Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Groundhog Day. (fp)

Banned in Tucson. (kw)

The Best and Worst of 2011 in Race and Law (kw)

Tortured to death for trespassing. (fp)

Drones of contention. (fp)

DOJ still coddling banks. (fp)

Creative destruction? Thank banks. (fp)

Blog about a new book, on how to talk to little girls--stressing smarts not cutes.   LAC

Macey on the heroic Rakoff. (fp)

Captured NY Fed. (fp)


solicitors

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • Joe on What Exactly is Wrong With Polygamy?

    • Phil on What Exactly is Wrong With Polygamy?

    • Lee on Lifecycles and the Firm

    • Car accident claim lawyers on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"

    • Andrew MacKie-Mason on Can't the Supreme Court Just Say No to Cameras?

    • Joe on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Shag from Brookline on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Joe on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Joe on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit

    • Shag from Brookline on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • G. Calamita on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"

    • Joe on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit

    • Howard Wasserman on Can't the Supreme Court Just Say No to Cameras?

    • Gerard Magliocca on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit

    • Mike on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

Langdell, Eliot, and the Rise of Blogging

posted by Nate Oman

langdell.jpgI, alas, missed the discussion and fireworks at the

AALS’s session on blogging, but it does strike me that blogs are a very nice illustration of one of the basic dilemmas that the legal academy faces. The American law school as a post-graduate institution staffed by specialized academics focused on research and publishing is a creation of Christopher Columbus Langdell and the Harvard Law School of the 1870s through 1900. It is no accident that the American law school came out of Harvard during this period. Langdell was hired by Harvard president Charles Eliot, who perhaps did as much as any other person to set the patterns of higher education in modern America. Eliot, in turn, was modeling Harvard — which became the model for America — on the great German research institutions of the 19th century. Hence, it was Eliot who pushed the notion of the Ph.D. as the necessary precondition for professorhood, and valorized disciplinary autonomy and specialization. In a very real sense, all American academics live in the world that Eliot made.

eliot.jpgThe problem, of course, is that the law school created by Eliot and Langdell carried within itself two anomalies that continue to haunt legal education in America. First, in contrast to the other academic career paths that Eliot was doing so much to regularize, law professors got the same education as their students. There is no special educational track for law professors, at least formally. The result, of course, has been an informal track, i.e. top-ten law school, law review, appellate clerkship, etc.. I actually think that the training provided by this informal track is quite good in many ways, but the legal professoriate continues to be haunted by anxiety about the academic status of their education. (This point is wonderfully illustrated by the fact that there is no consensus on what sort of academic regalia a juris doctorate is entitled to: Do they get a mortar board like bachelors degrees or masters degrees, or are they get to the soft square cap of the doctorates? Different schools take different positions.)

The second anomaly was Langdell’s faith in the law as a self-contained and autonomous discipline, a faith that began to crumble even as Langdell was evangelizing it. We like to think of the proliferation of various “law & ….” movements as a post-1970s phenomena. There is some truth to this. Indeed, I think that there are even good demographic reasons for the proliferation: The draft created enormous incentives for baby boomers to remain in graduate school for as long as possible, and as a result many humanities and social science minded people who would never have dreamt of jurisprudence packed themselves off to law school to avoid the Mekong delta. In the fullness of time, many of these war-created lawyers abandoned the practice of law for the academy, largely as a way of escaping a profession that they were never that interested in in the first place. Still, it is not as though the law reviews during the whole of the twentieth century did not play host to waves upon waves of anxiety about the intellectual status of legal thought.


It seems to me that at present there are two responses to these two anomalies. One approach, aggressively evangelized both within and without the blogosphere by Brian Lieter, is that law schools ought to follow the example of the rest of the academy. In other words, Langdell and Eliot did not go far enough. Law professors ought to have Ph.D.s. They ought to become experts in non-legal disciplines and acquire the methodological sophistication displayed by the practitioners of those disciplines. They ought to publish in peer-reviewed journals. In short, they ought imitate the narrow and highly specialized model of the rest of the academy.

The other model is that law professors ought to become public intellectuals. Rather than becoming specialized methodological grinds, they ought to exploit their position of disciplinary eclecticism (or dilettantism — take your pick) and become consumers, integrators, appliers, and — importantly — popularizers of ideas created elsewhere. For Lieter and his fellow-travelers, I suspect that this move looks like little more than an apologia for ignorance and sloppiness. Perhaps they are right. Indeed some of the time they no doubt are. On the other hand, the notable success of law professors moving into the role of public intellectual via blogging suggests that there is something to the alternative to disciplinary specialization. By inadvertently creating an institutional environment that resists disciplinary specialization, Langdell and Eliot may well have created the ideal seed bed for bloggers.


 January 9, 2006 at 1:39 pm   Posted in: Blogging   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (3)

  1. Kaimi - January 9, 2006 at 8:23 pm

    Nice thoughts, Nate. I agree with much of what you’re saying. And besides, who could possibly be better qualified to be a public intellectual than a law professor? At least, that perception is probably widespread — which goes a way towards explaining the ever-expanding size of the Dan Solove law-prof-blog census.

  2. Daniel J. Solove - January 9, 2006 at 9:02 pm

    This is a terrific post. Blogging does indeed touch a fault line in legal academia, and the debates about blogging definitely link up to the debates over legal academia more generally. Readers may be interested in the extensive comments and debate to a post of mine at PrawfsBlawg entitled: Do You Need a PhD to Do Competent and Cutting Edge Legal Interdisciplinary Work?

  3. BL - January 10, 2006 at 9:43 am

    I am glad Professor Solove posted the link to the earlier discussion, since Mr. Oman misstates my view. My view is certainly not that all law professors should have PhDs; my view is that those purporting to do interdisciplinary work should have PhDs or the equivalent formal training in the cognate disciplines.

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Derek Bambauer
Gabriella Coleman
andré douglas pond cummings
David Gray
Brishen Rogers
Joseph Turow
Elizabeth A. Wilson













Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ann Bartow
Steven Bellovin
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Josh Blackman
Joseph Blocher
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
Maxine Eichner
Jessica Erickson
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Joshua Fairfield
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Mary Anne Franks
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Jeffrey Harrison
Hosea Harvey
Erica Hashimoto
Jennifer Hendricks
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Gilbert A. Holmes
Nicole Huberfeld
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Shavar Jeffries
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Jeff Jonas
Courtney Joslin
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Alicia Kelly
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Margaret Lewis
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Matthew Lister
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Sasha Romanosky
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
Access to Justice
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Just Books
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
TeachPrivacy Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress