Utah Lawprof Michael Teter posted something funny over at PrawfsBlawg. The title was Campos is Right, but it has absolutely nothing to do with scamblogging hero Paul Campos. It was just to troll.
I’m going to let you in on a secret. Those of us who guest blog here measure our success by one criterion alone: whether we get the mainstays of the Prawfs family to comment on our posts. Only when we see the likes of Dan Markel, the two Ricks, Howard Wasserman, and all of the other folks listed to the immediate right, in the comments do we know that we’ve truly arrived. And let’s not forget Orin Kerr. I won’t hide the satisfaction I felt upon seeing that my first post on Prawfs drew a response from Orin himself. A day late, sure, but that only adds to the power and mystique. The comment was succinct and witty – pure Orin Kerr.In other words, Teter wanted to grab the attention of the big boys of the Prawfosphere, with a post that would draw them by title, then amuse them by wit. Such fun! It really was a very cute concept, and let the rest of us peer into a window of the Academy and see how the baby prawfs jockey for attention from the big boys.
But as is so often the case, cute ideas are seized upon by the miserable, whose inability to find humor compels them to turn everything into rant. The first commenter posted a long, cogent but misguided reaction about how Teter’s use of the Campos’ name for the trivial purpose of making a joke reflected the prawfs underlying failure to address the scamlawyer problem. The author of the comment, voodoo94, anticipated that his comment would be removed by PrawfsBlawg honcho Dan Markel.
And so it was.*
I don’t blame Dan Markel for tossing the comment, both as a matter of right and because voodoo94 sought to hijack the comments and turn it to his issue. Invocation of the name of Campos, deity of the disaffected, unemployed young lawyer, does not mandate serious reflection on their issues. This was a lighthearted post, though revealing in its own way, and Teter is allowed to have some fun with Campos’ name. There are other post, other blawgs, that deal with a very real and serious problem. Not every post mentioning Campos has to wear a frown.
But the tale took a strange turn after Dan sought to justify his removal of the comment. He wrote:
Dealing with comments presents one of the most troublesome aspects of blawging. As these things go, voodoo94’s comment was thoughtful, cogent and interesting, even if it really had no place in this post. In the scheme of unwanted comments, this was about as good as it gets. It gets far, far worse.On the topic, I should note that I’m meeting with a tech guru soon and I’m thinking we might create a special passport to commenting on posts, if that’s technically feasible. The idea would be only pre-cleared commenters would be able to comment, sort of similar to the way facebook allows you to comment on things without intermediation, but only b/c the poster knows who’s commenting. Anyway, we’ll see, discuss and explore. Stay tuned.
Posted by: Dan Markel | Jan 5, 2012 6:04:13 PM
But Dan’s reaction, which I presume to be a reaction to undesired comments generally and not to this comment alone, is even more troubling. What I take from this is that law professors want to write, to opine, to spread the wealth of their brilliance, but only want to hear from those who either matter to them because of their predetermined ideas or their stature.
They hate this phrase, but it applies: this is the circle-jerk. This is the set-up of opining without fear of disagreement by the unwashed, the vulgar, the disaffected, the disagreeable. This allows scholars the platform to publish the ideas while insulating them from the scrutiny of their lessers or their foes.
While few practicing lawyers feel compelled to spend much time admiring the ideas promoted on lawprof blawgs, I read them. I’ve learned from them. I’ve agreed and disagreed with them. And because I happen to have this blawg, I can write about them. Others don’t have a similar platform.
Some prawfs have told me that they agree with me in private, but can’t possibly do so publicly because of the intense intra-Academy politics. Others have told me that I’m a blithering ass. Agreement and disagreement is how ideas work, and no one’s ideas, theirs or mine, are worth spit if not subject to scrutiny. Even the scrutiny of the great unwashed, trench lawyers.
