[CP] Re: On the Value of Professors to Law
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: CONLAWPROF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, metalaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 19:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
... on the whole, my sense is that you might be on to something, but probably
are not quite correct. That is, professors probably DO pay more attention to
the
pitfalls of beliefs arising within the scope of their intellectual areas
compared to people of other occupations, but they might simply make too many
errors (on occasion) in the pitfall inspection. If this happens, one would
expect your cynicism.
Of course, the whole premise makes for an unfair fight: people of other
occupations, by definition, are being compared based upon their
non-occupational
beliefs. (Imagine a divorce lawyer participating in a discussion about
something implicating philosophy of law). l've stressed in these mails that it
is work and career that makes professors (potentially) different.
At times, however, I confess to share your viewpoint. At times I feel the
American academy can even be empty at its core. But think for a moment what the
implications of this really are. If it is true, it may also be evidence of the
failing of culture. Ask yourself this: what is the relationship between the
bar-stool logic one finds on the A..M. talk radio, the degeneration of American
media, and the problems that you say exist among about professors/PhDs? And
could not the same set of problems, if they exist, not also be said of clergy,
or journalists or judges in the age we live? And would not the same thing be
said of the very critics who voice this complaint in many instances? (Think of
the students who say their professors are biased while themselves being
completely facile and wanting, really, only a counter-bias). And isn't all of
this suggesting that we are living in a post-modern intellectual era where,
among immense social change, there is also great intellectual disorientation?
If any of this is indeed true, I wonder what relationship it has to the failure
of American education to provide enough philosophy and history?
One thing about the fog seems clear. There is a definite purpose for A.M.
talk-radio: no admission requirements. They might as well call it the American
jungle. It seems to me there was SUPPOSED to be a purpose for the academy. And
if it is failing in the respect you suggest, you might as well forget about
moderating anyone or anything, short merely of making the powerful feel good
and
having hegemony.
Here's what I want to say: if the days are gone where professors are different
in how they approach something, the days are gone for worrying about anything
other than how we feel. (I think it is the political scientists who fail to see
the implications of this problem the most).
Regards and thanks.
Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Professor
Wright State University
Personal Website: http://seanwilson.org
(Subscribe: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/sworg-subscribe/ )
SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860
New Discussion Groups! http://ludwig.squarespace.com/discussionfora/
----- Original Message ----
From: Frank Cross <crossf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>; CONLAWPROF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: cv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Fri, September 24, 2010 8:10:12 PM
Subject: Re: On the Value of Professor to Law
I confess to a little more cynicism about professors/PhDs. Not that
they don't offer expertise and knowledge. But in my experience they
are not particularly attentive to the pitfalls of whatever
belief systems they adopt. Especially when freighted ideological
matters are at stake.
At 05:42 PM 9/24/2010, Sean Wilson wrote:
>Hi Sandy.
>
>I begin my con law course with the Glorious Revolution. (But it's
>actually con
>development). Let me offer these thoughts about the relevance of
>being a lawyer
>versus an academic for discussions about "constitutional law."
>
>Academics are more likely to be free of what I call a "bent
>perspective." What I
>
>mean by this is NOT that academics don't have goofy beliefs (for surely some
>do). But rather that they will have been attentive to the pitfalls
>of whatever
>belief systems they adopt. And if they haven't been sufficiently
>attentive, it
>is usually owed to neglect rather than poor character -- meaning
>they'll go back
>
>to deal with it when shown. In fact, good academics will be
>embarrassed to find
>that a pitfall in his or her beliefs is overlooked. You don't get the same
>behavior (as a general rule) among people who do not take on as a life career
>the pursuit of truth and meaning.
>
>As such, you shouldn't find among professors the sort of behaviors in
>opinion-making that you do on the A.M. radio. The way the mind maneuvers is
>different. It isn't debate; it's discussion. It isn't a sword or a
>contest; it's
>
>like a food or a wine. You come to appreciate the working of minds and the
>integrity of thought.
>
>All professors have this in them to some degree, merely because of what their
>work consists of. We're so insulated from the world. It's like
>living life in a
>bottle. Your job, 24/7, is to make sense of things (one way or
>another). It is
>because of this that a discussion group devoted to topic X might want to
>favorably indulge those whose life's work involves thinking properly
>of things
>concerning X.
>
>
>(P.S. Sent to Law and Meta Perspective)
>
>Regards and thanks.
>
>Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
>Assistant Professor
>Wright State University
>Personal Website: http://seanwilson.org
> (Subscribe: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/sworg-subscribe/ )
>SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860
>New Discussion Groups! http://ludwig.squarespace.com/discussionfora/
>
Other related posts:
