Just the other day, Lawprof Dan Solove, Concurring Opinions honcho, stopped by here to let me know that I’ve annoyed him.
I’m rather surprised you continue to read Concurring Opinions given your contempt for academia. If we’re all a bunch of clueless out-of-touch fools with our heads in the clouds, and the true wisdom is held by those who practice law, then why waste your time reading us?
But perhaps that’s what you want to continue doing — make broad generalizations about academics and bash these stereotypes.
I’m not writing to try to convince you otherwise — the tone of your post and others demonstrates that you’re not likely to change your opinion of academics anytime soon. But I must say that I find your post and others about my co-bloggers to be unnecessarily dismissive and nasty.
I’m not writing to stop you. Continue on if you must. Hurl out your insults, hasty assumptions, and anti-academic tirades. It’s a big blogosphere, and everyone’s entitled to his/her opinion. I just couldn’t resist venting my annoyance.
I read Co-Op. I read PrawfsBlawg. I read many of the lawprof blawgs. I read them because many of the posts are fascinating, have new ideas or express worn thoughts in new ways. I read them because I learn from them. Although this might not give rise to a post about how wonderful they are, though it sometimes does, I read every post at Co-Op because it adds to my knowledge. Lawprofs are happy to receive positive reactions. But must they whine when it’s not all hugs and kisses?
And what about you? Do you read practitioner blawgs? Any of them? Aside from the odd post that mentions your name, what practitioner blawgs do you read regularly? When is the last time you, or anyone over at Co-Op, has suggested that a practitioner has anything worthwhile to add? Practitioners have quite a bit to say, and a wealth of insight into how the law actually functions. Yet you wouldn’t know it from Co-Op.
Unfortunately, that’s the last I’ve heard from Dan. Jdog suggested that the better reaction from lawprofs was to interact with practitioners, rather than engage in hyperbolic hit and run.
John Neff’s reaction to the tête-à-tête was that the practitioners were being “shunned” by the lawprofs. I suspect that Dan doesn’t see it that way. I suspect that Dan sees it the problem as one of our making, that we’re too inclined to attack in offensive tones and course language. We can’t manage to get our point across in a sufficiently nuanced, which some might characterize as effete, manner. Dan is right about this. We are a bit brutish compared to the lawprofs, and they may be rightly offended by our tone.
But is the answer to hide, Dan? You think we don’t like you. We think you don’t like us. Outsiders think this is ridiculous, having the potential for far more useful discussion and avoiding it because of hard feelings.
So I pose a question to all of the academics, the scholars, the lawprofs out there. Not just Dan, who was at least ballsy enough to show up here to vent his feelings, but to all of you who post at blawgs about the law, about subjects that affect real people, about your theories that you want judges to adopt. Why won’t you engage in discussions with practitioners?
In the past, you’ve been forced to endure the allegation that you are engaged in a “circle jerk,” a crude description that, almost to a person, has caused no shortage of anger. But the point of this description is that you only interact amongst your own kind, a closed circle that allows for no outsider dissent or challenge. I officially apologize for my own use of this offensive and juvenile phrase, though not for the concept it embodies. It’s accurate. But it can be changed.
And if you don’t respond, don’t engage, continue to shun practicing lawyers while inviting only members of your own club to react, we are left to conclude that you have no faith in your scholarship, that it can’t withstand scrutiny by practitioners. If so, then what purpose is there to your scholarship? All those smart people holed away in the Ivory Tower, unwilling to have their theories put to the test. Then we are left with no doubt that you write only to amuse yourselves and impress your friends in the Academy.
Is that all there is to legal academia? Maybe I’m way off the mark. Hey, I’m no scholar, just a trench lawyer trying to learn a thing or two from people who have better thoughts than me. If I’m wrong, let me know. Dan, Dave, the other Dan, anyone? Let’s get this out in the open. It’s time for a little sunshine on this divide between the acadmics and the practitioners. Let me have it. Hit me with your best shot. I can take it. Let’s air it out and then put this hostility behind us. We will all be better off this way.
