online speech (who does that sound like?).

                  IRB sanctions are generally pretty mild for this sort of thing, eg, no insurance cover or not being usuable for degree progression or perhaps promotion.

                  But look, if you are going to do research on human beings, it behoove,you to exercise a good deal of care and have a great deal of regard for the participants. This is both because without such a culture horrible things happen and because the act of experimenting on people threatens their dignity as persons.

                • Jordan says:

                  Sure, and thanks again Bijan.

                  I guess I don’t see a blog post as constituting a research project, when she says it is a precursor to a, well, research project.

                  That said, there are real issues here, so thanks again.

                • Bijan Parsia says:

                  Preliminary experiments are still experiments. I’m not sure what work “research project” is doing but all phases of research on humans needs some thought.

                  Now if she’s just priming the pump for some conceptual work then it’s probably fine though, I imagine, still unnecessary. Unnecessary research involving the manipulation of people is not typically a good idea.

                  The risk of harm seems low, but the harms risked are not trivial (imagine you had been one of the respondents and you read her blog posts; even if your ID were secure you might experience shame, fear, embarrassment, etc.; if your ID was exposed you might suffer job or relationship problems as well as social stigma). Given the low value of potential results (independently of the value of her research or experiment design, it’s hard to see that such matters haven’t been adequately covered) and the ease of eliminating the risks, it is prima facie unethical to run those risks. We need to be extra careful given that the participants are…icky. Icky people deserve proper consideration as well.

                  Now, if she were engaged in a bit of activism, things might be different. It’s an interesting question.

                • Warren Terra says:

                  More to the point, actual sociologists exist. They conduct serious, well-planned, carefully considered studies into racism and other aspects of human interaction. They do so with some command of the literature, some knowledge of other experiments that have happened before and the researchers who performed them. They do so according to professional standards and subject to oversight, and they typically do it while earning half to two-thirds of what a law professor makes.

                  The blog post strongly suggests this person is engaging in some half-assed pop sociology. That’s her right, of course – but it’s not remotely a professional qualification that she does so. If she wants to do this for professional advancement, she should do it to the relevant standards (relevant scholarly standards for sociology, not for law), and even then it wouldn’t be completely clear how a sociology result would contribute to the legal scholarship that is demanded of her.

                  In other words, this is a blog post that, as it thus far stands, is at best completely irrelevant to her career as a law professor: it’s not about the law, and it doesn’t significantly add to our awareness that racists exist. But, as a blog post, it doesn’t have to be relevant to her career as a law professor: all it has to do is not be a major embarrassment to her colleagues, as judged on a fairly lenient standard.

                  If we want to judge her qualifications as a law professor, we should look at the relevant materials: her actual published scholarship, and perhaps what little can be determined about her performance as an instructor, or even about her performance as a colleague. Alternatively, we can discuss the ethics of her allegedly filing a complaint with the bar, allegedly against Dybbuk – though I’d argue the two topics should be kept entirely separate.

                  What we shouldn’t be doing is to take so very seriously some goddam blog post about her apparent hobby of pop sociology (at least until she claims it’s part of her academic career rather than a hobby), nor should anyone be discussing her race or gender, which are no-one’s damned business.

                • Bijan Parsia says:

                  What we shouldn’t be doing is to take so very seriously some goddam blog post about her apparent hobby of pop sociology (at least until she claims it’s part of her academic career rather than a hobby), nor should anyone be discussing her race or gender, which are no-one’s damned business.

                  She claims that it was precursor work for a research project and she identifies a problem (roughly, sophistication in expression of racial prejudice leading to the idea that US society is post racial) which is relevant to her work.

                  I don’t see why we shouldn’t take her claims at face value nor do I see that this pilot is obviously irrelevant to legal scholarship. Nor are academics forbidden from using methodologies from other fields.

                  The problem with Paul’s critique is that it imputes motivation (eg narcissism) where he has no evidence and plays the “is this the kind of research sneer sneer we should be paying for” line which is rarely a good idea. (The problems with law publication are worth discussing of course, but cherry picking preliminary work is not compelling.)

                  The problem with the “Oooo, oooo, the IRB will be all over this” is that that overstates the case. There are some potential issues, but for all we know she sorted them out in advance.

    • Informant says:

      The idea that a law professor might take anything to an IRB is absurdly funny. (I was on the boards of two different law journals and never heard of any paper that we received having been through any sort of IRB process. I also worked as a research assistant for two different law professors and never heard anything mentioned about that.)

      • anon lawprof says:

        Our law school regularly has training sessions on going through the IRB process, and on knowing when to go through the IRB process. It probably varies law school by law school. (Note: It’s not required for articles to have some text in them explaining that the researchers went through the IRB process. One of my recent papers, in which the research did go through IRB, doesn’t say anything about it in the paper. But there’s records on file at my university. My point is that you wouldn’t necessarily see that on the editor end.)

  9. Anon LP says:

    Law students and recent graduates often complain about the scholarship published by law professors. However, since students are running most of the law reviews, they are the ones responsible for publishing this worthless junk. Law review editors need to take responsibility for what they publish.

    • MacK says:

      Excuse me – but how the f*ck is a second year law student reviewer of submissions supposed to have any idea what is puerile horseshit? Seems to me that the faculty at law schools have established student run law reviews to ensure that no one with any real legal experience or knowledge actually reviews their “scholarship” – or scholarshit

      • J. Otto Pohl says:

        I never did understand why law as opposed to every other academic discipline has its journals edited by students rather than people with terminal degrees.

      • Nobdy says:

        Oh, they know it’s horsepoo. We all knew it was horsepoo. The problem is that there’s enormous pressure on them to A) Find SOMETHING to publish since there are far more law journals than worthwhile law review pieces to fill them and B) Publish the right people.

        Law review editors need to rely on their professors to grade them and, more importantly, recommend them for clerkships and fellowships and the like. When a law professor says “Could you look at this article my friend Nancy wrote, I think it could be perfect for your journal” well, what are they supposed to respond?

        “Nope, this is puerile garbage. Can I have a recommendation for the judge you clerked for?”

        It’s true that law reviews are not COMPLETELY captured by law professors, but the idea that they are fully independent and can so easily point out that the emperor has no clothes is naive and idealistic. Nobody is willing to nip their budding career just to keep Nancy Leong from publishing junk.

        Note: I have no idea if there was direct intercession to get Leong’s article published, but even in the absence of that there is pressure to publish certain types of articles from certain types of authors (Rising young woman of color academic?) Maybe that didn’t apply here, maybe they just had terrible taste and loved the article, but it definitely applies some of the time.

        • Paul Campos says:

          Yeah it’s an extremely corrupt system, which people on the inside more or less acknowledge, but then ignore whenever it suits their purposes (“He/she has really good placements” — as if that means anything.)

          The sad thing is a lot of this probably isn’t so much hypocrisy as much as it is professionally adaptive doublethink.

      • Anonymous says:

        This,

    • BoredJD says:

      Also remember that a lot of the students have no idea what constitutes an important or pressing legal issue. These second or third law students have not had any more than the most cursory exposure to several broad areas of law. It’s asking someone who knows that water consists of some hydrogen and oxygen to evaluate articles for a chemistry journal.

      One idea I’ve seen bandied about is that the length of law review articles and the massive expository sections are primarily intended for the editors in order to give them a basic overview of whatever topic the article is on.

      The article is likely to be something that sticks in the mind of a law review editor sorting through dozens of pieces they don’t understand and aren’t qualified to judge.

    • Informant says:

      Speaking from firsthand experience, a lot of law reviews/journals are desperate for papers just to fill out space. Thus, even if a paper is clearly bad, you probably can find someone, somewhere willing to publish it just because they need to get at least another 30 pages of content to meet a minimum volume size.

  10. fledermaus says:

    While I wait for the popcorn to finish popping, I just want to add a few things.

    The problem that non-lawyers don’t understand is just how useless our legal education is and how much is charged for it. Those of us who have passed the bar and gotten a chance to practice look at this scholarship and just shake our heads in disbelief.

    It also doesn’t help that lawprofs (the most visible, at least) tend to adopt a smarmy attitude in response to even the most polite criticism (Ms. Leong’s initial post to JDU was filled with smarm). It is this attitude that will get people’s hackles up and leads cheap shots at any out of touch lawprof who pops up on the radar.

    It also doesn’t help that law schools have spent years publishing deceptive employment outcomes to justify the high cost of tuition.

    Also there is a natural tendency to want to defend dybbuk based on this other works at OTLSS and JDU where he takes down lawprof’s laughable pretensions to scholarship, male or female (for one of my favorites see this thread on andre douglas pond cummings, Indiana Tech’s newest lawprof.

    Finally, many of us on the law school is a scam side have worked, or a currently working as an attorney. It’s not a pleasant job and it causes a certain jaded attitude toward harsh, demeaning or outright uncivil comments because we’ve heard it all. I have even managed to offend myself in my more frustrated moments. Of course bad behaviors is no response to bad behavior, but when the perpetrator comes along putting on airs and talking about “your little friends” (hey, I’m shorter than average – bar complaint!), well you can see how that might push people into less than thoughtful comments.

  11. Nobdy says:

    Nancy Leong’s work does not appear to constitute good scholarship or writing or really anything of value (not that the underlying issues aren’t important, but she addresses them poorly and also why is this the work of a law professor and not a sociologist or critical race theorist?)

    That being said, I think that Professor Campos should make this his last post about Leong and move on to other targets. As he says she is not atyptical in the low quality of her scholarship or her sense of entitlement or really in any way. She is no more worthy of scorn than hundreds of other law professors of every age and sex (though mostly white males since most law professors are white males)

    Picking specifically on her (especially as what appears to be an offshoot of criticisms that, while they may be valid, appeared on a message board with crude racist and sexist comments) makes for TERRIBLE optics. You are now singling out a woman of color for no particular reason (as compared to other bad law professors) and attacking her repeatedly. Whether or not her claims of racism and sexism have merit (and they do, though not as much or in the ways that she claims) you are creating the appearance of racism and sexism and in doing so undermining your credibility and that of your entire project.

    Nancy Leong is merely a symptom of the disease, and not an unusual one. She is a distraction from the main issues and a potentially disasterous cul-de-sac for your arguments. There’s nothing more that needs to be said about her.

    • James E Powell says:

      I, too, wondered what it was about this law professor’s silly stuff that made it stand out from every other law professor’s silly stuff. Was it the fact that she (reportedly) filed a bar complaint against her critic? Or did that come after she was singled out?

    • Tristan says:

      Nancy Leong’s work does not appear to constitute good scholarship or writing or really anything of value (not that the underlying issues aren’t important, but she addresses them poorly and also why is this the work of a law professor and not a sociologist or critical race theorist?)

      As lots of people stated in the other thread, there’s a real undergraduate feel to the writing, and as I said there, speaking as someone who did write a lot of sociology papers as an undergrad, even that’s being too kind. The blog post someone pointed to upthread (admittedly pretty inherently different from an academic paper, but she’s definitely still writing about her thesis) really jumped out at me: “As I see it, the concern is that white people are using non-white people as a source of social capital and racial credibility without actually attempting to engage in meaningful interracial relationships.” The bolded bit, the ‘this is just my opinion’ caveat – that’s a writing habit I disabused myself of in academic writing, at the urging of professors, in my first year. Again, it’s in the blog post not the paper, so I may be over reacting, but like I said it jumped out immediately because it’s exactly the sort of thing I almost ritualistically found myself typing out and then immediately editing dozens of times a month when I was nineteen. “Don’t mince a position piece by going out of your way to clarify it’s just your position” is something I’ve probably retained better than any actual course subject.

    • MacK says:

      I think her deciding, probably at Brian Leiter’s instigation, to file an ethics complaint on ludicrous grounds against Dybbuk – and to engage in Leiteresque stalking and privacy violations, not to mention SIX articles attacking as sexist racist and -ist those who criticise the law school system has earned her much of what is coming her way here….

      • Warren Terra says:

        Well, no. I think it may have earned her contempt and unfriendly discussion. It may well have earned her a scrutiny and evisceration of her professional work. But it hasn’t earned her some of the openly disgusting comments in the threads (by commenters I don’t recognize at LGM, thankfully), and it hasn’t earned her Campos’s bizarre investigation of her somehow “tenuous” racial identity. A not-insignificant part of the backlash to her actions is serving only to make her look more justified.

