Three articles on what it is like teaching (and learning) in a Red State:
Teaching Law in A Red State, Part I: A Satirical (for now) Administrative Letter, via Above the Law.
Teaching Law in A Red State, Part II: The Woke DEI Indoctrination Argument, via Above the Law.
The Transgender Boogeyman: Universities do not see that the attacks on trans people are ultimately attacks on the universities themselves, via Above the Law.
Dear Mr. Miyagi,
I regret to inform you that we will not be renewing your contract to teach the courses “The Fundamental Principles of Karate and Life I and II.” Apart from your atrocious student evaluations, we have received numerous complaints about your pedagogy. Upon review, we think it best if we part ways.
Your student evaluations evidence a lack of care or fundamental teaching principles. Here are just some examples:
“Most of the time was spent painting his fence. He claimed it had to do with martial arts, but I think he really just wanted his fence painted. He made me buy the paint, too. There were no fees for this course.”
“He made me wash his cars. Then he made me wax his cars. He claimed I did it wrong, and forced me to wax it again. And then, I had to rub the wax off. For torture, he made me use different hands for each. I’m so sore. I paid tuition money for this?”
“No power point. No syllabus. I could not follow a damned thing.”
“Other sections taught by other instructors learned more than we did. He never taught us to sweep the leg, and that is THE most important move in karate. Ask anyone! And he didn’t teach the unit on no mercy, either.”
“Made me fight outside of my class level in Karate II. I’m a beginner, I should not have to fight to the death.”
“Made me balance on a canoe like a damned fool. Then deliberately threw me off the canoe into a lake. That’s not cool, man.”
The evaluations go on. Some of your assignments, like catching a fly with chopsticks, were deemed impossible by the students.
We do appreciate your consumer oriented teaching model, however:
“He kept saying, no bad student. Only bad teacher. And man, was he bad.”
Moreover, you refused to answer student questions. Your first day, according to students, you said:
“We make sacred pact. I promise teach karate to you, you promise learn. I say, you do, no questions.”
We also raise some concerns about plagiarism. According to some students, you plagiarized Yoda:
“He told us ‘Either you karate do “yes” or karate do “no.” You karate do “guess so,” (get squished) just like grape’ Everyone knew that bullshit was from Yoda.”
You also apparently plagiarized James Bond:
“Daniel-San, you look revenge that way, start by digging two graves.”
Many students raised concern they could learn more valuable self-defense lessons from Tik Tok without paying.
In sum, it is unfortunately that you did not reach out soon for proper teaching techniques. We wish you best in your future endeavors.
Sincerely,
Associate Dean
May 26, 2022 | Austin, Texas |
Governor Greg Abbott today offered the state of Texas an innovative solution to the state’s electricity and gun problems. In a joint effort with the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), Elon Musk, and the National Rifle Association (NRA), Governor Abbot has offered to turn off all the lights in every school throughout the state of Texas.
“This innovative program assures that our state’s children are safe. Mass shooters will think that nobody’s home in our schools,” the Governor said today. “We must come together in support of our state’s children, as well as our state’s energy needs and love of guns
The Governor was joined by Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan, Senator John Cornyn, Senator Ted Cruz, and Attorney General Ken Paxton. Lt. Governor Patrick added “this is tremendously innovative, as it means we will no longer have to arm teachers to protect children, except, perhaps, with flashlights. It is superior to my plan that would have required metal detectors, bunkers, minefields, and other infrastructure investments. With this plan, the solution is as easy as flicking a switch.”
ERCOT Spokesperson Noah Voltage echoed these statements. “With unseasonably hot weather driving record demand across Texas, ERCOT is excited about killing all electricity to our state’s schools. Sadly, this means no air conditioning. On the bright side, that just puts our state’s children in no worse shape that our state’s prisoners.” Voltage added, “it really takes the pressure off of us to determine whether or not a generation plant is out for a legitimate reason.”