But stop hiding. We know you’re out there.
But here’s an idea: attack the arguments he’s actually making. Not “the true wisdom is held by those who practice law”, but some useful wisdom and insight into law is learned by the practice of law, and ought to be incorporated into the study of law — particularly by those who are going to teach others to practice law.My “attacks” on academia, which Dan reads as “vehement contempt,” are invitations to challenge the intersection of theory and practice. While many practitioners have no use for academics, many of whom have little or no real world experience in the law despite the fact that they are charged with raising the next crop of practicing lawyers, I disagree. As I explained in my response to Dan’s comment (which he would have called a tirade had I written it to him, but I won’t because he’ll be offended by my tone), we can do better working together than ignoring each other.
He didn’t say that for the first — or twenty-first time — in his response to you here; it’s a theme he’s been harping on as long as I’ve been a regular reader of SJ.
From this outsider’s POV, it’s a curiosity of legal academia. In medical academia, there’s a whole lot of attention paid to the experience of clinicians — and if you need a few cites, they’re easy to find. In Civil Engineering trade schools, a whole lot of the academics not only have done things like, say, build bridges what haven’t fallen down, but pay a fair amount of attention to them what has built bridges what haven’t fallen down.
John Neff’s reaction to the tête-à-tête was that the practitioners were being “shunned” by the lawprofs. I suspect that Dan doesn’t see it that way. I suspect that Dan sees it the problem as one of our making, that we’re too inclined to attack in offensive tones and course language. We can’t manage to get our point across in a sufficiently nuanced, which some might characterize as effete, manner. Dan is right about this. We are a bit brutish compared to the lawprofs, and they may be rightly offended by our tone.
But is the answer to hide, Dan? You think we don’t like you. We think you don’t like us. Outsiders think this is ridiculous, having the potential for far more useful discussion and avoiding it because of hard feelings.
So I pose a question to all of the academics, the scholars, the lawprofs out there. Not just Dan, who was at least ballsy enough to show up here to vent his feelings, but to all of you who post at blawgs about the law, about subjects that affect real people, about your theories that you want judges to adopt. Why won’t you engage in discussions with practitioners?
In the past, you’ve been forced to endure the allegation that you are engaged in a “circle jerk,” a crude description that, almost to a person, has caused no shortage of anger. But the point of this description is that you only interact amongst your own kind, a closed circle that allows for no outsider dissent or challenge. I officially apologize for my own use of this offensive and juvenile phrase, though not for the concept it embodies. It’s accurate. But it can be changed.
And if you don’t respond, don’t engage, continue to shun practicing lawyers while inviting only members of your own club to react, we are left to conclude that you have no faith in your scholarship, that it can’t withstand scrutiny by practitioners. If so, then what purpose is there to your scholarship? All those smart people holed away in the Ivory Tower, unwilling to have their theories put to the test. Then we are left with no doubt that you write only to amuse yourselves and impress your friends in the Academy.
Is that all there is to legal academia? Maybe I’m way off the mark. Hey, I’m no scholar, just a trench lawyer trying to learn a thing or two from people who have better thoughts than me. If I’m wrong, let me know. Dan, Dave, the other Dan, anyone? Let’s get this out in the open. It’s time for a little sunshine on this divide between the acadmics and the practitioners. Let me have it. Hit me with your best shot. I can take it. Let’s air it out and then put this hostility behind us. We will all be better off this way.
But stop hiding. We know you’re out there.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
My perspective on the concept of “balls” was developed in the late 50’s and early 60’s at the schoolyard of PS 162 in Queens. It was generally accepted that confronting someone who was bigger and stronger required balls. If someone was challenged to go into another schoolyard and fight under someone else’s rules he would be considered foolish to go and certainly wouldn’t be ranked out if he decided to let the other person play alone in his sandbox with his own silly rules.
I have no idea who this Professor is and if he has balls or not but since you constantly go on about how this is your blog and you make the rules, I can’t view him as a coward for not wanting to engage you in a pointless debate. Of coarse it just may be that certain people dislike your course language but that shouldn’t be a reason not to enter into discussions with you.