        • MacK says:

          The tenuous racial identity thing I am afraid was earned. Her complaint against dybbuk – apparently the basis of her bar complaint was that in making a pun about “gravy train …. Or .. Luau train” he was making a racist attack on her alleged Hawaiian ancestry. Now the complaint was dishonest horseshit on her part, but what really makes it outrageous is her statement that her appearance is racially ambiguous – that she could be regarded as white. It establishes that she knew her accusation against Dybbuk was false when she made it – since as she has acknowledged he might not have a solid reason to know she was Asian, of for that matter Hawaiian/Polynesian.

          She has chosen to dig herself a magnificent hole – and she is evidently still shovelling.

          And inter alia, there were few disgusting remarks that I saw here – in JDU many were juvenile and stupid – and I avoid it for that reason. I see little reason to engage in some of the sexism that a few on those forums display – but I will note that at ITLSS I pointed them out to Paul Campos and he deleted them – and many others sua sponte.

    • Gregor Sansa says:

      Nobdy hits it out of the park here.

  12. LeeEsq says:

    The best professors I had in law school were the ones with at least some actual experience as a lawyer. The ones that went straight into academia tended not to be so good.

    • N__B says:

      IMO that’s true of professors in any professional field. Having a big divide between practice and theory is good for no one in the long run.

      • John Doheny says:

        Academics with real-world experience in any field have become pretty rare birds. University architecture faculties are often populated by profs who’ve never had one of their designs actually built, for instance.

        In my own field (music) I naively assumed that 20 years experience as a professional jazz musician as well as an extensive discography, post-graduate (MA) credentials, and years of teaching experience would make me a desirable commodity to any university music department. What it actually makes me is a threat to the fragile egos of people who’ve spent their entire careers in academia and can’t play their way out of a paper bag.

        Of course law profs don’t want real, practising lawyers on the faculty. They’d look sad by comparison.

        • N__B says:

          I was specifically thinking of my experiences with engineering, architecture, and historic preservation faculty. In a lot of cases I’ve seen, adjuncts are used for certain classes because the coursework requires recent knowledge of practice.

        • LeeEsq says:

          A professor of architecture that never had one his or her designs actually built? I can’t see what could possibly go wrong with this.

      • joe from Lowell says:

        The best professors I had in city planning school were a professor who had his own planning-consulting firm and had previously had a career as a city planner; a “professor” who was the local planning director as his day job and taught a class every semester; and a sociologist who went directly to grad school and had never practiced as a planner in her life.

      • Johnny Sack says:

        Let’s not forget that one of the leading constitutional law scholars, if not the leading constitutional law scholar, Larry Tribe, has argued in the Supreme Court a few dozen times.

        I’m trying to remember who my professors were. My crim law professor (as so many are) was an AUSA. He was great, better than someone who’s never practiced criminal law, but I feel like you can probably get more from a local prosecutor than a federal one when it comes to basic crim. More advanced stuff like white collar an AUSA is great.

        My Torts prof was a new professor who specialized in intellectual property stuff. A John Edwards type might be very useful for this type of class. But a high schooler could probably teach Torts, so who cares.

        My Civ Pro professor was probably one of the best professor I ever had. He was a full professor, an academic, but he was still an active “big deal” litigator. His depth of experience profoundly shaped his teaching, for the better.

        Then the best after him were: an “ivory tower” academic, but it was con law, so I don’t have a problem with that. And then some highly specific subjects taught by non-academic practitioners, several of whom we were on a first name basis with. That was a great way to learn.

        • Jaded says:

          My favorite law professor was a former Supreme Court advocate with the US Solicitor General’s Office, who had argued countless cases before the Court. His comments on issues of constitutional law had a flavor to them you just can’t find easily. Another favorite of mine who taught civ pro would regale us with stories of his civil litigation battles from the trenches in many high profile, high stakes cases. It was awesome. He made civ pro exciting. Yet another favorite who taught Evidence was an AUSA.

          Come on. This isn’t a coincidence. Experience matters. I am genuinely offended and angered that people like Professor Leong, who has not a single day of credible experience as a lawyer (drafting the legal discussion section of an appellate brief is not “experience,” I’m sorry), are the basis for charging astronomical tuition to our broke and underemployed law students at mediocre law schools. She deserves scorn. And when she cries racism, cries sexism, and then throws in a frivolous bar complaint to boot, she deserves even more scorn. If she doesn’t like it, she is perfectly free to stop blogging and publishing law review articles, thereby removing herself from the sphere of debate.

    • NewishLawyer says:

      I am going to dissent a little.

      All of my law school professors had some practical experience but many did become professors in their late 20s to early 30s.

      I also had some professors who were adjuncts while still working as practicing lawyers at major firms and jobs.

      The best professors were the long-timers. They were really good at teaching the material. Some of the adjuncts were fine but others were horrible professors. One of the adjuncts plaragized the final exam.

      • Jordan says:

        There is something too this, for sure. Just like actually practicing law is, presumably, a useful skill for teaching law so is, you know, the skill of actually teaching.

        • NewishLawyer says:

          Right. I don’t disagree that there are professors out there with too little real world experience but I don’t think they need a decade of it. It seems pretty odd to ask someone to make up to being offered a partnership and then become a professor.

          How much experience do we want professors to have? Alan Dershowitz became a professor very young but continued to practice (whatever you think of his career.) Kathleen Sullivan and Elena Kagan went back to practicing with great capacity in private and public practice respectively.

          People often seem to criticize the “revolving door” between government and academia depending on the party in charge so this seems to be a case where you can please anyone at any time.

          • Jordan says:

            Yeah. Again, not a lawyer. But wouldn’t most partners (of the type to be considered) make more money as practicing lawyers than full-time professors? Or am I wrong?

            • jim, some guy in iowa says:

              it seems to me there’s a lot of angling for the role of ‘celebrity lawyer’ so to speak – they don’t want to practice law – or teach it – but if they come up with enough click bait, they can become semi notorious and make some $$

            • Denverite says:

              You’re wrong. Most law professors leave practice at a point when there is a very small chance that they would make partner (maybe one in four). Even fewer could go back as a partner after several years in academia.

              Biglaw partners make a LOT of money. High six figures, low seven. If profs could back and forth between teaching and that world, a lot more would. That they don’t means they can’t.

          • BoredJD says:

            “How much experience do we want professors to have? Alan Dershowitz became a professor very young but continued to practice (whatever you think of his career.) Kathleen Sullivan and Elena Kagan went back to practicing with great capacity in private and public practice respectively.”

            Well, the first is much different from the “hire them at 27 off a COA clerkship and a 2 year stint at Davis Polk” hiring pattern that is so prevalent nowadays. Someone who is still practicing in some capacity can use the work to inform the teaching or writing. There were also several judges who taught a class or two at my law school.

            On of my best professors was a guy who did almost no scholarly work after making tenure, but taught a few classes a semester and was a lawyer at a nonprofit. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the “revolving door” unless (1) professors are paid full-salaries for time they are essentially working other jobs, (2) professors use that experience to try and leverage “market” salaries from the law schools. It’s great that some professors can earn hundreds an hour consulting but their salaries need to be prorated to account for that.

            And I notice that a lot of the names bandied about in this subthread have been all appellate lawyers (Dershowitz is the exception). It’s obvious why that’s the case, but if we’re talking about practice experience, trial and deal and regulatory lawyers need to be represented too.

            • NewishLawyer says:

              Is it really so different?

              According to Wikipedia, Alan Dershowitz was hired by Harvard after one year clerking at the COA and one year clerking at the Supreme Court. He was 25, and made full professor three years later at 28.

              William O. Douglas did less than a full year in Big Law before joining the faculty at Yale.

              Kathleen Sullivan graduated from Harvard in 1981 and returned as a professor in 1984.

              Kagan seems to have the same clerking plus one or two years in Big Law before joining the faculty.

              I don’t disagree about the need for transactional and trial lawyers to become professors but I think the practice everyone is decrying is really pretty old and not related to the law-school crisis.

              • BoredJD says:

                Well, one problem is that there’s more of them, the teaching loads have gone down, and their compensation is higher than it used to be because schools have to keep up with the salaries paid elite law firms (and even the federal government pays over 100K starting). There’s been some research done (I’ll try and find the link) about how the bimodal salary distribution is only a creature of the last 15 years as salaries for the big firms have risen while the rest stayed the same.

                The other is that it might be fine for HYS to hire young superstar candidates, since those schools have a huge endowment and the students pretty much all get good jobs. It’s also fine for those schools to have 12 different student run law reviews and 10 clinics. But other schools should not be playing that game. That might kick off a whole new debate about a “two-tiered model of legal education.” I honestly don’t think there’s been much evidence that the current “one-tiered model of legal education” is that great except as a method of sorting students.

        • NewishLawyer says:

          Also as far as I can tell the complaint that law professors don’t have enough real world experience is as old as time and certainly well before the law school crisis.

          • Jordan says:

            Yeah, not a lawyer at all. Although I suppose the legitimate complaint could be that the big increase in law professor to law student ratios that Campos harps about could have been very heavily weighted to the “teaching” side as opposed to the “practice” side.

            But again, not a lawyer at all.

  13. Cathy says:

    What someone else quote above about her theory of white people engage in superficial relationships are true enough. It’s also an observation my roommate and I, both coming to the US for college, knew in our second year here. our strict tiger parents certainly want us to do more meaningful things with our time than digging into that discussion further.the privilege of having high salary and job security I guess.

    however, I for one are also dishearted by the constant minimizing of sexism and racial stereotyping some people in the anti law scam movement constantly engage in. In a very real way, it reduces my sympathy, and alinates me even more than the toilet tactics and other stuff going on earlier.. guess that my female and Asian experience is no joking matter in my judgement for things, even here. If she’s a hypocrite exploring the situation, many white males are her lead. If she’s a narcissistic enjoying being the centre of things, men, and white men in particular, are not complaining too much about that for many years.
    If she’s exploiting the racial and especially gender issue, then so many comments from last post and the anti scam movement in general, tells you why she can get away with it for so long.

    • Tristan says:

      What someone else quote above about her theory of white people engage in superficial relationships are true enough.

      The problem is this observation is so obviously true, and has been so thoroughly explored in academia, that even calling it ‘her’ theory almost denigrates it.

      ‘m in 100% agreement with your other two paragraphs. This in particular:

      If she’s exploiting the racial and especially gender issue, then so many comments from last post and the anti scam movement in general, tells you why she can get away with it for so long.

      Is very much a point worth taking into account.

      • Tristan says:
        What someone else quote above about her theory of white people engage in superficial relationships are true enough.

        The problem is this observation is so obviously true, and has been so thoroughly explored in academia, that even calling it ‘her’ theory almost denigrates it.

        Clarification: I hope it’s obvious my point is not that this is an area that should not be further explored, but rather that her approach is not a further exploration; it’s starting at the very beginning of a long well-trod path, and doing so with highly spurious methodology.

        • Jordan says:

          There is something to that, but it is just a dumb blog post. People are reading way, way too much into that. It is not remotely comparable to the previously linked piece, for pretty obvious reasons.

  14. Warren Terra says:

    Paul,
    The project you link doesn’t interest me in the slightest, enough that I didn’t read all of it, nor did I read the part I did read especially carefully.

    That being said, it’s a flipping blog post. There’s no evidence that it has been published or even submitted for review in any professional context – not to a sociology journal, not to a popular magazine, and certainly not to a law journal. All you know is that this is in some way related to a forthcoming “research project”. I’ll admit, it looks like the planned research project rather dire, and its connection to legal scholarship is hard to discern. Certainly it appears she intends to write about issues of race – though this hardly explains, let alone justifies, your weird fascination with her racial identity, that you claim is in some way “tenuous”. Still, again, it’s just a blog post so far; if and when this project takes form and becomes part of her CV, then you can question whether it really burnishes her reputation, whether it constitutes interesting legal scholarship, or indeed whether it’s worthwhile scholarship of any kind. So far, you’re making a big production of storming the gates of castles in the air, that you have yourself invented.

