Professor Harding likely does not remember me, but he was perhaps my favourite lecturer, perhaps partly because he had the luck to teach trusts which I loved, certainly because he was a considerate, engaged and lovely teacher, but poignantly in the present context, because he, clearly rather fusion-y, could have open and friendly discussions about the topic with a rather traditionalist anti-fusion-y little me.
I hope he is alright!
As ever I agree with pretty much all that you wrote, as well. I can remember telling my own kids that they, but especially everyone else were literally better off if they did _not_ know about homelessness, pollution, war, famine or anything else if they did not first have some idea about what had been before, what was elsewhere, some basic statistics and at least conceptually, probabilistic distributions.
Matthew is a very good human being, and he has always been able to have open-minded discussions. It’s a very good characteristic. And yes, we will look after him. I confess a selfish part of me is very happy to have him back in the private law fold. When can I get him back into writing about contract with me?
University across UK and Australia seem to have become these "statement" producing institutions rather than focusing on good teaching. There's a future statement, financial sustainability statement, diversity statement, disability statement, cultural safety statement, racial equality statement and what not. As an early career researcher, I barely have time to improve my own teaching as I'm drowned in implementing random diktats. I keep wondering what is the incentive to be in private law academia? Hardly any staff available to take over if you're sick, a fledgling research environment and public law theorists think your work is somewhat below theirs. Another great read
Someone has to say these things. I can’t harm Matthew any more by being difficult, so chocks away! Luckily, this year, when I got sick, two very generous colleagues took over, but previously this hasn’t been possible. As I said to the uni in January this year - I don’t want to end up in hospital with pneumonia AGAIN as I have three times since 2010.
"... but our job is not to undermine the status quo, particularly given that we are taxpayer-funded". That's vague of course, and could mean a few things. But it suggests that radical lawyers (or would be radical lawyers) and radical professors have no place in your law school. A depressing and rather intolerant thought.
Please, don’t put thoughts into piece which aren’t there. If I was unclear I’m happy to explain.
(1) Lawyers need to know what the law actually is. (2) There are some lecturers who believe that the law should be smashed entirely. (3) That’s fine—I think we *should* have some radical perspectives—but if the academy is mostly radical lawyers and no one who wants to teach what the law actually is, they just want to break it, even the things that work, that’s going to get everyone else offside. (4) It’s interesting that you talk of intolerance. Radical lawyers can be very intolerant of anyone who questions any of their propositions, and the first to initiate an accusatory process where they point the fingers at former allies and declare them problematic (think Jacobins in French Revolution and how they treated the Girondins). Then they say *others* are intolerant (projection?). (5) My students can take whatever position they want—radical, conservative, somewhere in between—it’s not my role to tell them what to think, and I will support them regardless of what their political beliefs are. It’s my role to teach them so that they can make up their own minds. The last thing I want is a law school where everyone has the same views.
Thanks for the clarification. I did not aim to add thoughts that weren't in your piece.
You had written: "but our job is not to undermine the status quo, particularly given that we are taxpayer-funded".
I thought that statement was unclear and on an important topic (which Is why I piped up).
1. It could mean (a) "professors should not undermine the status quo" or (b) "it is not required for professors to undermine the status quo".
2. The first reading was nourished by the tail end of the sentence - "particularly given that we are taxpayer-funded". I took this to mean that professors (and students) *should not* engage in radical criticism of the law - as an institution or its content in specific areas - because that is somehow inconsistent with taxpayer funding (how?).
For what it's worth, I'm not particularly fond of some types of radical criticism of the law in fashion at the moment. That's not because they're radical but because I think the arguments and scholarship are bad.
Thanks for piping up. As I say - always happy to explain what I meant. It’s unfortunate that I was unclear - maybe I need to write another post. So I would say it is not REQUIRED for professors to undermine the status quo. They can if they want, and sometimes I do, but it can’t be all that’s required of us. Sometimes I feel like there’s too much emphasis on being “innovative” in funding and promotion applications, to the detriment of other things. Maintaining knowledge has a value too. Yes, I think I have to write another post on maintaining knowledge.