As it turned out, Michael Teter’s humorous, light-hearted poke at grabbing the attention of lawprawfs whose interest he hoped to capture, by invoking the controversial Campos name, produced a far more interesting reaction than he would have imagined. If Dan Markel only wants an echo chamber, or the applause of his pre-approved friends, then my take is that he’s announcing that the ideas published at PrawfsBlawg aren’t capable of withstanding scrutiny, and therefore unworthy of being taken seriously. He diminishes his blawg.
So Teter trolls for attention from his seniors. Voodoo94 trolls for attention for his cause. And Markel trolls for attention from his cheerleaders. Instead of a place where ideas thrive, this will turn PrawfsBlawg into a place where ideas die.
* When I read the comment prior to its deletion, a squeaky voice inside me said, “copy this comment just in case Dan deletes it.” So I did. Here it is, for anyone who wants to read it.
I feel that this post is just sad. In its own way, it bolsters Campos’ argument that it is nearly impossible to get most legal academics to see the human and financial toll of the law school crisis facing most recent graduates – particularly those at 3rd and 4th Tier Schools.
Instead of taking a stand – one way or the other, right or wrong – on Professor Campos’ work, the author uses the post as an obsequious ode to the “LawPrawfs” who run the blog. No opinion is even ventured about the state of legal academia or the sustainability of the current educational/financial model at schools ranked lower than the Top 50. Hell, even the candid perspective of a junior faculty member entering academia at a time of such uncertainty over the efficacy and viability of the current US News-driven business model would be helpful. After all, in a time of contraction, wouldn’t the untenured be the first to go? Those of us outside the Ivory Tower, would find your thoughts on this quite illuminating.
I do not mean to single out Professor Teter here, but isn’t this emblematic of the go-along-to-get-along culture in academia – particularly among junior faculty seeking tenure? It seems that junior faculty are given a long leash to critique many subjects, but there is an unspoken rule to stay away from examining the stability of the Langdellian mothership.
My frustration extends beyond the junior faculty (who at least have the power dynamic of tenure status to explain their behavior). The uncritical examination of the status quo is also endemic to senior tenured faculty. I am especially frustrated by many of the 50, 60 and 70 somethings that comprise the remnants of the “critical legal studies” movement. If the law school “scam” (I use the term as a colloquialism, not as a statement of fact), isn’t a ready-made issue for CLS examination, what is? It’s got all the elements that should theoretically spur CLS inquiry. It hasn’t. The silence of the CLS community also reveals that in most quarters of legal academia, it’s safe to rail against many things – just not the structure of legal education itself.
Finally, I take a far less charitable view of Professor Markel’s censorship than Professor Teter does. In my limited and admittedly brief time reading this blog, I find that Professor Markel’s “quick draw” efforts to delete posts and close comments unsettling. I don’t know why he finds differing opinions so unsettling, but he does. His recent decision to delete a benign (and on topic) comment questioning the ethics of faculty accepting free food and drink from fourth tier Drexel Law School stands out to me. Of the “regulars”, he stands out as especially dismissive of any concerns raised by recent graduates and that is unfortunate. Dismissing the viewpoints of others grounded in personal experience/tragedy is unfortunate, but heavy-handed aggression towards those with different viewpoints is especially problematic. There is a special irony that this censorship occurs on a blog purportedly dedicated to “intellectual honesty.”
Posted by: Voodoo94 | Jan 5, 2012 8:22:42 AM
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If Dan Markel only wants an echo chamber, or the applause of his pre-approved friends, then my take is that he’s announcing that the ideas published at PrawfsBlawg aren’t capable of withstanding scrutiny, and therefore unworthy of being taken seriously. He diminishes his blawg.
Now that’s a bitch slap!
Scott, everyone’s entitled to their opinions but not on everyone else’s “space.” And if you’re going to condemn me for something, then you should make some effort at getting the facts right.