    By your account, she’s published four actual articles in the professional literature. If you feel the need to criticize her work, her career, or her chosen topics, you really ought to focus on those; getting into high dudgeon about her blog post really doesn’t suit you. The one article briefly excerpted in the other thread sounded pretty darn ludicrous, after all! This whole post, this search for deeper meaning in one blog post she wrote, rather belies your claim that you don’t want to make this about Leong in particular. Absent your weird fascination with this one person, I can’t imagine you criticizing the whole phenomenon of ambitious young legal academics on the basis of a single half-formed, possibly half-witted blog post!

    • J. Otto Pohl says:

      I actually think all of LGM should become devoted full time to a jihad against Professor Leong. Right now Professor Campos is doing all the work and that is intensely unfair. Other people like Spencer and SEK should also contribute. ;-)

      • somethingblue says:

        I dunno. What are Professor Leong’s views on the relationship between the Heritage Foundation health care plan and the (not at all similar!) Affordable Care Act?

      • Barry Freed says:

        A visual rhetoric analysis of her OKCupid profiles?

      • James E Powell says:

        Inquiring minds want to know if she likes vodka or, saints preserve us, ketchup.

        • Lee Rudolph says:

          And, after all, being (like Campos) in the host state of the Air Force Academy, she should definitely be subjected to having her writings—or conspicuous lack (or, worse, suppression!) thereof—on the role of air power thoroughly investigated. (As should Campos.) Also, too, where she stands on the Designated Hitter and leg-before-wicket issues. And free agency for tenured professors.

        • Joseph Slater says:

          Dang it, you beat me to it.

    • ChrisTS says:

      Thank you for this, Warren.

      Exactly what the F*** does “tenuously racialized” mean? That is profoundly disturbing.

      That this singling out of this one young prof continues is appalling. Is it dumb and even wrong of her to search out and file a complaint about an asshole who pestered her online? Yeah. But, I find it impossible to see how what Paul is doing is an acceptable response.

    • Jordan says:

      Crap, I should have read your post first. It says what I was trying to say, but much better.

  15. Cathy says:

    sorry for all the missepelling.. too excited on the Christmas Eve wine and lack of spelling checks on my phone..

  16. pseudalicious says:

    Um. What the fuck is this post doing on a blog that puports to be feminist and anti-racist? Jesus fucking Christ, I feel like I just stepped into NRO.

    • J. Otto Pohl says:

      Adding diversity? ;-)

    • MacK says:

      I know a lot of real women’s rights lawyers – some are family members, who have taken real risks, and would be appalled at a poseur like Ms. Leong’s conduct.

      But let me cross post form another forum what another lawyer, a woman, who joined the profession in a pretty sexist and racist state decades ago has to say about Ms. Leong’s bullshit, and for that matter pseudolicious:

      Wait a minute. Am I to understand that this woman filed a bar complaint for what you said on JD Underground? Really? I read what she says you said, on JDU, and I have to admit that as a woman, I’m not too fond of the sexual characterization (if you indeed wrote that). But, Jesus Wept, Ms. Leong! If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the f—— kitchen! (Whoops, she’s going to complain to my Board about me!). I’m a woman. I’ve practiced law for 27, long years. Trust me. I’ve heard worse. Much worse. From judges, even. And professors (my God, you have no idea what it use to be like). And you know what? I dealt with it . . . by ignoring it and got on with winning my case, or deposing my witness, or negotiating my settlement; because, you know . . . I’m a grown-up. Ms. Leong, if you want to whine about something, try coming out here in the real world and try to make a living while battling tort-reform, massive lawyer-overproduction, and ever-rising overhead. If I may speak as one of the old-guard women lawyers, I didn’t battle sexism in its most blatant and insidious forms so someone like you, who directly benefitted from those battles could use charges of “sexism” like a cudgel to shut up critics who find your law review articles the worse sort of pablum.

      By the way, Ms. Leong, if you took time from your oh so busy schedule, your oh so critical work of advancing the profession, to read my little, insignificant comment and if I have hurt your feelings and you wish to lodge a complaint against me (apparently, your retaliatory method of choice), you may send it to the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility.

      Tricia Dennis
      Chattanooga, TN

      • Origami Isopod says:

        Ah, yes. A man proclaims what feminists should and should not find sexist. Then he quotes a woman who does not support Leong, because if a woman declares something not to be sexist, obviously it can’t be sexist.

        Fail. Just like this post.

        • SV says:

          Oh no, she only says that it’s not as bad as what she has had to put up with in the past.

          Dear Muslima, there have been worse examples of sexism/misogyny/racism than what you’re complaining about, so shut your stupid whiny mouth. If anyone’s a victim, it’s me. Except I wasn’t such a wuss as to let it bother me. Get over it. What was even the point of my fighting back against sexism if twenty years later, women still denounce it? You should be more grateful.

          • Anonymous says:

            Yep. New female-sounding ‘nyms popping up to defend Campos should be immediately suspect.

            You’re fooling no one, bros.

            • postmodulator says:

              For what it’s worth, there is a Tricia Dennis who is a practicing attorney in Chattanooga:

              http://www.triciadennislaw.com/tricia-dennis-attorney-at-law-about.htm

              Entirely possible someone’s posing as her, obviously.

              • Warren Terra says:

                Oh, fantastic. One of the key issues here is Leong deciding to track down and confront a critic in real life, and perhaps threaten that critic’s livelihood (the reasons that inspired Leong and the magnitude of her response seem controversial and muddle) – and so you think it’d be nifty to post contact information that may or may not belong to this person “Tricia Dennis” commenting on another blog entirely? Are you flipping nuts? What possible good would that ever do? Criticize the heck out of “Tricia Dennis”‘s comment, if you like; better yet, go back to the blog where she commented and do it there! Disagree mightily! Applaud! Do what you likeas part of the conversation, within the bounds of the conversation! But why you had to connect this to her CV and contact information I cannot perceive.

                • postmodulator says:

                  What? I didn’t post the name Tricia Dennis, that was several comments up. I linked the results of like the first Google hit.

                  If that’s doxxing these days…well.

                • MacK says:

                  Tricia has not been secretive about her name on these issues in a long time. She makes a fair point.

            • Jordan says:

              MacK or SV are female sounding ‘nyms?

              • Warren Terra says:

                For some reason I thought I remembered seeing a recent comment in MacK said they were female, but when trying to find it all I came across was this thread, in which MacK appears to be male (though doesn’t actually say so). What’s clear is that (1) MacK is a lawyer; and (2) Anonymous’s 9PM comment was asinine.

                • Jordan says:

                  Yeah, it is hard to keep track (for me, anyways) of everyone who posts here. I was vaguely aware that MacK had commented before, and is a lawyer. I have no idea if he or she is a woman.

                  I still doubt MacK counts a new “female sounding ‘nym’”.

                  /also, I couldn’t figure out which anonymous comment you were talking about. There were lots of terrible ones, and I often suck at the internet.

      • JL says:

        But let me cross post form another forum what another lawyer, a woman, who joined the profession in a pretty sexist and racist state decades ago has to say about Ms. Leong’s bullshit…

        It is ridiculously common for women who took up occupations during times of extreme misogyny to have some serious internalized misogyny going on, to downplay other women’s comments about sexism in the occupation as trivial bullshit, and to think that the next wave that they paid the way for are a disgrace to the work that they did. I had to get over this attitude myself.

    • Anonymous says:

      Oh the irony when an advocate of “tolerance” talks like this.

  17. Jordan says:

    So, on a fucking blog post, she says:

    “As a precursor to a new research project”

    “With the caveat that all of this is preliminary and anecdotal

    While the “helpful reader” ends their complaint with:

    “This really smacks of someone who starts off with an ideological hypothesis and designs a heavy-handed experiment to prove that point. That’s not research. It’s propaganda.”

    I mean, seriously, dafuq?

    • L2P says:

      Well, I can tell you what annoys me about this. There are thousands of analyses of racial dating issues. Literally thousands. Do a web search, you’ll see them.

      Despite this, as “precursor to a research project,” this professor thinks it’s worthwhile to see how people react to HER on a dating site. This is . . . silly. As a “precursor to a research project,” most investigators would probably, I don’t know, read the prior research? By presenting it this way, she’s proposing these results as somehow interesting, useful, or illuminating. She’s putting these results up as if they actually WERE useful results.

      • Jordan says:

        You have no idea whether she has done that or not. In fact, on her blog post, she does link to some more systematic surveys (although, just from glancing at them, not all that much. And, really, it wouldn’t be hard to be more systematic than this, anyways).

        But anyways, she may very well have not done so rigorously yet. I wouldn’t be surprised. Who could possibly care? She explicitly says what she is putting these “results” up as: as a precursor (not the only precursor) to a research project, that they are merely qualitative, that they are anecdotal.

        To take this blog post as being a designed, heavy-handed “experiment” used to “prove” a point is simply to fail. Leong might be a hack – it certainly seemed so from the previous post – but Paul’s “helpful reader” is as well.

      • These kinds of relatively shallow thinky pieces crop up on the internet about five million times a day. The difference is that for some reason Campos is trying to prove some obscure point about the author’s racial identification with this.

        General rule: if, in the course of an argument, you find yourself needing to determine facts about your opponent’s racial identity, you should probably reconsider whether it’s an argument worth making. Because I’m not seeing much daylight between this and “Obama is half-white, which means he can’t be the target of racism”.

    • Tristan says:

      Yeah, you know what, this is an important distinction and I somehow glossed over it in my reading of the OP. I retract everything I’ve said in this thread that was specifically about what she’s done/written on this particular matter. With the exception of the bit about the “as I see it”, because pet peeve I guess.

  18. Abigail says:

    I’ve been enjoying reading this blog in the last few weeks, and finding an interesting mix of labor issues, feminism, and anti-racism. These two posts about Leong, however, are utterly shocking and disappointing. It’s perfectly possible to criticize problems in legal academia without minimizing racist and sexist behavior, or engaging in it – perfectly possible but not, it seems, in this case. Other people have asked Campos to stop posting on this issue. I would like to see an apology for what he’s already said before I decide whether to continue reading his posts, or indeed this blog.

    • Nobdy says:

      Perhaps he can use this as a forum to prove he is actually unlike the out of touch arrogant law professors he criticizes by admitting that he made a mistake and did something wrong.

      Everybody makes mistakes and miscalculates, gets caught up in defending a friend, whatever. It’s what one does when presented with evidence of those mistakes that defines character. One of Professor Campos’ repeated criticisms of other professors (including Nancy Leong) is that they do not respond well to criticism, responding with arrogance and entitlement.

      It is now his turn to respond to some legitimate criticsm.

      • Paul Campos says:

        I’m happy to respond to legitimate criticism. Several people seem to be very upset that I describe Leong as tenuously racialized. I mean by that that in this culture her racial/ethnic status is ambiguous, and that she could “pass” as “white” in various social contexts if she wanted to (From what I’ve read of what she’s written I don’t think she would disagree with this. It should be unnecessary to add that the question of whether she’s “really” white is something of a nonsense question, as her racial status is a product of social constructions not biological “facts”).

        I’ve asserted that she seems to be trying to leverage her putatively marginalized racial/ethnic status for professional purposes in various ways. Perhaps it was a mistake to speculate as to her motives in this regard.

        • Warren Terra says:

          Paul: give that you’re still talking about it, you really ought to think about why you care what her racial identity is, or what it appears to be. Maybe having one so you’ll be able to explain to your readers why you feel it’s even worth mentioning; maybe, having thought about it, you’ll decide to stop talking about it.

          As to her “attempting to leverage her identity” for career advancement: I don’t think anyone commenting in the previous thread agreed with (or for the most part even understood) your notion that when Leong chose to escalate her conflict with Dybbuk she was doing her career any good, or even that career advancement was the calculated reason behind that move. To the extent that the whole distasteful business involved racial elements, she was able to point to at least one unquestionably racist comment to one of Dubbuk’s posts (not, I hasten to say, apparently written by Dybbuk, nor supported by him so far as I know), and apparently imputed racial motives to other comments. This sort of thing is completely typical in this sort of vituperative and highly personal conflict, and doesn’t in any way justify your apparent interest in her racial identity.

        • Perhaps it was a mistake to speculate as to her motives in this regard.

          Ding ding ding ding.