Re the taxpayer funding thing - that was an aside. My point was supposed to be that if what we do and say is incredibly divorced from what almost everyone else in society wants or believes, they’re not going to want to fund us any more. And, as a matter of pragmatism, maybe we should keep that in mind. Because at one point, I reckon a government is going to want to trash the universities. Harder to do if everyone thinks that what we do is worthwhile…
“For what it’s worth, I’m not particularly fond of some types of radical criticism of the law in fashion at the moment. That’s not because they’re radical but because I think the arguments and scholarship are bad.” > It’s me! It’s me too! What really annoys me is when people cherry pick cases or data to fit their theory and don’t look at other points. So I went through one radical piece and did a point by point rebuttal of how case law and other scholarship are entirely inconsistent with the author’s argument. The author hadn’t even acknowledged the existence of the case law. It actually made my teeth hurt to see the case law ignored. This may say something a bit odd about me, but never mind. And yes, I would ignore that work, not because it’s radical, but because it is inaccurate and actually a little mendacious (you have to acknowledge the case law against you, and if you don’t even do that, I do not think it is good scholarship). /okay end rant, goodness, I didn’t realise how much that piece still irritated me…
Anyway, thanks for getting me to clarify. Always happy to do so. I’d rather explain than be misunderstood. It’s why I don’t mind being prodded.
There is a difference between activist scholarship and scholar activism. As citizens, academics can engage in any political activism they wish. Doing “scholarship” based on a priori political assumptions is another thing entirely, especially when taxpayer funded. Even more so when an institution becomes seriously politically skewed compared to the wider public. The collapse in public support for higher education we can see in the US is very much connected to this.
"You can't explained to an individual a concept when getting paid every week relies on him not understanding it."
Yes, true. Incentives, incentives, incentives.
Professor Harding likely does not remember me, but he was perhaps my favourite lecturer, perhaps partly because he had the luck to teach trusts which I loved, certainly because he was a considerate, engaged and lovely teacher, but poignantly in the present context, because he, clearly rather fusion-y, could have open and friendly discussions about the topic with a rather traditionalist anti-fusion-y little me.
I hope he is alright!
As ever I agree with pretty much all that you wrote, as well. I can remember telling my own kids that they, but especially everyone else were literally better off if they did _not_ know about homelessness, pollution, war, famine or anything else if they did not first have some idea about what had been before, what was elsewhere, some basic statistics and at least conceptually, probabilistic distributions.
Matthew is a very good human being, and he has always been able to have open-minded discussions. It’s a very good characteristic. And yes, we will look after him. I confess a selfish part of me is very happy to have him back in the private law fold. When can I get him back into writing about contract with me?
University across UK and Australia seem to have become these "statement" producing institutions rather than focusing on good teaching. There's a future statement, financial sustainability statement, diversity statement, disability statement, cultural safety statement, racial equality statement and what not. As an early career researcher, I barely have time to improve my own teaching as I'm drowned in implementing random diktats. I keep wondering what is the incentive to be in private law academia? Hardly any staff available to take over if you're sick, a fledgling research environment and public law theorists think your work is somewhat below theirs. Another great read
Someone has to say these things. I can’t harm Matthew any more by being difficult, so chocks away! Luckily, this year, when I got sick, two very generous colleagues took over, but previously this hasn’t been possible. As I said to the uni in January this year - I don’t want to end up in hospital with pneumonia AGAIN as I have three times since 2010.
"... but our job is not to undermine the status quo, particularly given that we are taxpayer-funded". That's vague of course, and could mean a few things. But it suggests that radical lawyers (or would be radical lawyers) and radical professors have no place in your law school. A depressing and rather intolerant thought.