NRA Spokesperson Noah Grunman applauded the solution. “This plan assures the safety of Texas children, and more importantly, the constant flow of weapons into the state. Governor Abbott has worked very hard to catch up to California in terms of gun sales. These measures assure his efforts are not senselessly killed by deranged policies with a singular psychotic focus.”
Governor Abbott proclaimed that the savings from the electricity costs to the schools would be used to help teachers procure flashlights. “No child will be left unenlightened,” said Abbott. “It’s important that teachers and students are armed with flashlights. I’m envisioning a 1,000 points of light.”
Abbott further announced that Elon Musk had agreed to form a new company, MAGA Lite, to produce the needed flashlights. “These flashlights will prove as reliable as the Tesla automobile,” Musk said. He cautioned the company would have to clear Federal government trademark hurdles that endanger children.
When pressed whether this plan would cause parents to home-school their children, Governor Abbott cautioned against skepticism. “The home is more dangerous than the schools will be. First off, most of the time, those homes will have electricity, which could signal to mass shooters. Studies have shown that 100% of mass shooting occur in places with electricity.”
When asked whether the supply of current flashlights would be limited due to large scale shortages arising from truck traffic jams at the border that have cost the state billions, the Governor suggested that the cause of the shortage was actually that many of the flashlights were being stolen from Texas by people illegally crossing the border. “They sneak across the border, steal the flashlights, deliver them to Mexico, and sneak back across with sufficient lighting.”
The Governor also strongly encouraged Texas parents to teach their children flashlight safety. “Make sure your kids know what to do if their flashlights go out,” he cautioned. “School districts will also be directed to conduct inactive flashlight drills.”
“This is an innovative plan,” Governor Abbot concluded, “Things could be a lot worse.”
News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Lawprofblawg mourns release of new Adele album
Twitter – Lawprofblawg suffered great sorrow and mourning upon hearing of the future release of the new Adele album.
Lawprofblawg has not suffered such sorrow since the release of “21” on November 20, 2015.
During that time, Lawprofblawg said “hello” to pain and sorrow, in which he rolled in quite deep. Rumour has it there was no hiding his heart from this sorrow. “It seems like a million years ago since that time,” Lawprofblawg said, concealing the tears in his eyes. “All I ask is that we have a lot more notice when Adele drops new albums. That would be a good remedy.”
Adele’s new album, presumably titled “30something,” will also likely cause grief and sorrow to LPB when it is released on November 12, 2021.
Please be patient with LPB as he explains that you can’t set fire to rain or chase pavements (which are stationary). Please respect his privacy and pain during this difficult time. He will console himself with this muse.
About Lawprofblawg:
LawProfBlawg is an anonymous professor at a top 100 law school. You can see more of his musings on Above the Law. He is way funnier on social media, he claims. Please follow him on Twitter (@lawprofblawg). Email him at lawprofblawg@gmail.com.
Press Contact:
LawProfblawg (Lawprofblawg@gmail.com)
Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty
College of Law
Harvard Law School
THE HARVARD LAW SCHOOL invites applications for the position of Alan Dershowitz Chair in Public Outreach. Position will commence August 2022. The Law School welcomes applications from scholars in all subject areas of the law. However, knowledge of the law is not required.
Strong applicants must be willing to seek media attention, and take positions that may seem outlandish or wild to skilled observers in the legal community. In fact, we fully expect the ideal candidate to trade on any scholarly reputation they might have in enhancing their notoriety as media attention is constantly thrust at them. The more outlandish the theories, the better. We need people talking about our faculty, too. And we don’t offer dinner parties.
There is no expectation that the Chair will publish. The only requirement for the position is that the Chair say outlandish things. However, outlandish op-eds, blog posts, and tweets are highly recommended.
Harvard Law School offers a distinguished and collegial law school community in the setting of a premier research university, affording opportunities for cutting-edge legal scholarship and innovative interdisciplinary work. As Chair, you won’t be doing that. Keep your eye on the media as if you were running for office.