          It’s irrelevant. It means nothing about the validity of her complaints, it means nothing about the quality of her work, it means nothing about the broader criticism of law school that you have put so much time and effort into.

          You are sacrificing your credibility for the sake of gaining the upper hand in a personal tussle that you’re not even directly involved in. It’s a bad idea. Pull the cord.

        • justaguy says:

          Race is a social construction, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist as a social fact. The issue of her racial identity isn’t irrelevant if it arises in social interactions. So, no, its not a nonsense question – race, while not biological, has consequences. You demonstrate the salience of her racial identity by repeatedly evoking it in discussing her scholarship.

          There are plenty of crappy white academics who get jobs they’re not qualified for on the merit of their own bad scholarship. But with Leong, for some reason, you can’t simply just dismiss her has unqualified, but evoke her race as central to her career path.

          Why is that?

          • Paul Campos says:

            Because she chose to make her ethnic identity a central feature of the complaint she says she filed with the bar against Dybbuk, in the course of ginning up a false accusation of racism against a scam blog critic. It was a phony charge, which she well knew at the time.

            • justaguy says:

              So, because you find her claims of racism to be invalid, you can conclude that she’s not really a minority, she’s strategically using claims of racism to further her career, and that her racial identity is somehow relevant to the legitimacy of her scholarship and career? Seriously?

              • Paul Campos says:

                That is an idiotic misreading.

                Her claim that Dybbuk subjected her to racist harassment is certainly false, and indeed I’ve yet to see one person in these threads defend it.

                I’ve never said she’s not really a minority. She has a socially ambiguous racial/ethnic identity, which she herself not only acknowledges but emphasizes.

                She may be using strategic claims of racism to further her career. On the other hand she may simply be delusional in regard to Dybbuk.

                Obviously her identity isn’t relevant to the legitimacy of her scholarship, which from what I’ve seen of it is of very poor quality, and would remain so no matter what the identity of the person who produced it was.

                • Warren Terra says:

                  Obviously her identity isn’t relevant to the legitimacy of her scholarship

                  So, please, take the advice of seemingly every long-time commenter here who’s weighed in on this particular issue, and stop trying to evaluate her racial identity.

                • N__B says:

                  As a short-time commenter who’s not heavily invested in legal education, let me phrase it this way: no good will come of you persuing this issue, regardless of the merits of your position.

                • justaguy says:

                  If her identity is of no relevance to the legitimacy of her scholarship, why do you include a discussion of her “tenuously racialized” identity in your discussion?

                  If you’re not claiming she is strategically using false claims of racism to leverage her racial identity to promote her career, why did you title your initial post “Law professor tries to leverage phony claims of racial victimization into better job”

                  Yes, her scholarship looks pretty shoddy to me, and I would be interested in whether she ever ran this particular project through an IRB. But, as a law professor, you’re not portraying legal academia in a particularly good light yourself. Is it possible for you to critique a fellow academic without attacking her personally?

                • Gregor Sansa says:

                  I like it that most of the front-pagers on this blog are fucking opinionated. Even when I disagree with them in comments and they spray metaphorical bullets in my direction (Lemieux in particular has done this to me more than once), I find it unjustified, but it goes with the territory of being opinionated, so fine. But here is a case where it seems as if there are a lot of respectable commenters trying to talk you out of your hole, and while you’re to be commended for slightly slowing your pace of digging, you haven’t actually stopped.

                  Apologize. Walk away. You have some valid points, but nothing to gain, and more to lose than you realize.

            • Orpho says:

              Do you feel her claims of sexist comments or harassment were also ginned up?

              That’s the primary question I wonder about, because to me the comments were fairly clearly creepy, but may or may not have risen to the level of harassment. If you’re going on about her because you feel like she was sexually harassed but that the comments were _not_ aimed at her race, just at her because she was a women (who has some questionable-or-worse scholarship), then the reaction seems a bit disproportionate to me.

              • Paul Campos says:

                Her complaints about sexist comments were legitimate, although almost none of those comments (and certainly none of the most objectionable ones) were made by Dybbuk — a fact which she seems to have tried to intentionally mislead readers about when she described him as her “most persistent harasser” (sic)

                • Anonymous says:

                  You can’t actually say that (you can, but it would be deliberately misleading) because we all already know that comments were wiped from the board. So, prove up.

                • Anonymous says:

                  I mean, is this the nog talking, or are you actually serious here? Go home, sober up, and stop behaving like a fucking neanderthal.

                • Orpho says:

                  I think a framing of this entire matter that would’ve been a bit more familiar to this blog’s audience would’ve highlighted:

                  1. Female minority law professor was harassed online by many people, some of whom made legitimate claims about her questionable-or-worse scholarship.

                  2. Professor is in a quite obviously privileged position and has “made it” in the professor.

                  3. Professor decides to pursue the harassers, using basically every tool she can throw at them. Some of these tools don’t fit what happened, some of them are obvious power plays, and some of them may be reasonable responses to being harassed in person, but won’t end well when applied to online harassment.

                  4. The person the professor has targeted is a real human being with a professional life that is in danger because of the comments that he made.

                  All-in-all, it’s a story that would play much better at Popehat than at LGM. It’s a minority woman in a position of great power who is using the tools placed at her disposal to keep her power and also fend off both justified criticism and some actual harassment.

                • ChrisTS says:

                  How are we to parse “he made none of them” in relation to “he made none of the worst ones.”?

        • Tristan says:

          I get it: some people seized on the mention of her ambiguous race in your original post. You wanted to point out that she considers herself ambiguously racialized, because obviously you don’t want people thinking you’re in the same class as the ‘Obama tricked black people into thinking he’s black’ crowd. You flubbed the delivery of this by trying to simultaneously use it as a course-correction to the whole conversation (which don’t get me wrong, it definitely needed, in large part because of the legitimate sexists (and possibly racists) in the last thread). I’m not a PR flack or anything (I’m not really anyone you need to give a shit about at all), but I’d highly recommend, if you want to continue with this, doing two separate posts, one for refocusing on her as an example of subsidized dilletantism and over defensiveness of same, and another one that disassociates yourself from the actual sexism and racism that’s (some) people have brought into the matter, and, at this point, should probably also include you swallowing your pride and apologizing, regardless of how much you feel your original intentions were misinterpreted or distorted.

        • Nobdy says:

          I think it is good and useful to clarify what you meant by “tenuously racialized.”

          That being said, I think the main criticism here is that while Nancy Leong may be a bad scholar and a bully, she is not the only bad scholar or bully and is being given excessive attention. Mix that excessive attention with discussion of her racial identity and unclear accusations of her leveraging race/sex outrage for career advantage and even if there is no racist or sexist intent you start to make people uncomfortable.

          The readers of this blog are a sympathetic audience who mainly agree with you and appreciate your work. That so many are made uncomfortable by what you wrote suggests that even if you examine your own soul and find only the best of intentions there, you should probably acknowledge that the expression of those intentions was sub-optimal (unless you feel strongly that it wasn’t.)

          I’m not suggesting yielding to majority rule or intimidation or anything like that, but rather focusing the discussion where I think you intended it to be, which is NOT on Ms. Leong’s race or sex but rather on the fact that:

          A) She (like many others) is being handsomely rewarded for doing worthless work.

          B) She is arrogant and self-satisfied to the point of brooking no criticism about the crappy work she has done.

          C) The handsome rewards she receives are paid for by students who take out loans in the hopes of bettering themselves and end up with bad employment outcomes, making her complicit in their suffering.

          D) She is a bully who uses her position of power and privilege to attack her critics, and then tries to focus the discussion on relatively few ad hominem attacks against her rather than the substantive criticism.

          I think you made all those points, but then your argument got lost among the dead end of criticising her blog posts and speculating on her attempts to use her race to get ahead. I found that part distasteful and I can guarantee, given my low sensitivity, that many other readers did as well (the comments confirm this.) Those side-issues are weighing down what appears to be your main point in unnecessary controversy and alienating a large portion of the audience.

          I would also add that though Ms. Leong did bring cricism on herself by writing the article and by responding to the initial criticism the way she did, it is unclear why she was originally singled out for criticism. Of all the bad law review articles in all the bad law reviews… And given that this whole thing started with a thread on JDU that was rife with sexist and racist commentary, well, it’s hard to completely divorce the legitimate criticism from the ugly stuff I am sure you do not want to associate with.

          • Warren Terra says:

            This is very well said. I hope Campos considers it carefully.

            • Lee Rudolph says:

              Oh, hell, he doesn’t even have to. No matter how ill-intentioned, ill-presented, or both, a blog post (or anything else) may be, when it provokes such a well-intentioned and well-presented blog comment (or its analogue) as the one you’re replying to, there’s been a net gain, and I’m willing to take the money and run.

              But I agree it would be even better if Campos took that comment to heart.

          • Paul Campos says:

            I would also add that though Ms. Leong did bring cricism on herself by writing the article and by responding to the initial criticism the way she did, it is unclear why she was originally singled out for criticism. Of all the bad law review articles in all the bad law reviews… And given that this whole thing started with a thread on JDU that was rife with sexist and racist commentary, well, it’s hard to completely divorce the legitimate criticism from the ugly stuff I am sure you do not want to associate with.

            This is a fair point.

            Indeed your whole response is thought-provoking, so here are a few more thoughts:

            I wrote these two posts in part because it is incredibly provoking that people who basically have no recourse for having gotten screwed, in part, by the self-satisfied arrogance and complacency of clueless legal academics have to worry about being retaliated against professionally because they injure the professional vanity of the very class of people who screwed them over, when they level criticisms that sting precisely because they are true (even if those criticisms also include incivility and swear words and, much more problematically, sexist language and the like.

            I’ve focused on Leong in these two posts (after focusing on lots of legal academics, most of them white males of course, in dozens of other posts) because her attack on Dybbuk exemplified this particular provocation. But certainly it’s easy to be misunderstood when dealing with these incendiary matters.

            • Orin Kerr says:

              I think the difficulty is that Leong’s actions exemplify the provocation in some ways but not in other ways. Using then as a universal symbol doesn’t quite work.

            • Warren Terra says:

              I think the problem is that you haven’t really focused on the particular actions you find objectionable. From the beginning it’s been extremely difficult to discern just what point you were trying to make (besides a generalized dislike of Leong), and you persist in delving into issues like what you call her “tenuous racial identity” that have no meaningful bearing on the rectitude of her actions and that serve only to make you look like the trolls in the comments at Dybbuk’s blog, who also feel free to contemplate Leong’s sexuality and racial identity.

            • Blip says:

              To challenge Paul’s point, I am not sure I understand why he thinks dybbuk, in particular, has gotten screwed by anyone? Didn’t he go to law school in the 90′s, when tuition was cheaper, and doesn’t he have a good and steady JD-required job?

              I also question whether he has been screwed over, in any way, by Leong in particular, a junior law prof hired about a decade after dybbuk graduated from a different school?

              And who exactly is trying to screw whom over professionally here? I would think it is dybbuk and Paul trying to screw over a junior prof who probably has more at risk professionally than either of them — although they have apparently never met, know nothing about her teaching evaluations, etc.

        • Origami Isopod says:

          I mean by that that in this culture her racial/ethnic status is ambiguous, and that she could “pass” as “white” in various social contexts if she wanted to

          I just… wow.

          Put the shovel down.

  19. Gator90 says:

    Leong is such a narcissist – she thinks Paul Campos is obsessed with her.

  20. Anonymous says:

    Paul, do you remember what happened with Farley and the navy thing? Where he couldn’t let it go? Let it fucking go. You look a right prick right now.

  21. Well. This is weird and terrible.

  22. Jake says:

    I thought law schools were a scam because they charge ridiculous amounts of money, misrepresent the employment statistics of their graduates, and admit way too many unqualified applicants that will end up with lots of debt and nothing to show for it. What the hell does an inane article published by a junior professor at a top 70 law school have to do with any of that?

    This whole thing is bizarre, although it does have a certain train-wreck appeal. It’ll be kind of sad when Paul wises up and drops it.

    J. Otto Pohl, by the way, has been on fire.

    • Anonymous says:

      No, he hasn’t. He’s been stirring the pot with gleeful Mandos-like comments and non-sequiturs, grateful because for once in his life he’s not the most counter-reactionary person in the room. This shit is not funny or entertaining. I’d almost expect more from Crooked Timber.