Please, don’t put thoughts into piece which aren’t there. If I was unclear I’m happy to explain.
(1) Lawyers need to know what the law actually is. (2) There are some lecturers who believe that the law should be smashed entirely. (3) That’s fine—I think we *should* have some radical perspectives—but if the academy is mostly radical lawyers and no one who wants to teach what the law actually is, they just want to break it, even the things that work, that’s going to get everyone else offside. (4) It’s interesting that you talk of intolerance. Radical lawyers can be very intolerant of anyone who questions any of their propositions, and the first to initiate an accusatory process where they point the fingers at former allies and declare them problematic (think Jacobins in French Revolution and how they treated the Girondins). Then they say *others* are intolerant (projection?). (5) My students can take whatever position they want—radical, conservative, somewhere in between—it’s not my role to tell them what to think, and I will support them regardless of what their political beliefs are. It’s my role to teach them so that they can make up their own minds. The last thing I want is a law school where everyone has the same views.
Thanks for the clarification. I did not aim to add thoughts that weren't in your piece.
You had written: "but our job is not to undermine the status quo, particularly given that we are taxpayer-funded".
I thought that statement was unclear and on an important topic (which Is why I piped up).
1. It could mean (a) "professors should not undermine the status quo" or (b) "it is not required for professors to undermine the status quo".
2. The first reading was nourished by the tail end of the sentence - "particularly given that we are taxpayer-funded". I took this to mean that professors (and students) *should not* engage in radical criticism of the law - as an institution or its content in specific areas - because that is somehow inconsistent with taxpayer funding (how?).
For what it's worth, I'm not particularly fond of some types of radical criticism of the law in fashion at the moment. That's not because they're radical but because I think the arguments and scholarship are bad.
Thanks for piping up. As I say - always happy to explain what I meant. It’s unfortunate that I was unclear - maybe I need to write another post. So I would say it is not REQUIRED for professors to undermine the status quo. They can if they want, and sometimes I do, but it can’t be all that’s required of us. Sometimes I feel like there’s too much emphasis on being “innovative” in funding and promotion applications, to the detriment of other things. Maintaining knowledge has a value too. Yes, I think I have to write another post on maintaining knowledge.
Re the taxpayer funding thing - that was an aside. My point was supposed to be that if what we do and say is incredibly divorced from what almost everyone else in society wants or believes, they’re not going to want to fund us any more. And, as a matter of pragmatism, maybe we should keep that in mind. Because at one point, I reckon a government is going to want to trash the universities. Harder to do if everyone thinks that what we do is worthwhile…
“For what it’s worth, I’m not particularly fond of some types of radical criticism of the law in fashion at the moment. That’s not because they’re radical but because I think the arguments and scholarship are bad.” > It’s me! It’s me too! What really annoys me is when people cherry pick cases or data to fit their theory and don’t look at other points. So I went through one radical piece and did a point by point rebuttal of how case law and other scholarship are entirely inconsistent with the author’s argument. The author hadn’t even acknowledged the existence of the case law. It actually made my teeth hurt to see the case law ignored. This may say something a bit odd about me, but never mind. And yes, I would ignore that work, not because it’s radical, but because it is inaccurate and actually a little mendacious (you have to acknowledge the case law against you, and if you don’t even do that, I do not think it is good scholarship). /okay end rant, goodness, I didn’t realise how much that piece still irritated me…
Anyway, thanks for getting me to clarify. Always happy to do so. I’d rather explain than be misunderstood. It’s why I don’t mind being prodded.
There is a difference between activist scholarship and scholar activism. As citizens, academics can engage in any political activism they wish. Doing “scholarship” based on a priori political assumptions is another thing entirely, especially when taxpayer funded. Even more so when an institution becomes seriously politically skewed compared to the wider public. The collapse in public support for higher education we can see in the US is very much connected to this.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/508352/americans-confidence-higher-education-down-sharply.aspx