This is a nine-month, 100% time tenured or tenure track position. As a member of the HLS faculty, you would teach students who will wonder after seeing you on the news if they know any law at all. However, your colleagues will support you by disavowing your ludicrous theories on social media. We also strongly hope you will encourage particularly skilled students to write books and run for office while also saying outlandish things. The market is highly competitive.
Applicants must have a J.D. or Ph.D. or their equivalent, a strong academic record, and a record of scholarly distinction that can be traded for media attention. This position is a full-time, nine-month, tenured position. Salary is commensurate with scholarly reputation and the willingness of the candidate to exchange that for media attention.
Harvard Law School is an equal opportunity employer that recruits and hires qualified candidates without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, national origin, disability or veteran status. We are particularly keen on intellectual diversity, and will give preference to candidates espousing common-good originalism.
For more information on this satirical position, contact Lawprofblawg@gmail.com.
Update: Stanford Federalist Society: This is parody. And you’re not even in it. Calm down.
Let me catch you up, in case you’re wondering.
Professors Kennedy and Volokh wrote an article advocating for use of racial slurs in the classroom.
I wrote a blog post on Above the Law commenting on the article.
They responded on Professor Volokh’s blog.
I’m responding to that here.
Ordinarily when someone raises concerns related to an article I’ve authored, I usually either admit their criticisms are correct or refute them. In some instances, if I’m lucky perhaps I explain why it is a fuzzy grey area and we all need to think more about it. That’s how learning happens.
Professors Kennedy and Volokh (“the Authors”) do not address any of my arguments in their response to my blog post. None. They ignored the literature to which I referred, dismissed the harms which I asked them to examine more carefully, and forget the whole point of education is to create a network of learning that can be injured substantially when a professor utters a racial slur.
Apart from reiterating that which I already stated, let me expand on some points from my original blog post. For purposes of the discussion, I will continue to use the “Atomic Bomb” as a proxy for the word that Professor Volokh so desperately wishes to say in class (and has).
Professors Kennedy and Volokh believe that professors using the “Atomic Bomb,” if for noble “use-mention” reasons, serves the same purpose of “historical accuracy” that is accomplished when the word is uttered in Court.
It does not. A blog post is not a classroom. A judge is in a courtroom. A professor is in a classroom. A professor uttering the “Atomic Bomb” in class causes different effects than seeing the words in print or hearing it in court. Their argument paints with a broad brush that borders on spray painting with a fire hose.
So, let’s focus on one source: A law professor quoting text in the classroom. Professors Kennedy and Volokh would have the students, upon hearing a white law professor utter the “Atomic Bomb” in the classroom, take it on faith that the reason for the utterance is pure. In other words, in every other context the student hears it from a white person they know it is racist, but their belief must be suspended in the name of “historical accuracy.” That’s not how teaching works. In the classroom, a student is not going to draw that line. Nor should they have to.
I mentioned that the use-value distinction disappears in context if you view it from the perspective of the audience. A racist professor can find many cases where the “Atomic Bomb” is mentioned in texts, and can plan a whole curriculum around it. Merely because the professor “mentions” the word doesn’t make the intent any less racist. The student’s focus is not on what the professor purports to be teaching. I referenced literature that goes to this point that Professor Kennedy and Volokh diligently ignore.
2. The Authors’ claimed benefits to uttering the “Atomic Bomb” rest on faulty assumptions.
The authors assert the benefits of uttering the “Atomic Bomb” are “historical accuracy” and students being able to deal with racial slurs in the practice of law. The authors provide no evidence of such benefits.
The basis of the benefit of historical accuracy is that courts have mentioned the word. Their article points to 9,500 Westlaw-accessible “cases, trial court orders, and administrative decisions” that use the atomic bomb. This hardly suffices. Why did courts use the word in these cases? Did they in other cases? Is the use Judge specific? How many cases use a less offensive substitute? How does the data break down by types of cases? Is it skewed toward employment discrimination and criminal law? How many cases total in the database? Is 9,500 less than 1% of all cases, trial court orders, and administrative decisions or 50%?