    • BoredJD says:

      The broader point Dybbuk makes with his posts is that the system that allows someone to be paid a very handsome salary, with little to no relevant practice experience, to surf Ashley Madison and study creepy guys is part of why the schools charge so much money and admit so many applicants. He uses the common rhetorical tool of posting examples of inane scholarship or particularly offensive school spending sprees just like someone might talk about Dennis Kozlowski’s shower curtains or Mitt Romney’s dancing horse. Stopping Dennis Kozlowski from paying $6,000 for shower curtains wasn’t going to fix the systemic problems that resulted in CEOs being paid hundreds of times what the average worker makes, just like pointing out law professors probably shouldn’t be holding conferences in Hawaii or Palm Beach when their students are trying to pay back 200K on $12/hour isn’t going to solve the problems in legal education. But it serves a purpose.

      The problem is that his stuff is oftentimes accompanied by people anon posting racist or sexist insults, of which there were (and continue to be) many in these threads. It also included several comments that were pretty obviously sexist. When that happens, and Leong rightfully pointed it out, everybody dug in. And in typical litigation form, they refuse to acknowledge the other side has a valid point, or think that the other side’s valid points are distinguishable or diminishable.

      There’s really no way out of this mess and the opportunity for reasonable discussion has long since ended. I suspect it will continue for a few more days as various blogs get a piece of the action and then fizzle out sometime after New Year’s.

      • Paul Campos says:

        Well put BJD as always.

        • Peter Hovde says:

          Dybbuk-

          1. Selected an assistant professor as a target for objections which, as Paul has noted, are systemic in nature, and could be applied to many, many legal academics, including senior people;

          2. Initiated his discussion of her with a comment on her appearance, then followed up with several more such comments, thus not only revealing himself to be a sexist scumbag but also distracting from the very systemic issues which ostensibly are the motivating concern for the post; and

          3. Did this in a context where it was, as they say, reasonably foreseeable that far, far more vile and loathsome comments would be made in threads he inspired, and (I assume, for he does not claim otherwise in the linked posts on the matter) didn’t even bother to condemn these comments.

          I don’t care how important this guy may have originally been to the scamblog campaign-time to throw him overboard.

      • MacK says:

        The racist and sexist stuff is a plague in all online fora, and is fair to point out that it shows up in scamblogs, There were comments about Nancy Leong in JDU and I did regard Dybbuk’s comments on her looks as unwise (but looks do matter in employment’, they shouldn’t but they do.). But the comments she builds her claims on were not from Dybbuk – obviously not.

        Nancy Leong’s racism complaint and her filing a bar complaint against Dybbuk was disgraceful – indeed were it her own state bar, I would expect them to consider her law license as in jeopardy for filing any obviously baseless complaint.

        What we are seeing here is a response to a months long sustained campaign by Leong, abetted it would seem by Leiter. In 48 hours she has felt a little of the sort of crap she tried to rain down on Dybbuk, including the career damage. It will not I suspect lead to any introspection or self-awareness on her part.

        • Jordan says:

          ” It will not I suspect lead to any introspection or self-awareness on her part.”

          Well, that made me laugh. Not in the “ha ha!” way, though.

        • BoredJD says:

          “The racist and sexist stuff is a plague in all online fora, and is fair to point out that it shows up in scamblogs”

          It’s not evident from the thread now but there was some pretty sick stuff posted on JDU. There are a lot of sites where that stuff is heavily moderated, and there are others (like this one) where it is uniformly condemned when it pops up (there seems to have been a culture shock over the last few days as LGM regulars have met scambloggers). Her point is that the reaction of people who produce the content and run the platform it’s spread on matters, especially when they are professionals. Whether they should be insulated from consequences of what to her and others appears to be inciting a mob of nutbags, along with comments that were legitimate criticism, is an important issue in the ongoing debate over online anonymity.

          “It will not I suspect lead to any introspection or self-awareness on her part”

          I suspect she has a the same opinion about some of the actors on the other side.

        • Jake says:

          filing a bar complaint against dybbuk

          Any evidence this actually happened vs. Campos just stirring up shit? Reading her article it’s pretty clear to me that she filed the bar complaint against someone other than dybbuk. It sounds like some of the abuse she’s gotten would warrant a bar complaint if it came from an attorney, no?

          It sounds like the only thing that happened to dybbuk was that Leong took some stuff he wrote on the internet and called attention to it causing people to say “Christ, what an asshole.” And then called him up in an attempt to talk about it. And then pointed out that he was easily identifiable from his writings and some cursory Googling. At which point he decided to drop the issue.

          Doesn’t sound like strong grounds for complaint to me…

          • anon says:

            Where do you get the idea that dybbuk decided to drop the issue? he posted about her for over a year before he posted about her, He keeps posting about her, and others post about her as well at outsidethelawschoolscam a couple of times a week recently.

        • postmodulator says:

          were it her own state bar, I would expect them to consider her law license as in jeopardy for filing any obviously baseless complaint.

          Speaking for what I suspect is the majority of non-lawyers, we dream of a world where state bar associations look askance at attorneys who throw their weight around.

          There was an NYT article around ten years ago about a guy who just caaaaaaasually mentioned that he was a litigator when he was having a turf war with another tenant in his building. Thinking about it still raises my pulse around 10 bpm.

      • NewishLawyer says:

        “And in typical litigation form, they refuse to acknowledge the other side has a valid point, or think that the other side’s valid points are distinguishable or diminishable.”

        I think you mean in typical human form.

        • Jordan says:

          It is a typical human form, which is unfortunate.

          Although, it does seem to be … reinforced … amongst certain lawyer types.

  23. BoredJD says:

    “The racist and sexist stuff is a plague in all online fora, and is fair to point out that it shows up in scamblogs”

    It’s not evident from the thread now but there was some pretty sick stuff posted on JDU. There are a lot of sites where that stuff is heavily moderated, and there are others (like this one) where it is uniformly condemned when it pops up (there seems to have been a culture shock over the last few days as LGM regulars have met scambloggers). Her point is that the reaction of people who produce the content and run the platform it’s spread on matters, especially when they are professionals. Whether they should be insulated from consequences of what to her and others appears to be inciting a mob of nutbags, along with comments that were legitimate criticism, is an important issue in the ongoing debate over online anonymity.

    “It will not I suspect lead to any introspection or self-awareness on her part”

    I suspect she has a the same opinion about some of the actors on the other side.

  24. Jordan says:

    Oh, and I am kinda surprised no one has brought this up, but here is a bit from Campos from 8 years ago, going on Fox News’s O’Reilly show about Ward Churchill.

    “Well, there’s apparently no evidence that he, in fact, has any Native American ancestry. And this, I think, is a very serious potential situation in regard to Ward Churchill because he’s made a career by — around claiming to be a Native American.

    If, in fact, some of the hiring and tenuring decisions at the University of Colorado were affected by his claims of being a native American, which I don’t know whether that was the case, but if it was, and it turns out that there’s no documentary evidence at all that he has any native American heritage whatsoever, then I think that brings again into question…”

    So, it looks like Campos was maybe right there, I guess. And that Little Eichmans essay was quite terrible: obviously much worse than anything Yeong has written.

    Still, though …

  25. mike in dc says:

    Wait, a woman posting an online profile on dating sites(and Craigslist) found herself the recipient of crude and offensive messages from adult American males? Including some males who fetishized her racial otherness?

    Wow. I smell Pulitzer. What a shocking expose.

  26. Jordan says:

    Also, this comment on the last post appears to be Paul’s original source/clue for this post.

    “Nancy’s latest scholarship – posting sexy photos of herself on the Asian section of AshleyMadison (yeah, the site for sleazy cheap sexual encounters), then complaining that she received sexual advances online, some of which made reference to the fact she is Asian.

    Sadly, I’m NOT MAKING THIS UP!!!

    This is what happens when an English major with no research training ends up as a professor and has to try and conduct research. This is barely above high school level.”

    Just so, you know.

  27. Angie says:

    Does Leong realize how dangerous what she is doing is? This is a great way to get a real stalker. Not a smart women!

    • Jordan says:

      If that the logic you are going with, Campos certainly should not have made either of these posts. I’ll have to scroll up for your comments saying so.

    • Informant says:

      She may have provided false information about her geographic location, biography, etc. in an effort to avoid that.

  28. Doc says:

    The sexism and racism issues are pure red herring bait for self-righteous academics who prefer their discourse to occur in strictly moderated and controlled environments, and sadly, it appears that many here have fallen for it.

    I hate racism and sexism and I wish both were scrubbed from the Earth. But they are not, and they will not be any time soon. So long as there are forums that believe in free conversation, there will be a certain amount of this commentary that violates the norms of more controlled forums.

    The fact that Leong and other professors have any level of outrage at this fact of open speech is either disingenuous or shows how out of touch they are with environments they purport to study. That she would try to attribute more outrageous comments to Dybbuk’s fairly mild ones is particularly outrageous; is the guy on OKCupid calling her a “beautiful Asian” really part of the same culture and mindset as the guy on OKCupid who spouts off about a vulgar fantasy? And did someone seriously suggest that Dybbuk is someone responsible for random idiots making comments about an objectively-attractive woman? Good God.

    Dybbuk has stated that he chose her article because it’s the worst one he’s ever read. It’s a particularly egregious example of lazy, ill-thought, meritless garbage. Dybbuk has done this with other articles before and after. He’s also criticized debt-fueled professor junkets to exotic locations long before and after the “luau train” comment.

    It’s odd to me that people ostensibly devoted to philosophical inquiry would so readily ignore the salient points of someone with a long track record of making points independent of sexism or imagined racism, and choose instead to focus on irrelevant red herring issues instead of addressing the outrageous nature of a professional academic going into long-studied areas of inquiry with sophomoric thought and writing while her students are incurring mind-boggling amounts of debt and sociology PhDs who actually take this shit seriously struggle to find meaningful jobs and research opportunities.

    • Jordan says:

      I’ll just say I wish you would pick a different nym.

    • wjts says:

      …is the guy on OKCupid calling her a “beautiful Asian” really part of the same culture and mindset as the guy on OKCupid who spouts off about a vulgar fantasy?

      Yes. This has been another installment of etc. etc.

    • Warren Terra says:

      The sexism and racism issues are pure red herring bait

      This is, to some extent, true (where it fails is that it seems to deprecate the importance of not being sexist or racist). Thing is, it’s not a big secret: everyone knows that if you’re going to criticize someone you should take care to do so fairly and without resorting to crude stereotypes; even hints at sexism, racism, or other similar problems in your argument offer an opportunity to derail the discussion and to devalue the meaningful points you’re trying to make. Given that, Dybbuk opened the door by including in his criticism of Leong’s scholarly output mentions of her gender and pulchritude. You are apparently outraged that the discussion of Leong’s scholarship has been debased and distracted from by the allegations of sexism and racism – but your argument would be a lot stronger if Dybbuk hadn’t, at the least, made it easy for that to happen (that is, assuming for the sake of argument no bias on Dybbuk’s part).

      The real shame here is that it does look like Leong’s scholarly output would be a target-rich environment for discussion, and could give rise to some rather enjoyable eviscerations. The passage quoted in the previous thread about driving appears completely risible, and so far as one can tell from the linked blogpost the study being planned seems likely to be uninteresting, obvious, and poorly designed, and to have no obvious connection to the world of legal scholarship. That could be a fun discussion – it might even be useful! Easily the best part of this thread to my mind is the discussion of structural problems with law journals; we could have talked about that, with or without skewering Leong’s apparently eminently skewerable articles.

      Instead of having that discussion, or any useful discussion, we’re talking about why Dybbuk thought to mention her attractiveness, why Campos is so all-fired concerned to determine her racial identity to three decimal places, complete with examination by a fully certified phrenologist, and that’s not to mention the more disgusting comments from the usual peanut gallery of unaccountable commenters and the quite serious issue of just how far Leong has taken her retaliatory response. And let me be clear: to a significant degree, the fact that we’re having these pointless conversations, the reason half a dozen longtime commenters are urging Campos to shut up with the tenuous racial identity stuff already, is Dybbuk’s fault, for opening the door, and Campos’s fault, for his incoherent but wholehearted embrace of Dybbuk’s cause, rather than a focused discussion of Leong’s scholarship or of her apparent action with the state bar.