When I proposed in the comments to the thread that we might adopt a “passport” strategy, you should know there is nothing about that strategy that is an ex ante filter about *what* is said. Rather, it’s an attempt to make sure we know who is saying it.
There would be no reason for you or others to assume that only people I know would be given the passport to comment. The point is that there would be a verifiable way of knowing who’s commenting.
That’s not to say I wouldn’t delete comments ex post even from verified persons (even people I know can be jerks or inappropriate) but the point is that a passport system of the sort I had in mind wouldn’t necessarily let in only the people I wanted b/c I know their views. Students or lawyers or whomever could join but they wouldn’t be able to do so anonymously to us.
If adopted, I don’t think Prawfs will turn into a place where ideas will die. It may just turn into (or continue to serve as) a space where people own their words and act like grownups.
For what it’s worth, I’m disappointed by the fact that you reprinted Voodoo’s ignorant aspersions on Drexel’s actions or mine. I’ve engaged in countless dialogues with serious people both on the blog and in my scholarship. I don’t shrink from conversation or criticism, but I don’t feel I owe my time or my blog’s space to respond to anonymous and ad hominimen or impolite carpers. You may feel differently. I’ve got other fish to fry.
Have a good weekend,
dm
Dan,
I make clear that I don’t begrudge you the decision, as blawgmeister, to post or toss a comment. It’s your home, no question about it. Nor do I understand your complaint that I have misconstrued your “passport” strategy. I quote you in the entirety, and it says what it says. These are your words.
I agree wholeheartedly that you have no duty to allow any comment you don’t want. This is America, dammit. But here’s where we differ:
Anonymous I understand. I much prefer that people own their words. And still, sometimes anon commenters have something valuable to say. And I understand your aversion to ad homininem too, though I don’t think it means what you think it means.
But impolite carpers? Sorry, Dan, but this is where you lose me. So you don’t shrink from scrutiny, unless it displeases you, either in tone or content? I feel differently.
I think you are getting close to a people-in-glass-houses situation here Mr. Greenfield. Although I generally like your blog, you have definitely made some questionable decisions about what comments are relevant and which are not.
As a matter of fact, I have read your good blog less than I ordinarily would have because I feel that you are sometimes unduly cruel to the ideas of posters whom you consider uncredentialed.
I also think you have toned your act down considerably over the past year or so, but it is still hard not to chuckle at you getting up on a soapbox over this particular issue.
You raise an interesting point, and you’re the perfect person to do so. You are anonymous (though I know who you are, but I won’t tell), yet rely on your personal opinion that you feel that I’m unduly cruel to some commenters, and no doubt the ones to whom I’m unduly cruel would agree.
Yet I let you post your comment. And the commenters to whom I’m unduly cruel. And you, as a reader of comments, can decide for yourself whether they’re right, or I’m right, or I’m just cruel. The reason you can do this is because I allow all but the absolute worst comments, or comments which I toss for a specific reason (such as completely off topic or someone purporting to give legal advice who doesn’t provide a name and isn’t known to be a lawyer) to show. See the point?
The nature of my subject matter tends to lend itself to people who have extreme views on issues of the criminal justice system. Many have no clue about it, though they believe it’s enough to know that everybody they hate is evil and the system is a corrupt failure. This isn’t a new mantra, but adds nothing to anyone’s understanding of anything. You think I should be kinder to them? That’s fine. I don’t. If you were me, you could be as kind or cruel as you think appropriate. I will be as kind or cruel as I think appropriate. That’s how reactions work.
In the meantime, the fact that you can raise this question demonstrates that I’m remarkably liberal about what posts, allowing comments that I think are absurd, counterproductive and just plain stupid. I may not rub their bellies and tell them how much I admire their tin foil hat, as some readers may think I should, yet they appear.
I don’t understand. If a post, or a comment, or an idea is good, what’s the urgency to “make sure we know who is saying it.” Problem with spambots or something? If a dog sitting at a computer accidentally and miraculously paws out a good comment, the idea isn’t worth hearing?