I don’t think it takes any balls at all to go on the blogs of the Law Professors and leave whatever comments you wish. I doubt that they have a “my blog my rules” approach. If you truly feel they would be better served by knowing your opinion, log on to their blogs and give it to them. The worst that can happen is that they’ll poke holes in your arguments….nah, actually the worst that can happen is that they’ll ignore you and there will be nothing you can do about it.
With regard to your desire to know who is posting a particular comment, and even though I believe comments should be judged by what is said and not by who is saying it, my first name is Glenn, I have been an attorney in New York since 1979. I neither have a website nor do I conduct business by email so I can’t provide a way for you to check up on me while sitting at your keyboard. As an attorney, when I think someone has taken a stupid position, I never call him/her a jerk or such, I use words like “misguided” Ill-advised” and a bunch of others which get the point across while letting me maintain the professional and dignified manner that I believe attorneys should strive for.
If you need to find out if my balls are brass, feel free to call me at 964-1210. My office is on Broadway between Worth and Thomas (makes for a short walk to the trenches).
Have a nice Sunday, Scottie
I find you to be one of the more interesting people who occasionally comment here. While others think you’re a troll, which is understandable given your effort to be snide, I disagree. In fact, you were the source of my favorite Latin expression, stercus accidit, for which I will be eternally grateful. You always add curious tidbits in your comments, like switching course and coarse in this one, and allusions that strain my memory. I enjoy the challenge.
As for Dan Solove, or any of the lawprofs, they don’t have to come here to engage in a discussion. They have their own blawgs, and can always have their say there. So even if they were to comment here, and I somehow messed with their comments, they could always use their blawgs to call me out on it. They have as much of a voice as I do, but you probably weren’t aware of this, and thus your mistaken assumption. I don’t hold this against you, since you aren’t to be expected to know what I know, or they know. It’s quite common for the occasional sniper to make mistaken assumptions.
But one assumption you weren’t mistaken about was how much I hate to be called Scottie. So you can enjoy that one, though it didn’t meet the standards of your usual wit.
Just for the record: if Scott has ever deleted a post here on the grounds that he disagreed with it, he’s kept it a secret. I’m pretty sure it’s never happened.
As a practical matter, should any of the snooty lawprofs (note: I’m offering a shoe; those that it pinches may refrain from shoving their foot into it) care to engage in a discussion here, it’s safe to say that any wounds they might end up with would be self-inflicted, and that the real, practical limitation would be the 3000 characters imposed by the software . . . . which does not prohibit several responses.
I try not to be too hard on Glenn as he doesn’t have much grasp for the blawgosphere, but his comments are usually interesting, if snippy. I suppose he reads some, but doesn’t understand that there is a community amongst us, rather than isolated blawgs, as an outsider would see it. Hence his mistaken assumptions. It would take way too much effort, and serve no useful purpose, to go through his comment line by line and explain his errors. He doesn’t really care enough either way. He’s just here for a quick cute, slightly self-aggradizing, comment, and then he’s off somewhere else. But at least he’s usually interesting.
Plus, he comes from Queens. Need I say more?
‘Kay. As a Simple reader, all I ask from a commentator is logic, good spelling, and decent grammar. Hence, although SHG is certainly coarse as needed, he is not, as you would have it, “course.” And, I don’t think I need to determine for myself if your balls are brass, or even wooden. I delegate such adventures to SHG.
Thanks, but I pass too.
What difference does it make that he comes from Queens?
Silly hinterlands girl. If you have to ask . . .
Stands to reason you would have an attitude. Your buddy Glenn may be wondering too.
So I am a snide, snippy sniper and a self-aggrandizing troll? Is that your description of everyone who grew up in Queens in my era? You know, those working class people who didn’t have rec rooms and who grew up not understanding the culture and folkways of those who blog?