      • Jordan says:

        Ok, so, Warren Terra: you are fighting the good fight. And you acknowledged that you didn’t really care to read parts linked by the OP. Which is fine, obviously. And you are right about the parts linked from the previous post.

        But! when you say:

        “the study being planned seems likely to be uninteresting, obvious, and poorly designed, and to have no obvious connection to the world of legal scholarship”

        There is no actual study that is described as being planned. There is no actual experiment that is described as being planned. There is nothing to be poorly designed because there is nothing said to be designed for anything. Campos indulges a dumb hack who insinuates otherwise in the OP, for … reasons.

        The blog post explicitly says that it is a precursor to doing actual research, and that what she reports is purely qualitative and anecdotal and etc. And it is posted on her own personal blog.

        But even putting that aside, I don’t see how the topic of the blog post is uninteresting – racism is a reality, of course. I also don’t see how the blog post has no connection to legal scholarship, unless legal scholarship takes absolutely no account of racist realities. And while it may be obvious to you, me, her, and lots of other people: who cares? Until it is acknowledged by everyone (i.e. never), it should continue to be published over and over and over again.

        • MacK says:

          Is Jordan Leong – she seems well informed about Leong’s plans and echoes a certain Brian Leiter?

          • Warren Terra says:

            Jordan is not a new handle at LGM, so your options are (1) to stop deciding commenters are Leong for no good reason; (2) at the very least, to stop suggesting this commenter is Leong; (3) Leong stole someone’s handle; or (4) through an astounding coincidence, Leong is an established pseudonymous commenter at LGM.

            I’d recommend option (1).

            • MacK says:

              My reaction was based on Jordan’s statements about Leong’s plans with respect to the study – which indicated considerable knowledge combined with the fact that this is the first time I have seen this commentator and Leiter – who Leong seems to be associating with having a noted taste for sock puppetry (and handles he used for a long time)

  29. bored lawyer says:

    I really don’t understand Paul’s argument, and it looks like Ms. Leong devised a half assed social psych experiment which proved what she was looking for (the obvious). That some anglo guys (especially on Ashley Madison) are pigs, have asian fever, and are quite gross when running game. Is there anything else here?

    • Jordan says:

      No, she didn’t.

      If anything, this thread has made me unjustly suspicious of the reading comprehension skills and/or caring skills and/or not-trollishness of people who have law degrees.

      I mean, more than I did before.

      • bored lawyer says:

        If Professor Leong was placing false ads on line and attempting to compare the results, even providing a preliminary percentage of certain responses, she was conducting an experiment. “A test made to demonstrate a known truth, to examine the validity of a Hypothesis, or to determine the efficiency of something previously untried.” (The American Heritage Dictionary of English Language, 1969)

        She was examining the validity of her hypothesis and at the very least testing her design methodogy and felt comfortable enough to discuss her preliminary results.

        I expected a better argument from you Jordan.

        • Rigby Reardon says:

          Yes, exactly.

          The fact that it was posted to a blog and did not yield any interesting or unexpected results does not change the fact that it was an experiment, though a poorly designed one.

  30. Anonymous says:

    I’ve been lurking on LGM for a couple of months but never felt compelled to enter the fray. Maybe it’s spending the evening with my family that has inspired me. This post, and Paul’s one from the other day, are the most disturbing, mean-spirited, ill-conceived, and baseless I’ve read on this blog. It makes me question whether I want to be part of this community at all. The so called “criticism” of Professor Leong, such as it is, amounts mostly to name calling, coupled with personal attacks. So far, Paul has called our attention to (1) a blog post and (2) a short article written by this professor. Her cv reveals that the article in question was one of four she wrote during that YEAR. Let’s compare Paul’s cv. He has written three articles since 2006. Personally, I thought the Open Road piece (or at least the introduction, which is all I read) was mildly interesting. But WHO CARES! I suspect Professor Leong wrote it as an interesting, light-hearted way of talking about an issue — racial profiling — that people have talked about a lot. It’s not like this was the ONLY article she wrote. But something about her race, gender, appearance, youth or whatever has captured the mind of Paul Campos and his cronies and so they’ve engaged in a prolonged character-assassination campaign.

    I’m an idealist and I believe that lawyers SHOULD have a duty to combat racism and sexism and when they either engage in it themselves or incite others to do so then the bar SHOULD take notice and speak out forcefully. Note, I’m not at all idealistic enough to think that most (or maybe any) ethics committees share this view. But it hardly seems baseless to me to argue that lawyers engaging in such a course of conduct violates ethical rules. In my home state of Minnesota, rule 8.4 allows for bar discipline if a lawyer engages in activities to:

    (g) harass a person on the basis of sex, race, age, creed, religion, color, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, or marital status in connection with a lawyer’s professional activities;

    (h) commit a discriminatory act prohibited by federal, state, or local statute or ordinance that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer. Whether a discriminatory act reflects adversely on a lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer shall be determined after consideration of all the circumstances, including:

    I don’t know what states are at issue here (nor is it clear from any of this whether a complaint has actually been filed, or if so, against who). But some of this conduct seems to arguably fit within rules like this, and I know other states have open-ended catch-all provisions that might apply. Frankly, if I was Professor Leong, I’d probably file a complaint and let the bar figure it out. This is particularly true because people who engage in or facilitate racism and sexism tend to be repeat offenders. I suspect most bars won’t take action on one complaint along these lines, but if multiple people have this experience and file complaints, an ethics committee might well take notice.

    • Jordan says:

      Keep lurking! Or even better, become a commentator!

      Well, I bet you probably have more important and worthwhile things going on. But utterly selfishly, I’d like it if you commented here (because I think I would learn more). And less selfishly, it seems obvious that you would be a valuable contributor.

    • Angie says:

      You wrote “But something about her race, gender, appearance, youth or whatever has captured the mind of Paul Campos and his cronies and so they’ve engaged in a prolonged character-assassination campaign.” How do you know this? Where has Professor Campos said anything in the two posts that is racist or sexist? Be specific; don’t just make vague accusations. Where is the name calling and personal attacks? Just because she wrote other articles does not excuse the open road article, which is worthless. Have you read her other articles? Quantity does not equal quality.

      Isn’t filing a frivilous complaint with a bar a violation of bar rules?

    • Informant says:

      This post, and Paul’s one from the other day, are the most disturbing, mean-spirited, ill-conceived, and baseless I’ve read on this blog.

      You don’t hang out here much, do you?

      • weirdnoise says:

        I’ve hung out here off and on for a couple years (though only started commenting recently) and, yeah, this post seems exceptional in its mean-spirited, obsessional focus on a single individual. In the past Paul has done an excellent job in elucidating the malaise of our legal education system, and I’m not going to quibble with his claim that Ms Leong plays a small role in that malaise. Had his complaint against her been only one part of a general case against what he claims is a deluge of shabby legal monographs, I don’t think people anyone would have found it exceptional — just another log on the fire. But he made it personal from the start, and although Ms Leong may wear her sensitivities to racial and sexual discriminations on her sleeve, Paul’s excuse for his focus on them sound much to me like a second grader’s “but SHE started it!”

  31. jim, some guy in iowa says:

    I dunno. There are just so many facets to this thing that I think Paul bit off more than he can chew – and we, the commenters, long ago blew past the point where we just read and comment on what we want to see and are in a lot of cases talking right past one another – it makes matters weirder that this has stirred up people who don’t usually comment so you (I) can’t always tell if they’re speaking in good faith or just screwing around

  32. Jeff Matthews says:

    “So none of this is coming from a putative position of superiority. Not at all. We are all, as a great philosopher once observed, part of the same hypocrisy. Recognizing that is merely the first step toward doing something about it.”

    Right. The whole article could have easily been titled, “The Vocation of Pulling Splinters out of the Eyes of Narcissists.”

    Self-recognition is a healthy first step, but the second step is much more difficult. I keep stumbling every day.

    Good luck, Paul. I do believe you are headed along the right path. Sometimes, it seems like we’re all just straining gnats when you try to step back and see the whole picture.

  33. Jon H says:

    All I’m going to say is that using Ashley Madison, a site *targeted* to sleazy adulterers, is just going to get you a skewed sample.

  34. Brian says:

    If there were normal adults involved here and not a bunch of lawyers/law professors this could be easily resolved by the following:

    1. Dybukk should apologize to Nancy Delong for the sexist comments he made that were irrelevant to any legitimate criticism he had of her scholarship. He should further apologize for not calling out and distancing himself from the vile racist and sexist comments his posts engendered. As for the charge of racism I agree in context the term luau was not racist, but in fairness if Nancy Delong believed Dybukk was aware of her ancestry her taking offense at this remark is not unreasonable.

    2. Nancy Delong should withdraw any bar complaint if one was filed; there appears to be unclarity on this matter. She should also apologize to Dybukk for implying that some of the more offensive comments (and indeed they were offensive) were made by Dybukk when in fact they were made by others.

    3. The other hosts of this blog should consider removing the can of gasoline that Campos inevitably brings to these debates.

    • bored lawyer says:

      I do not know who Brian is, or if he is Brian Leiter. But a quick observation for people who are not practicing law. Bar complaints should not be filed because one party is offended, they should be filed because an attorney believes another attorney has violated the rules of professional conduct. Bar discipline does not work if parties are filing complaints to obtain some sort of benefit unlike regular litigation and can withdraw them. If Ms. Leong actually filed one, she should pursue it, because she is claiming in essence that another lawyer is practicing law in an unethical manner. It should not be used to extract an apology.

      • postmodulator says:

        The sense I get from your comment is that you should be saying to yourself, “I don’t particularly want to file this bar complaint, but I am obligated to do so.” That about right?

        • bored lawyer says:

          Yes, since you should be doing it because the other person has violated professional standards in a substantial manner, and not because you want gain advantage in either an underlying feud, or ongoing litigation.

          • bored lawyer says:

            I’ll provide one example, its the closest I ever came in ten years as an attorney to filing a grievance. I used to share rented space with several other attorneys, and one wasn’t paying the rent, and left. He left his office furniture behind. (not an ethical issue) He also left what appeared to be several hundred pounds of client files.

            Okay, what happens if one of his old clients comes to our door and wants his file? Do we let this client search through the files? Do I search through the files? Can I even move the boxes? And we had at least one previous break in because the office was in a horrible section of town. Are we responsible for guarding his files?

            Our receptionist called the attorney at home, and left several messages. He wouldn’t reply. Since he was in his seventies I thought he might be a bit dotty. So eventually I called the Bar Grievance, and asked them for an opinion as to what we should do. Could I even move them to his house, without his agreement?

            They had previously dealt with him on at least one grievance, so without filing a new grievance, the attorney I talked to sent him a letter, and told him to go pick up his files or they would then look into his abandonment of files as a disciplinary matter.

            He eventually did come and pick up the files, and attempted to get revenge on the two remaining attorneys in a rather childish manner. He even lied to our faces and claimed we had an agreement to “safeguard” the files for him. There was no such agreement.

            File a grievance on another attorney you make an enemy for life, so as they say at popehat “govern yourself accordingly”.

        • MacK says:

          If you have knowledge that another lawyer has breached the ethics rules in many bars you Are obliged to file a complaint. This is the situation in New York. However, in many bars to file baseless ethics complaints for legal or other advantaged has been treated as an ethics violation.

          Some lawyers faced with an issue have given the lawyer who made an inadvertent violation an opportunity to go to the bar first. Still it is an issue that comes up from time to time with lawyers being disbarred for failure to report serious wrong doing – one case I know of wad a junior associate who failed to turn in his big law partner – both disbarred, the partner after 2-3 years got his license back – not the associate.

    • Jon H says:

      “As for the charge of racism I agree in context the term luau was not racist, but in fairness if Nancy Delong believed Dybukk was aware of her ancestry her taking offense at this remark is not unreasonable.”

      I don’t think it was reasonable given that the event was held in Hawaii, which was almost certainly the overwhelming factor in making the luau comment. It’s not as if luaus are some esoteric cultural practice among Hawaii’s Asian/Polynesian communities that isn’t shared by outsiders. Luaus are a tourist attraction now, and there are numerous websites and tourist guides suggesting the best luaus.