This is kind of on a tangent, so understandable if deleted, but:
to explain a little more: I don’t care if you know who I am in real life. I don’t care if any regular readers of your blog know who I am in real life. The psuedonymity is to protect myself from people who don’t read your blog regularly from ripping my words out of context 5 or 10 or 20 years from now.
I do write under my own name on the internet. You would be bored to tears by that writing, largely because it is written to be difficult to misunderstand, rather than easy to understand (two very different things). That makes my real-name writing read like a law review article. Consequently, no one reads that stuff and no one ever will.
At least pseudononymously I can speak in plain English, which hopefully renders what I have to say more digestible and interesting.
My point is this: if there was a way to be anonymous with respect to the casual GOOGLERs, but non-anonymous to people who were reading your blog from ways besides GOOGLING my name, I would do it.
Now, you probably realize that you are pretty talented AND lucky, Mr. Greenfield becauseou have gobs and gobs of autonomy and are likely to always have that. Others, in different career paths are not so lucky and have to be what people used to call a “Company Man.” This entails a lot of silly nonsense that is difficult to fully appreciate until you have played that particular game for 10 or 20 years.
To conclude: I am not asking you to do anything different. I am not trying to complain about anything you have done in the past because it has always been your blog and I can read it or not as I please. Just trying to clarify that my psuedonymity has nothing to do with hiding from anybody who wants to discuss criminal law or criminal procedure with me, and wants to know my ideas about that. I am only hiding from people who don’t care a fig about the subjects we discuss here. People who don’t care about these issues don’t deserve to know my real name and will only do mischief with it. This is why you know my name, and why it is okay for you to know my name. You actually care about what we are talking about. That makes all the difference.
I understand why, in some instances, it’s important to be able to appreciate the source of a comment, and that’s why some others (Bennett and Hull come immediately to mind) refuse to post anon comments. But I don’t want to put words in Dan Markel’s mouth, so I leave it to him to explain his issue.
I have no issue with your decision to comment anonymously/pseudononymously. That I know who you are is my choice, but it’s also helped me to understand when you post a comment that you know what you’re talking about, and I give you greater latitude than I might give someone else.
Am I wrong to give greater latitude to people who I perceive as credible? Perhaps. It’s certainly not very egalitarian of me, but I am a sucker for credibility. Anonymous normative assertions are worthless to me.
But here’s the rub. Some folks who agree with my perspective, or at least aspects of it, write some batshit crazy screeds here and expect to be embraced. I consider this harmful and dangerous, both to the cause of illuminating impropriety as well as maintaining the cred of SJ. There are judges, prosecutors and lawprofs who stop by here. If this becomes a haven of insanity, of blind rage against the government, of thoughtless, knee-jerk anger, then they won’t read my posts and, to the extent anyone is persuaded of anything, won’t see the issues I try to raise. There are plenty of blogs in the internet for angry, crazy people to find company. This doesn’t have to be one of them. And to the extent this sounds like Dan Markel’s rationale, than we’re in agreement.
Scott, you’re of course welcome to invite all people into your living room and have a conversation with anyone you want. My own view is that the blog I’ve created is designed to be a space to achieve polite conversation among intelligent adults. If someone calls my house or storms into my office, and starts telling me I’m wrong about my views about the death penalty or punitive damages or raising my children or whatever, I don’t feel any obligation to entertain their phone call or rant just because they found my number or me. Anonymous commenters who hijack threads for their own purposes (even when those purposes are otherwise benign) are not much different; it’s impolite and I don’t feel I owe them any space or response.
