In a surprisingly severe, maybe even harsh, review of his fellow law professors, Dave Hoffman at Co-Op has posted a critique of the lawprof blawgosphere somewhat obsessive expression of political views, issues and arguments.  It ain’t pretty.

The brilliance of the political blogosphere throws a harsh and unflattering light on the law professor blogosphere. I don’t mean to harp, but it is striking to me that almost all political commentary you’ve seen on law professor blogs this last 6 or 12 or 18 months has been ill-informed, or vapid, contentless, and much, much too meta. (Yes, I get the irony. Indulge me.)

Not everything a professor says is interesting. When 40, 60, 100, or more students laugh at your jokes, I guess it becomes easy to forget. Generally, people add value by writing and talking about things they know something about. Thus, I agree with Leiter that Bill Henderson is one of the country’s best law professor bloggers. Most law professors have no personal experience with the innards of a modern political campaign (serving as an consultant on a committee about a substantive legal issue isn’t the same at all). We aren’t well positioned to know what commercial will appeal to lower-middle-class voters, or what song will inspire youth turnout. But we’ve blogged about it anyway.

Whoa.  This is largely the political piece to the practical piece that the practical blawgosphere has mentioned more than a few times in the past.  But has it really been that bad?

Some lawprof blawgs have gotten totally out of the control, post after post after post attempting to rationalize political choices as if their say-so is any more valuable than anyone else’s.   Of course, law professors are every bit as entitled to express their views, and the arguments in support, as anyone else.  Indeed, even when they’ve chosen to express them in ways that are beneath the usual nuanced and collegial manner the characterizes the academic approach, it must be remembered that these are people too.  They are allowed to get caught up in their positions, and enjoy a little heat under their collar.

If I understand Dave correctly, which he informs me occasionally that I don’t, his problem is that law professors enjoy a level of credibility by virtue of their station that suggests that their opinions carry great weight.  Dave suggests, again if I understand him correctly, that they really shouldn’t carry such weight, and don’t deserve the attributed credibility.  Compared to those who really do know what they are talking about, the lawprofs have been sucking wind.

I’m not so sure that I agree that the lawprofs have been quite as vapid as Dave says.  Sure, there has been plenty of pumping and stumping going on, particularly on the libertarian front, and much of it flagrantly biased.  So what?  It’s not their fault that they are simultaneously law professors and people with strong political views.  And to the extent anyone heeds their unwarranted arguments, that burden falls on the shoulders of the reader, not the writer. 

On the other hand, I’ve found many interesting arguments, claims and issues that raised my consciousness during the campaign.  More often than not, I was left markedly unimpressed, but I appreciated reading other points of view.  In fact, I felt better about reading them and thinking that they were unpersuasive then I would have felt had I remained insulated and smug.

But my hope is that Dave’s point, to the extent that others in the academy take it to heart, will be recognized as extending beyond the walls of politics.  A long time ago, I argued that the blawgosphere was comprised of self-contained insular groups, one of which was the lawprofs.  Common fodder for their discussions was the impact of laws and decisions. While they parried and riposted amongst themselves, they rarely slummed in the practical blawgosphere.  After all, what could 25 years experience in the trenches bring to a discussion amongst scholars?

Some lawprofs don’t like me arguing this point, and take offense.  They pay no attention to the practical blawgosphere, I’m told, because we’re just a bunch of dumb lawyers who are incapable of thinking and writing on a doctrinal level.  And, I’m told, they get annoyed by this.  Well, I sure would hate to annoy anyone.

I read most of the lawprof blawgs regularly, because they raise great issues and identify consequential decisions that I might never know about without them.  They add a great deal to the blawgosphere.  But as with Dave’s complaint about the fact that they may not have perfect pitch on politics, they could learn a little something from working lawyers as well.  No, we’re not all brilliant.  But frankly, neither are they.

Over the past few months, I’ve seen almost no cross-discussion between the practical blawgosphere and the law professor blawgosphere from the lawprof side of the road.  Is the practical blawgosphere just that worthless in the eyes of the lawprofs, or do they remain holed up in their Ivory Tower?   Either way, maybe we could learn more from each other if we all got together for a beer every once in a while.