      She’d have a far more credible complaint if the event had been held in Pittsburgh and there was no reason to mention luaus other than her ancestry.

  35. Anonymous@12:02 says:

    Well Angie@12:44, I knew I should have remained silent (and would then be drinking a nice cup of coffee and getting ready to have breakfast with my family). But in for a penny . . .

    Paul Campos latched on to Nancy Leong’s statement on her personal blog that she used a racially ambiguous photo of herself in profiles on a variety of dating web-sites as justification to discuss her race (“tenuously racialized”), whether she could “’pass’ as ‘white’”, and whether she is trying to “leverage her putatively marginalized racial/ethnic status for professional purposes.” This is racist (and stupid). I’m white as wonder bread and I could take a racially ambiguous picture of myself with the right lighting and a few minutes on Photoshop. He further suggests that her race is now a matter for public debate because “she chose to make her ethnic identity a central feature of the complaint she says she filed with the bar against Dybbuk.” As far as I can tell, we don’t know whether a complaint was filed and even if one was we don’t know what its gravamen is. What we know is that Leong found one comment of Dybbuk’s to be racist and a bunch of other people disagree. Leong’s identification of this as racist may open the door to a discussion of the remark, but it does not (in my mind) open the door to discussion of her race. This too is racist and retaliatory. As for sexism, Campos’s minimization of the obvious sexism in several of Dybukk’s remarks yesterday is itself sexism. That one’s pretty easy – it’s sexist to say that it’s no big deal when other people write sexist stuff. Finally, it is retaliatory to write two attack pieces about someone because you’re angry that she called one of your friends out for (perceived) racism and sexism and (purportedly) filed a bar complaint, and because it’s seeking to punish someone for complaining about sexism and racism, it too is racist and sexist (and would, for example, violate Title VII if done in the workplace).

    You finish your comment off by doing exactly what you accuse me of doing – making uncited/unexplained statements (you phrase this as “be specific”). First, you say her article is “worthless” – and this is a sentiment that has been repeated by numerous people over the two blog posts usually in the form of “it talks about movies!!! LOL!!! How stupid!!!” As far as I can tell, you could be assessing the article’s worth along three axes. 1) You could be expressing a preference – i.e. “I don’t like it” – to which I respond, why do your preferences get to define worth? I liked it (sort of – this is a blog, I think that means I get to overstate my views for good effect). Does that mean our votes cancel each other out? 2) You could mean that legal scholarship is only of value when it is somehow useful to lawyers or judges – a view I’ve heard expressed in a number of forums. I tend to disagree with this criteria for judging academic work, but I recognize it as a potentially valid criteria that simply begs a larger question about the purpose of legal academia. But if this is the criteria, the fact that the article was quoted by a Fourth Circuit judge meets that criteria and the piece is not worthless. I don’t think there’s actual room for debate on this point – it your criteria is usefulness, the fact that it has been used means that it satisfies the criteria. If you adopt this view, you reject significant intellectual movements in the legal academy (critical race theory, law and literature, law and feminism, aspects of legal realism – I took a jurisprudence course once upon a time!) 3) You could view legal scholarship as knowledge generation within a marketplace of ideas. Articles contribute to our understanding of legal phenomenon in various ways—doctrinal, social, psychological, etc. If this is your view and you think Leong’s piece is worthless, then I simply disagree with you. As I understand the thesis of the article (caveat, I’ve still only read the introduction), she is arguing that one of the harms that racial profiling in traffic stops causes is that it alienates communities of color from a common cultural view that connects the “open road” with ideas of freedom and possibility. As far as I can tell, she’s not saying this is the most important harm caused by profiling, but rather, it’s one we haven’t thought much about. That’s not something I’d thought about before and it’s an interesting—although hardly earthshaking—point. It also strikes me as intuitively correct. I remember growing up (remember, white as wonder bread) and borrowing and eventually owning a car was a symbol of freedom. So were the road trips my friends and I took (best spring break EVER!). Lots of law review articles don’t seem to have any real point, so in comparison, I’d say that this modest point certainly makes the article worthwhile.

    Second, you close with a question about frivolous complaints to the bar. Perhaps you decided to skip the part of my earlier post where I quoted an ethics rule (and referenced others) and suggested that the complaint appeared at least colorable. Colorable is the opposite of frivolous, just so you know.

    • Jaded says:

      It amazes me how those who apparently support Prof. Leong in this debate are as wishy-washy as she has been. Even though she proudly declares on her blog that she filed a bar complaint against dybbuk, for example, we are not allowed to assume that, because analysis of her words leads to the possible conclusion that she was referring to someone else. Therefore, Prof. Leong is immune from criticism for her vilest act yet: filing a ridiculous bar complaint against an innocent person. Genius.

      I find it to be the height of irresponsibility and unprofessional behavior to file a bar complaint in this manner. It is cowardly to do so at all, then blog about it in public, but not reveal any other information that would allow the public to understand the basis for the complaint. Frivolous bar complaints (and that is certainly how I view this) are not public records and most state bars will screen and dismiss them without even the target, much less the public, knowing about them. Leong has therefore sought to gain the benefit of slandering her opponent’s image with the shadow of an ethics violation without having to worry about being held accountable if she is wrong.

    • right. says:

      Pretty convinced this is likely Brian Leiter, despite claiming Minnesota as a ‘home state’.

  36. Anonymous@12:02 says:

    I don’t think I was wishy-washy at all. I identified two applicable bar rules in my first post and said that I would probably file a complaint if I was Leong because this type of behavior is often part of a larger pattern.

    As for your mysterious comment in the last paragraph, I’m totally confused. What sort of “advantage” has Leong gotten by suggesting that she filed a bar complaint against a pseudonymous individual? She was writing about how to respond to harassment online, and she used some examples from her own life. I won’t fight with you about whether Dybbuk was the target — it seemed likely from context. But we all have a pretty good sense as to what conduct is being at issue (enough so that hundreds of comments have been made about it). You certainly haven’t had a problem voicing your opinions.

    • Jaded says:

      I read your interpretation of the “two applicable bar rules” and have rarely seen such specious, ridiculous legal analysis by people who are apparently lawyers. Writing online comments about a female law professor’s attractiveness may constitute sexism but it is a far cry from harassment. Suggesting that such comments bear on a person’s fitness to practice law is preposterous. Besides which: in your original reference of ethics provisions you have assumed that the bar complaint was against dybbuk. Yet in your comment above you escape any accountability for that reference with this dodge: “we don’t know whether a complaint was filed and even if one was we don’t know what its gravamen is.” Oh no. Not wishy-washy at all.

      I doubt you are really confused about my second paragraph. I’m sure that re-reading it would solve your mystery.

  37. N__B says:

    If only we could find a dating site named Madison Ashley, we could rope Dr Noisewater into this conversation as well.

    • Agent or Shill? says:

      Slurp! So cute… You’re the polar bear, right?

      And the zombie said: (insert zombie reference here).

      Hey, what about a ketchup reference?

      The clique is strong! And so witty!

      • N__B says:

        I realize it’s only a second-hand concept for you, but there’s this thing known as “friendship.” Some of us have known each other for years before coming to LGM.

        Also, fuck you, you worthless sack of shit.

        • ChrisTS says:

          Honestly, what a bizarre and unprovoked reaction. I think AorS? must be having a very bad holiday. Of course, there is always the possibility of being snake bit.

          • N__B says:

            A troll has responded to a number of my comments with accusations that I’m sucking up to bspencer. Since I’ve known her for close to four years, long before she even read LGM, it’s ridiculous, but I’m getting the holiday spirit of attacking those who annoy me.

            • Lee Rudolph says:

              the holiday spirit of attacking those who annoy me.

              Attacking is so quotidian. For the real holiday spirit, there’s nothing that beats smiting. Try it: I’m sure you’ll agree.

              Also, smite has a much better past tense.

            • ChrisTS says:

              I’m with Lee: smite ‘em!

      • Rigby Reardon says:

        Looks like someone is sad not to be part of the clique.

    • Agent or Shill? says:

      Don’t take me wrong. I have friends… and the holiday is going fine. Sorry to tread on your longstanding commenter clique-fest. I know that you can’t pass up an opportunity to turn a decent thread into a self referential back-patting session. Take comfort. I’m sure that Dr. Noisywater/Vacuumkiller/Spenser’s been hired to link to other’s takedowns of wingnuts du jour- (in ALL_CAPS)- will return shortly and prolifically to your amusement (I’d bet on baby pics too). I’m sure you’re not alone– others care just as deeply. Oh yeah, what was the thread about again? Madison: Hate it or find it intolerable?

  38. Anonymous says:

    Reading many of the comments here . . it is easy to conclude that lawyers are far too full of themselves, like to pretend they are far more intellectual than they really are, and spout gobbledygook in an attempt to out-do the gobbledygook of the person they are responding to. What a bunch of utter nonsense. Remind me never to read a law review article if this is how most of you write. Geeze, no wonder yours is a miserable profession.

  39. Angie says:

    What about the hip hop and the law articles? Or, the Harry Potter and the law articles? Or for that matter all the law and literature articles started by Mr. Posner? All these articles are worthless because they try to make the law match up with fiction.

  40. Amanda in the South Bay says:

    I’ve always thought that Posner would make a better target than Leong-the guy thinks he’s an economics guru, despite not having any sort of econ degree (and I wonder how many college level econ classes he’s taken). Sorta like a generic pundit with a liberal arts degree pontificating about a specialized field they know nothing about.

  41. John says:

    I took several statistics classes in college, and Leong’s “dating” site article does not satisfy a rigorous statistical approach. In particular she has not accounted for all the variables. If she turned her research into an undergraduate class, she would either get an F or be forced to redo it. Law professors should not do statistical studies unless they understand statistics.

    • justaguy says:

      Erm, in what way is her study based on quantitative analysis?

      • Lee Rudolph says:

        Many people who took several statistics courses in college do not believe in qualitative analyses, and indeed may never have heard of them.

        • anthrofred says:

          +/-1 standard deviation.

          I sometimes tell people anthopology is sociology for people with an allergy to math. The physical antho and archaeology folks take offense, though.

          At any rate, it’s only a problem for your study to not be “ruggedly statistical” if it makes a claim to be such. I honestly think there are some issues with her methodology, but not producing results with chi-squares isn’t one of them.

      • Jaded says:

        Erm, in what way does posting pics on hotornot.com constitute a “study”? That taxpayer-backed loans are paying for such garbage is horrifying.

        • justaguy says:

          Well, granted she only gives a brief description of a preliminary study, but I don’t think Leong’s project is well designed. But my problem with a lot of criticisms of her work here is that they go to far and claim that looking at the subject she’s studying isn’t valid, or that qualitative studies or research into internet based social interactions aren’t valid. So, doing qualitative research on internet based social interactions is pretty solid as a research focus – see Coming of Age in Second Life for a great example of that. Whether Leong is doing it well, on the other hand, is an entirely different question.

  42. Jake says:

    Paul, what leads you to believe that Prof. Leong filed a bar complaint against dybbuk? Her last blog post reads like she filed the bar complaint against a different harasser – but maybe there’s more information that I’m not aware of.

    It’d be pretty funny if the allegations of career retribution were based on misreading random blog posts.

    • MacK says:

      She said so and her mentor in this Brian Leiter congratulated her for doing so

      inter aliashe’s probably posting in this thread – my money is currently on Jordan being her sock puppet/handle

      • Jake says:

        Where did she say so? Or Leiter?

        Got links?

          • Jake says:

            That’s just Leiter quoting Leong’s blog post.

            Which does not say she filed a bar complaint about dybbuk. Any competent lawyer reading it would notice that she talks about dybbuk specifically, then says “several of my attorneys were attorneys, I filed a bar complaint against one after getting advice from legal ethics experts,” then goes back to talking about dybbuk and how she decided not to publish his name out of concern for his reputation.

            There’s no way she filed the bar complaint against him. She and dybbuk would both know for sure; get either of them to come out and say it and I’ll believe it, otherwise you all are just making shit up so you can play the victim.

      • Warren Terra says:

        (1) see above.