I’m also sensitive to the idea that abusive speech can drive away people who want to offer reasoned discussion. This is an empirical claim, of course, but I’ve noticed it enough to think that I want to set high standards (verified/verifiable identity and civil and substantive comments). Maybe that’ll create too many bars and some useful ideas will be missed. That’s a risk I run but it’s not an unreasonable one (nor is it the “circle jerk” you suggest) when there are so many other outlets for people’s expression and my blog is just a small pebble on the information superhighway…
Oh, I see. When I agreed that you certainly had the authority to limit/open discussion at your blog, I wasn’t clear what I meant. Your analolgy sufficiently clarifies things so that even a simpleton like me can grasp what’s already agreed upon.
But this line illuminates best:
You’re just trying to keep the ignorant barbarians out so we don’t disturb the intellectuals with our disagreeable dopiness. Why didn’t you just say that in the first place?
Scott, what am I missing? If there would be no one being excluded categorically (other than for being anonymous), who are you worried about being excluded? No one has to have a JD or Phd or what-have-you. The ideas or comments simply have to be on-point, signed, and non-abusive. Why is that so threatening or illegitimate? It’s not like my blog’s a state actor suppressing other speech opportunities. best, dm
You keep moving your goal posts. Generically, nothing wrong with “on-point, signed, and non-abusive,” provided how you define it, but that’s very different from polite converation with intelligent people. I don’t know why you keep arguing that it’s your right. This has nothing to do with rights, but with the credibility that derives from surviving scrutiny.
Bear in mind, this stems from your deletion of the voodoo comment, generally on topic, pseudonymous but not dependant on attainted credibility and annoying perhaps, but hardly abusive. If comments like that don’t make the cut, then it says you can’t handle a challenge.
For anyone interested, the saga continues over on Paul Campos’ blog in a somewhat interesting way.
Scott, I’m not talking about legal rights either.
There’s no moving of the goalposts. You yourself acknowledged earlier that Voodoo’s comments were not relevant to the light-hearted post made by Teter. You also must acknowledge that Voodoo’s not a real name with a verifiable address, so that provides two separate reasons for not keeping the comment. It’s a disjunctive not conjunctive test. Any one of these reasons would suffice, though not guarantee deletion. The line between annoying and abusive is subjective, I’ll grant you, but that’s a judgment call I make as the owner of the blog. These various conditions (real ID, substantive and non-abusive) are what I consider the indicia of polite conversation. Anyway, I see you’re not likely to revise your own post or say mea culpa based on your unfounded leaping to conclusions. That’s too bad.
Not based on anything you’ve written, certainly.
Not for rational people.
I see that. And nice of Paul Campos to take the comment without attribution.
Check out his new “comments policy” in which he states that he will delete those who threadjack with off-point rants. Amazing.
I am intrigued by Professor Markel’s statement to the effect that his blog is designed to be a space to achieve polite conversation among intelligent adults. That suggests to me that he has a template by which he could determine who is, or is not, intelligent and/or that he believes that intelligent conversation is the exclusive preserve of adults. There are countless examples to dyslexic students, who were considered to be unintelligent for academic purposes, only to have the same students record very high scores with Mensa.
I would disagree with Dan, and Scott Greenfield, that a blog, always internet based, is akin to a living room or office or that the same rules of etiquette apply. In my view, a blog is like merchandise on public display through a shop window; passers are free to make their comments as they see fit, even when such comments are, at times, deemed unpalatable or controversial. The shop keeper should never make house rules designed to restrict store entry to those who are considered ‘suitable’ based on subjective, questionable or ill thought out criteria.
Scott’s blog always makes me chuckle. Yes, I do squirm at times when he sails close to the wind on subject matters that lend themselves to extreme views on the criminal justice system, but then, that is an issue for me and my comfort zone.
He lives in the ‘now’ and is unafraid that some person or persons might in 5, 10 or 15 years misconstrue what he has written. That, in my view, is the way it should be.
I found the exchange between Scott Greenfield and Burgers Allday refreshingly stimulating. I also derived some pleasure in using a pseudonym generator in a little bit of detective work
At my age, I’m thrilled to hear that someone finds anything I do stimulating.