The Coolest Professor in the Legal Academy

Orly's post is a nice occasion to engage in a little anointing.  (Extra points for those who immediately think of that epic poetic line, "Anoint my head/Anointy-nointy.")  I am prepared to state definitively, for the time being, that the coolest professor in the legal academy today is one Alex B. Long, of the Oklahoma City University School of Law.  I grant that winning this title is a little like winning the prize for tallest Munchkin, but we ought to take our bragging rights where we can. 

Professor Long wins the prize on the basis of his recent draft article, [Insert Song Lyrics Here]: The Uses and Misuses of Popular Music Lyrics in Legal Writing.  (Hat tip: VC.)  The abstract describes the piece as suggesting that "the music we, the legal profession as a whole, write about may say something about who we are as a profession."  It conducts a study of cites to popular musicians in law journals, and discusses both the predictable and the more creative ways in which legal writers cite music lyrics. 

But all this highfalutin stuff is somewhat beside the point, which is that this is a very entertaining and, yes, cool article.  Let me count the ways: 1) It cites, among others,  GBV, Lester Bangs, the Specials, Manilow, Paul Westerberg, Mike Watt, Robbie Fulks, Waylon, Hank, and Uncle Tupelo.  2) It points out that "[f]or the first half of R.E.M.'s career, no one could understand what Michael Stipe was even talking about."  3) Its methodology is blissfully unscientific, a fact that Long justifies by saying, in effect, that's rock 'n' roll.  (For instance, he justifies failing to search for cites to the band Yes by saying that it would have been too hard, and anyway, "I don't really like Yes.")  4) He almost mocks, by name, an adjunct professor at Case for dedicating an article to Billy Joel, figuring that "he was just asking for abuse by doing so."  He refrains only because it turns out the guy produced some righteous music in a former life.  Plus, "it's not like he quoted Phil Collins or anything."  5) In noting that the top ten list of musical artists cited in law journals (e.g., Dylan, the Beatles, Springsteen, Paul Simon, Joni Mitchell) "essentially reads like a Who's Who of baby boomer favorites, Long makes a superb case, of great (self-) interest to us new and would-be law profs, for the return of mandatory retirement rules.  (We can always get rid of those rules later, mind you.)

Excellent stuff.  Three comments.  First, I can't help but note that despite Long's justified knock at the touch of grey in the list of the most cited artists, most of the musicians he cites, cool as they are, threaten to date him too.  No Shins?  No Mastodon?  But I wouldn't be too hard on him.  After all, as he says, "I live in Oklahoma."  Second, I wonder whether, by being so cool, and visibly so, Prof. Long actually invites the classic indie-rock rejoinder that in doing so, he has now sold out and actually is uncool.  Third: the Rush thing.  I get it, I get it.  It's understandable that he thinks, and says, that "Rush sucks."  I won't bring down the hipsters' wrath by defending Geddy Lee here.  But for Canadian drummers like me, Long's words approach sacrilege.  Is Rush unhip?  You betcha.  Uncool?  Ditto.  But the "s"-word -- that's just wrong, dude.

Of course, I welcome any commenters who want to make a case for dethroning Prof. Long and anointing someone else as the coolest living law professor.  I think we can all agree that professors at the top five or ten schools are pretty well disqualified, and serious points off for anyone who even thinks of mentioning Charles Nesson.  Extra points, on the other hand, for anyone who makes his or her case by mocking Alex Long along the way.  Double extra points for anyone who chooses to mock Prof. Long and who actually works with him at OKC.  And triple extra points for anyone who chooses to mock Prof. Long and who actually is Prof. Long.  Although self-mockery would itself be cool, and so would tend to nullify Prof. Long's efforts to dethrone himself on the grounds that such efforts are self-refuting.  So perhaps he should just be disqualified too.