        (2) Do try to engage with arguments rather than personalities. All of the nonsense aspects of this whole froofraw could have been avoided if people would follow this (if you’ll pardon the clickbait parody) one weird rule – or, at least, if far fewer people were violating that rule their transgressions would be more distinctive and apparent.

      • bored lawyer says:

        Mack, I hope you are incorrect and “Jordan” is not Ms. Leong. If this were so, since I have qibbled with her here, could she not accuse me of harrassment? Could she not allege that LGM is a stinking cesspool of driveby sexism? Perhaps I would have been far more protected from future grievance proceedures had I contacted her through an approved internet content provider. Like Ashley Madison.

        • Anon says:

          Leong’s ridiculous and contemptible decision to file a frivolous bar complaint against a critic, while at the same time dishonestly smearing him by association with anyone who has ever posted a sexist or racist remark about her on the internet, is the kind of thing that at a minimum doesn’t seem likely to help her budding career.

          Law profs take note: your critics aren’t nearly as prone to tolerate your abuse of authority once they’re out of your classrooms.

          • Blip says:

            Is she trying to tie him to comments which appear elsewhere on the internet, on threads which he did not start or participate in and on sites for which he has no involvement? Surely that would be inappropriate.

            But that is not the case. I do not think she tied him to any thread which he did not start or incite against her or join in the fun.

            It is like going to a drunken frat house where sexist comments are flying and starting to make sexist comments about someone’s mother or girlfriend, to laugh with approval when everyone else joins in and tried to top your comments about her, and then to be shocked, shocked, that anyone would fail to completely parse out exactly whether the most severely inappropriate comments came from you or someone else.

  43. John says:

    Paul,

    You are right about Leong. About a month ago she got her “harassment” written up in Slate. She said this:”A law professor named Nancy Leong published the first of four posts on web harassment. “I want to look closely at…the way that Internet harassers focus on identity rather than on ideas as a specific strategy for excluding women and people of color from online discourse,” she wrote. At which point anyone with any kind of acquaintance with “online discourse” knew to get ready for some repugnant examples. Leong chose hers from personal experience.”

    “Leong explains that these cracks exemplify a specific strategy cyber-bullies use to shut down minorities. Instead of engaging with the ideas presented, trolls zero in on the presenters. They hijack the conversation by fixating on the target’s lower status. Basically, they respond to notions they don’t like by telling authors: You’re just a [fill in the blank]. You’re qualified to [do whatever probably-degrading things are stereotypically associated with the type of blank you are], but not have opinions.”

    It seems to me that Leong is trying to preclude substantive criticism of her articles by crying racism and sexism.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/11/16/jonathan_martin_and_nancy_leong_were_both_bullied_what_does_the_difference.html

    • justaguy says:

      But Campos’ focus on her “tenuously racialized” identity, as well as his allegation that she is crying racism to leverage her race for career advancement, only validates what Leong is saying.

      • Anonymous says:

        [quote]But Campos’ focus on her “tenuously racialized” identity, as well as his allegation that she is crying racism to leverage her race for career advancement, only validates what Leong is saying.[/quote]

        If you guys would get your heads out of your rear ends and simply approach this from a common sense point of view, all Campos is doing is pointing out the obvious about Leong, who is simply too immature to accept the voices of complaint that she and others get on the internet. She is a cry baby and those of you supporting her and attacking Campos for pointing it out are insufferable.

        • mc says:

          I’d love it if the people that keep claiming the criticism of Leong’s “scholarship” is racist/sexist could FIRST come out and say whether they think the tripe she’s published is worthy of a professorial CV, and the bigger question of whether people like her are qualified to educate future lawyers, or are themselves part of the problem of an over-priced & largely worthless law school education, BEFORE reminding us for the umpteenth time that they don’t think it’s fair to so much as mention Leong’s race (even though she herself inserted it into the debate), gender, or that her piece on dating sites was “just a blog post” (it was not, as she herself calls it a research project and says there’s more to come, but I digress).

          You know… just so we know where you stand here…

          • justaguy says:

            1) What I’ve seen of Leong’s scholarship doesn’t strike me as particularly good. As much as you can judge an article by its abstract, it seems pretty horrible. Describing Leong’s scholarship as horrible is in no way racist or sexist.

            2) Allegations that a minority scholar got where they are not based on their own abilities, but due to their race are offensive. Period. Campos is being completely unprofessional when he claims that Leong is using allegations of racism to leverage her race to further her career. His descriptions of her as “tenuously racialized” are even more offensive.

            If Campos had any specific evidence of this, it might be able to make the case without coming off as racist, but Campos hasn’t been able to supply that. Indeed, he concedes that he is speculating on her motivations.

            3) Leong hasn’t inserted her race into the debate. She reacted to people saying racist and sexist things about her. This was in all likelihood an overreaction, but so what? Does that mean that saying something about her that would otherwise be racist is somehow not offensive? If someone claims to have experienced racism, does replying that they could “pass for white” somehow negate that claim?

            So, in conclusion, bad scholarship is bad, and racist criticisms are racist.

            • John says:

              It has been well-established here that Dybbuk did not make a racist remark. If you read the remark, it is clear he was referring to law professors in general, not Leong. Also Dybbuk did not know she was Hawaiian. Since Leong was clearly wrong, she either made the false allegation to advance her career or to harass Dybbuck.

              • Lee Rudolph says:

                Since Leong was clearly wrong, she either made the false allegation to advance her career or to harass Dybbuck.

                I assume you’re just posting to see if anyone is still reading this thread and is awake.

                Granting that she was “clearly wrong”, it does not follow that she was not sincerely wrong, that is, mistaken. If she were mistaken, then it would not be so that her motivation for making the allegation (which we are stipulating was false, but which on the current hypothetical she would have mistakenly thought to be true) could only be either “to advance her career” or “to harass Dybbuk”.

                • justaguy says:

                  It does strike me as strange that people who, rightly, deride Leong for being incoherent in her scholarship can’t entertain the possibility that she might be equally incoherent in her personal conduct.

            • MacK says:

              This entire post comes down to point 3 – “Leong hasn’t inserted her race into this debate. She reacted to people saying racist and sexist things about her”

              to quote Leong defenders poor reading comprehension is visible here.

              Leong filed a complaint against dybbuk – according to her, that is predicated on Dybbuk knowingly making a racist statement about her alleged Hawaiian/Polynesian ancestry. Her complaint alleges that Dybbuk’s comment about an expensive conference in Hawaii being her getting on the “gravy train or should I say Luau train” was a racist comment on her alleged Hawaiian ancestry.

              Simultaneously Leong posts a series based on her cruising sleazy hookup sites in which she exploits her racial ambiguity to be Asian and Caucasian – and compare the “come-ons” she gets between personas – announcing Inter aliathat her ancestry is not obvious. But the genesis of her complaint is that Dybbuks “gravy train” “Luau train” pun was a racist slight (on a conference in Hawaii) against her vague Hawaiian ancestry – which is hard to determine.

              Then she filed an ethics complaint against Dybbuk.

              So Leong is presenting herself as a victim of racism and seeking to raise her profile while seeking a job where this characterisation might help – loudly – based on the utter racial bullshit she injected into this debate.

              Justaguy, your post is complete twaddle

              • justaguy says:

                I was referring to the fact, which everybody seems to agree on, that racist and sexist things were said in the various threads critical of Leong’s work. She seems to be holding Dybbuk responsible for racist things in threads started by him. That is, indeed, unreasonable. But, it isn’t entirely clear how you can then conclude that she is self-consciously using false claims of racism to leverage her ethnicity in order to further her career. Could you explain the train of logic which led you there?

                Can’t she just be unreasonable?

                • MacK says:

                  We’ll – apply Occam’s razor – bullshit claims of racial harassment – leveraging efforts in feminist forums and other fora all based on bullshit claim – current effort to move up in law school world – all at the same time – motive implied…

                  Either she is a poisonous halfwit or she thinks ignored helps her career (and is a halfwit)

                • JoeJ says:

                  To MacK — it seems that you are saying it would be okay for dybbuk to be sexist, as long as he was not racist.

                  You are also suggesting that, if a bar complaint alleged racism and sexism, but only sexism was proven, then the complaint would be completely frivolous.

                • MacK says:

                  JoeJ – I never agreed with any sexism – read my comments. I did suggest that it was unwise to mention Leong being attractive on Dybbuks part and I find the sexism and MRA comments that appear on many forums objectionable. I do not think Dybbuks comments justify Leong’s conduct, and I recognise that by her own admission, her racial background is hard to determine, yet she claimed Dybbuk knew it when making the gravy/luau train quip. Filing an ethics complaint against a lawyer is a very serious action, an effort to take the lawyers profession and career away – to do so dishonestly is reprehensible.

                  As far as attractiveness goes, there are ample studies that show, pretty conclusively, that attractive people, male and female, get preferential treatment, are paid more, get more attention in school, are considered more intelligent, etc. in making that point I am not endorsing Dybbuk raising Leong’s looks in his blog posting – I think it was a bad idea and unnecessary – her writings are on their own, utter drivel, her qualifications to teach criminal law a joke. He does not need to say more.

                  Leong’s problem with Dybbuk is transparently that he drew attention to her ludicrous published maunderings. Most law review articles are read by no-one,they simply fill lines in the authors resume, useful when interviewing. Dybbuk has made Leong’s most execrable writing highly noticeable – for her that really stings.

                • JoeJ says:

                  MacK – Putting the racism and sexism allegations aside, how many posts do you think it is reasonable for dybbuk to have made about this one junior professor’s article, someone he has never met? Putting racism allegations aside, and even the sexism ones, would you want someone working for you who gets this obsessive about a junior professor he has never met? Imagine if he had a legitimate beef with an ex-spouse or a boss, or someone whom he had actually met IRL? What kind of abuse could they expect on the interwebs?

  44. Anon says:

    Nancy filed a bar complaint because she doesn’t know how to file a lawsuit. Imagine the laughter at her court filings which would be public record.

  45. right. says:

    Great timing. This one‘s for you, Nancy.

  46. Law prof says:

    Dear Paul,

    Why are you bashing Prof Leong…again? Her writing is derivative, uninspired or inspiring but the constant commentary about her is getting both tired and thin. And, it unleashes the kind if sophomoric, inane commentary that would shame a 16 year old boy! Baste!

    You have a good critique of law schools. They use elite schools as a proxy for intelligence, dismiss potential faculty who have practice experience, and deify placement in law journals run by students! It is at once maddening and embarrassing. But remember law school has always been the illigetimate step-sister in the academic family. No one in any University Department anywhere would equate a JD with a Ph.d in essence because there is nothing even remotely similar in either the intellectual rigor required or the educational hurdles that must be dealt with….but what is fascinating is the fact that law faculty on average have never really practiced law, some faculty haven’t even taken the bar…and the approach to learning, has been Byzantine at best. Indeed, finally law faculty have discovered the value of integrating theory with practice….something educators have known for. .well eons.

    I wish you’d focus on the insuperable chasm that exists between what the practice of law demands and what law school is about. I wish you’d focus on the systemic elitism, classism that marks both the legal academy and the hiring process for the academy.( something that CU also collaborates with, yes?). We need to redefine what constitutes ” best,” and reward value differently. Yet, by focusing on Leong, you waste time, space and quite frankly obscure the real systemic problems that are embedded in law schools.

    Just so you don’t come after me now… I had over 15 years of practice experience, am actually a trained educator …having taught HS as well as college…and have a few awards for teaching, scholarship and advocacy. So…I think I know a wee bit about teaching as well as what could make for a terrific legal educational program.

  47. [...] that she is worst thing since Hitler. So I grow restless. I’m no longer content to troll bhitler; I now turn my ire on you, her readers, her [...]

  48. heh. says:

    The banner ad on the homepage of Nancy’s hometown Denverpost just now pointed me here and tries to entice me to date Asian women by luring me with pictures of them. The outrage!

  49. Its worth a little time to computer you can talk to think about and ponder.
    Pentium based computers will have two levers that lock the heat sink
    to fill in anygaps. The lots of important computer you can
    talk to kinds of computer connectors are many with different functions displayed on the site.
    In general a desktop will make playing MMO games much easier due to the higher volume of smaller
    transactions.

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site