Without more, even this less-than-convincing data reduces to nothing more than “they said it, why can’t I?” It does not state the benefits except to say there must be some because it’s there in Westlaw.
Going beyond that, law professors sacrifice complete accuracy frequently: We use edited cases. In some instances, the cases we use are not aligned with the facts as historians have seen them. This is how legal archaeology got its start, no? The complexity of those facts is lost. That means accuracy is lost. We do this for other benefits, such as covering more material. So, I am left to wonder why some sacrifice of accuracy is acceptable and this one isn’t. That must be some powerful benefit contemplated in the word’s mention.
But if there is such a powerful benefit, you wouldn’t be able to tell from Professors Kennedy and Volokh’s article. Instead, the authors mention accuracy six times. In each instance, there is no value asserted in using the “Atomic Bomb” accurately apart from it being accurate. It is curious to me that out of all the historical accuracy lost in law school, this is the one that appears important to the authors.
So, the benefit must rest on the goal of toughening up our students. But, students weren’t living in a bubble before they showed up to class. The authors appear to believe that students don’t already face those racial slurs on a daily basis. Students have heard them. They have read them before. Do Kennedy and Volokh think they are the first ones introducing the students to racial slurs? They aren’t. Their students deal with those slurs all the time.
But still, Professors Kennedy and Volokh diligently continue:
“One day, a client may call a newly minted lawyer and say, “I need your help; my son is black, and kids at school keep calling him [Atomic bomb redacted] but the school isn’t doing anything about it.” The lawyer’s reaction shouldn’t be, “How dare you say such a word in my hearing?,” or even a silent “I’m so upset at my client.”
I imagine in Kennedy and Volokh’s mind, the first thing that the newly minted lawyer would think is “AHHH! I must remember my training from when Professor Volokh quoted the “Atomic Bomb” for historical accuracy! I must not get upset!” Yeah, that’s not what is going to happen.
Also, I had no idea that Professors Kennedy and Volokh had clinical courses! Kidding. If they did teach clinical courses, they might have uncovered literature across a variety of disciplines that address this very issue. There’s even literature out there in multiple disciplines on what to do if your client is a racist.
Their reply does no better at fixing this issue. The Authors’ reply states: “Now we are of course aware that some people, of all racial groups, do argue for such an exception. Again, as best we can tell, they are completely comfortable with the use-mention dichotomy in most situations (even if they don’t expressly think of it using the label “the use-mention dichotomy”). This is no better an assertion than an economist observing a me bashing my head against the wall after reading the article and suggesting, as near as the economist can tell, I’m engaged in a rational action.
In short, the Authors struggle to articulate any benefit.
3. The Authors continue to ignore the costs of uttering the “Atomic Bomb” in the classroom.
Even if there were benefits, economists usually consider net benefits and compare to alternatives. The Authors dismiss any alternatives out of hand. Wishing that a law professor uttering “Atomic Bomb” has pedagogical value does not make it so. Wishing that students won’t be rightfully offended does not make it so. Wishing that it will not injure the professor’s future ability to teach does not make it so. Wishing that something is lost in translation when a professor refuses to utter the “Atomic Bomb” and chooses a less offensive path does not make it so. Literature that recognizes the issue cannot be ignored and assumed away.
Nor can the costs. I stated in my original blog post that there is a literature about the costs of using racial slurs in the classroom. Having not responded to it in the first place, I’ll just repeat it here: “Had they looked at the education literature, they might have encountered the discussions there of hate speech. Racism in schools, online or not, have the effect of lowering student learning outcomes, self-esteem, and happiness. The authors suggest that would not be so when a student gets to come to class every day and wonder what racial slur the professor will use today. How about the literature that suggests the increasing polarization of topics such as racism? How about the literature on race-related stressors in college students?”
