Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The Schlagfest in Geo. L. J. and a mild defense of SSRN emails...
As some of you saw on Co-Op the other day, there's an unusual exchange going on in the pages of the Georgetown LJ this month. Pierre Schlag has written a(nother) polemic against legal scholarship, and folks as varied as Daniel Ortiz, Richard Weisberg, Richard Posner and Robin West respond. Putting aside the merits of the exchange for now (which I hope to revisit at some point later), I wish to make two small points, indeed, in a phrase I owe to Bob Weisberg, they are thunderously trivial points. [And here it is, I've gone and wasted a perfectly good hour drafting these here in the post...]
When SSRN pops up in the subject line of my emails, I hit delete,
without even a glance, and without even thinking twice. Of course that stuff is spam. It would be nice, in fact, if a sensitive spam filter could select and delete these SSRN emails so I wouldn’t have to. I’m sure I’m not alone in this. Scholarship is now not just like spam [in the Schlagian sense that it is un-nutritious and deadening], it is spam. [italics in original]
I confess I'm puzzled as to why a dean for research (at Georgetown) would say this. First, one opts into receipt of SSRN emails, so they're not the spam of the generally "unwanted" Cialis pill or Russian mail-order bride variety, even though on a particular day, an email from our friends at SSRN might be part of the information overload under which we sometimes labor. And if one couldn't motivate oneself to un-subscribe from SSRN's mailings, there are in fact sensitive email spam filters that could select and delete these emails: try a filter that deletes anything within the "from" email address. Finally, just because the emails on a given day may seem unwanted (even if they are not technically uninvited), that doesn't make the underlying articles which are linked to in those emails (or any other scholarship) spam, let alone the moral equivalent of spam (qua bad meat or uninvited mass emails). This might be a space where one *should* shoot the messenger but spare from punishment the "message." Indeed, this claim of equivalence between spam and scholarship seemed jarringly inconsistent with West's otherwise illuminating defense of the potential (if not the actuality) of normative legal scholarship, and the exposure of the corresponding shortcomings in Schlag's piece. [After writing this, I showed it to Prof. West, and she said her footnote was intended to ironically make the point that while scholarship is not spam, SSRN floods the market with scholarship and thus, like any commodity which floods the market, the numerous SSRN emails risk bringing down the scholarship's value. I don't think I buy the argument, but do I share Prof. West's other concern that these points should not overwhelm the discussion on the merits of the more fundamental critique Schlag makes about legal scholarship, so I'll leave it here, with an invitation to those who want weigh in on that more substantive debate to do so in the comments.]
Actually, one last point, trying to tie together the essay about consent and sex mentioned above and the relationship we have to these SSRN emails. In her essay on sex, law and consent, Professor West adverts our attention to the distinction between the unwanted and the unwelcome, a distinction arising out of the literature on sexual harrassment. Perhaps the SSRN emails are unwanted but welcome/tolerated (ie, occuring in a relationship where the sexual attention is welcomed or permitted more generally), and this stands in contrast to the emails selling viagra, which are both unwanted and unwelcome. If this distinction holds, we might wonder whether the legal scholarship Schlag derides is simply unwanted, or both unwanted and unwelcome...
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Schlagfest in Geo. L. J. and a mild defense of SSRN emails...:
» Schlag and Posner on the Legal Academy (Georgetown Law Journal) from Legal Profession Blog
Posted by Jeff Lipshaw I know there are a lot of practitioners who read this blog for Mike Frisch's seemingly endless supply of lawyers behaving badly, and whose eyes glaze over when "Posted by Jeff Lipshaw" appears in the RSS... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 25, 2009 2:52:32 PM
» Legal Scholarship Is Dead. And Richard Posner Is On The Case. from The Faculty Lounge
The Georgetown Law Journal's got a nice little debate in its most recent issue, with Pierre Schlag declaring that: "American legal scholarship today is dead—totally dead, deader than at any time in the past thirty years. It is more dead,... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 27, 2009 6:51:04 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.