I am still of the belief that courage entails more than responding to statements made on a blog and that choosing not to respond, either by commenting or posting, does not signify that someone is afraid. If you accuse these professors of engaging in figurative circle jerks and being effete in their comments. why are you surprised that they elect to ignore you as a result of how you choose to say things?
Your petulance at not being invited to the professors’ party was why I used the diminutive suffix to your name as I think you are being juvenile. It wasn’t my intention to annoy a prolific blogger such as yourself.
I thank you for calling me cute, it doesn’t happen very often, and I wish your son well in his competition and both of you a safe trip.
If you read your posts on the professor once again I think you’ll see that the “coarse/course” sentence isn’t curious at all. Once you do, you can, if you wish, explain it to your little playmate as I don’t think she’ll figure it out on her own.
One last thing….do you think the guys who run the Lemon Ice King of Corona blog?
Groundling, some free advice, worth at least what you’re paying for it: chill. If you’re going to hang here, you need a thick skin.
That said, I think the matter that you bring up of whether and how some of the lawprofs can be persuaded to interact with the street lawyer rabble is an interesting one, but you seem to be missing a key point: the polite invitations and requests for such interaction have long since gone out, with, at best, negliblle results. Our host’s rather less genteel imprecations simply can’t possibly be much less effective than that.
I beg the honor to remain,
yrs humble & devoted servant,
Jdog
Jdog: I thank you for the advice and appreciate the spirit in which it was given. I note that you have always come across as a good friend to the host and I respect you for that. The pejorative descriptions didn’t bother me at but I was bemused by their number.
As for the actual subject matter of the post and comments, at this point I’ll just sit back and watch the host and the prof play their blogging version of ring-o-leevio (a popular Queens game)
Since Dan hasn’t been heard from, and you’ve already hijacked the comment thread, I might as well get this out of the way. Jdog was a reader, like you, who over time became a friend. He’s quite an accomplished person, although not a lawyer. But he’s come to appreciate what I do here and he’s protective of me, knowing that I’m not the most tolerant person. He’s less “prickly” than I am.
That said, his message to you was quite simple. Stop behaving like an asshole if you want to be welcome here. The regular readers are not impressed with you, and most of your assumptions are misguided. You think otherwise, which leaves you to be the fool to others. You aren’t getting this, although I’ve tried, in a remarkably nice way for me, to let you in on this secret. You do not come here and make fun of people. It’s not your place. I can make you disappear with a click, but I’ve allowed you to continue because I do find you funny. But if you ever demean anyone else, as you did Kathleen, then you simply cease to be welcome. It’s that simple.
You are welcome to poke fun at me, though some of your “issues” are ridiculous. You want to make fun of my typos? Big deal. Others read for the substance and know that I just write without proofreading. If you think your pointing out typos is impressive, than you’re wasting everyone’s time. I leave tons of typos behind. That’s how it goes. If it bothers you, read something else.
Since you waste your time reading posts here, why not try to contribute something useful to the discussion instead of trying to show everyone how brilliant and snarky you are. No one cares. No one comes here to read about you. This isn’t your blawg and, near as I can tell, you’ve done nothing other than to take cheap shots at the fringes and interfere with discussion. That isn’t appreciated, by me or anyone else. And if this offends, then go away. That’s fine too. You would be one less asshole to deal with, and no one will miss you. No one. Get it?
So, if you appreciate the spirit in which Jdog’s advice was given, then guide yourself accordingly. You are neither admired nor respected for your comments. They are snide and pointless. Others are interested in the subject and discussions. If you aren’t, then go away. If you are, then contribute something useful. But either way, stop behaving like an asshole. That’s the spirit of Jdog’s advice. If you choose not to heed it, then you’re gone. I will not have you pissing off other readers nor hijacking the discussion again.
Since you’re such a tough guy, are you tough enough to handle a dose of reality? If you want to see if anyone else is impressed with you, start your own blawg and write about all your brilliant thoughts. Maybe you will be the most important blawger in the world. Find out. But do not continue to act like an asshole here. I’m now done with this, and if you bother to comment again, either act like a human being or you’re gone.