4. The Authors feel everyone should be entitled to utter the “Atomic Bomb.”
I think the primary reason that Professors Kennedy and Volokh ignore costs is that they start with the presumption that everyone has equal ownership of the “Atomic Bomb.” In other words, everyone should be able to mention it, so long as the intent isn’t to be offensive (that’s a big “if”, by the way).
To the Authors, it’s unfair if some people get to say it and others don’t. “We think there should be no such exception, regardless of the speaker’s color.” To accomplish this, the authors embark on a series of false equivalencies. As an example, our stalwart authors discuss an Asian American band that calls itself “The Slants.” This is a replay of the trick they tried in the article, which I refuted in my blog post. What a group calls itself is not the point. The issue in question is whether someone outside a group can utter an offensive word that belongs to the group.
So, the “Atomic Bomb” being uttered by a white law professor in a classroom is NOT the same as a Band naming itself. The Authors’ entitlement drives their argument. They take pedagogical value on faith, while completely ignoring the costs of uttering the “Atomic Bomb” in class. And, as Professor Ta-Nehisi Coates points out, not all words belong to everyone.
5. The Authors ignore that a word has meaning and context beyond that given by the utterer, even when quoting the word.
Professors Kennedy and Volokh next argue in their reply with another example of use-mention, only this time with Buck v. Bell. Using Holmes’ famous quote about “three generations,” they argue there is a distinction between quoting Holmes and a professor insulting a student. That may be true. But even ignoring the “mixed motive” case I describe above, the word may have meaning beyond that which the professor contemplates.
For example, what does the “Atomic Bomb” mean when uttered by a white person? To some, it might mean they get to say the word. But to others, it signals violence. It means intrusion. It is the exclusion of some from rights others have. It signals quite frequently a threat. It is contextualized in eugenics. By uttering those words in the classroom, the context has changed, even from where the word is quoted. After uttering the “Atomic Bomb,” the Professor is a completely different person now. So is the classroom.
6. The Authors are advocating for broader usage not pedagogically driven.
Then Professors Kennedy and Volokh double down. Read this carefully:
“Our article takes the view that this basic principle (mentions fine, uses as insults bad) has no peculiar exception for (1) professors and perhaps students (2) in the classroom and perhaps law school hallways quoting sources containing (3) the words … just as it has no exception for ATL columnists, judges, lawyers, or witnesses, or for law professors writing law review articles.” (emphasis mine).
Their very own thesis undermines their argument for a use-mention distinction. As you might recall, they argued the fundamental point was to assure the value of “historical accuracy.” But that is not where the thrust of the reply lies. The reply suggests the goal is to get everyone to be okay with racial slurs. In other words, the goal is desensitizing students to the racial slurs. Is that use or mention?
The Authors basic argument is the more that law professors use the words, the less offensive they will be. Don’t believe me? The authors state: “As we argued in the article, we think that feelings of hurt aren’t unchangeable givens, untouched and untouchable by the ways in which their expression is received. Such feelings are, at least in part, affected by the responses of observers.” That is followed by this gem in the second to last paragraph:
“The more that law schools validate the idea that it’s justifiable to feel hurt simply because one hears words quoted from a case, the more the feeling will be embraced, and the more there will be demands to avoid such words. On the other hand, if we tell students that they ought not feel hurt when a term is being mentioned when accurately describing a case—just as respected judges routinely mention it in their opinions for the sake of accuracy, and just as ATL columns do the same—then we can better help them deal with these and other difficult facts calmly, the way one expects effective lawyers to do.” (emphasis mine)
To sum that up: What they are saying is, “More slurs, less hurt.” But by ignoring the literature AND history, the authors have the relationship and direction wrong. Again, the education literature discusses the psychological effect of those slurs on learning. And as use of the word expands so does the harm. For people keen on historical accuracy the authors get forgetful about how the “Atomic Bomb” became taboo in the first place. The word is clothed in violence when it is uttered by a white person. Or are they suggesting that the 1950s was more enlightened because the “Atomic Bomb” was mentioned so frequently?
7. The Authors sure spend a lot of time talking about Above the Law.
Instead of addressing these concerns, the authors shoot some misplaced ‘analysis” on Above the Law. For example, Kennedy and Volokh discuss the fact that a 2019 Above the Law blog post used the “Atomic Bomb.” They drive this home several times by referencing “ATL Columnists” in lists or as examples.
Let me clear up some questions about my relationship with Above the Law. Professors, the blog post that used the “Atomic Bomb” wasn’t my blog post. I have no control over what Above the Law publishes or does not publish. I don’t agree with everything that is published on Above the Law. It’s weak tea to assert that someone published in the same source as you compels you to adopt their viewpoint. This is a fact that many Capital University Law Review authors, former editors, and staff are likely emphatically reiterating right now.
I also want to call out what I perceive as disdain in the title of their post, “Responding to Anonymous ATL Columnist.” I took this to be an attempt at a slight, but it did not land. I am proud of my contributions to Above the Law, even the ones with typos and single-spacing.
I hope I am wrong. I hope it was just an ill-advised “use-mention” issue. If not, this is a great teachable moment. Even factual assertions can land wrong, as people such as Professor Kennedy and Part-Time Blog Manager and Blogger Volokh might be aware. My apologies if that sentence seemed insulting. It was necessary for teaching and historical accuracy. Context matters.
8. What the f**k am I even doing?
I have been defending the apparently novel proposition that law professors should not say the “Atomic Bomb” in class. The bottom line: Professor Kennedy and Volokh’s article offer no discernable additional benefits to uttering it, no matter how much Professors Kennedy and Volokh assert it. They offer no asserted differences between the value conveyed by uttering the “Atomic Bomb” and a less offensive alternative. And they ignore the costs of uttering the “Atomic Bomb” to the student, the faculty member uttering it, and to the learning process.
Professor Kennedy and Volokh’s original article: Click here
My original blog post commenting on the article: Click here
Professor Kennedy and Volokh’s response to my blog post: Click here
It’s called “should I stay or should I go.” (words modified)
Hey, Dean, you got to let me know
Should I teach online or no?
If you say furlough will be mine
I’ll go teach live and fall in line
So you got to let me know
Should I teach online or no?
Info, you tease, tease, tease
For info I’m begging on my knees
One day Covid is fine; next it’s back
So if you want me off your back
Dean, come on and let me know
Should I teach online or no?
Should I teach online or no now?
Should I teach online or no now?
If I teach online, there will be trouble
And if I don’t it will be double
So come on and let me know
Your indecision’s bugging me (tu indecisión me molesta)
If I don’t want live, set the class free (Si no quiero en vivo, libera la clase)
Exactly what I’m supposed to do (dígame que tengo hacer)
Don’t you know which pedagogy even fits me? (¿sabes que pedagogía me quedra?)
Come on and let me know (me tienes que decir)
Should I zoom it or is that a no? (¿Debería “zoomiar” o no?)
Should I teach online or no, now? (¿Debo enseñar en línea o no?)
Should I teach online or no, now? (¿Debo enseñar en línea o no?)
If I teach online there will be trouble (Si enseño en línea habrá peligro)
And if I don’t it will be double (Y si no lo hago será doble)
Dean, ya gotta let me know (me tienes que decir)
Should I zoom it or my safety blow? (¿Debería “zoomiar” o ponerme en riesgo?)
Should I zoom it or my safety blow now? (¿Debería “zoomiar” o ponerme en riesgo?)
If I zoom there will be trouble (si uso Zoom habrá problemas)
And if I don’t it will be double (Y si no lo hago será doble)
Dean, ya gotta let me know me (Decana tienes que decir)
Should I zoom it or should I go?
lawprofblawg 