Name-Calling in Corporate Law Academia

Roberta Romano, Stephen Bainbridge, and Larry Ribstein all seem outraged at an unpublished, non-SSRN'ed paper by Jack Coffee that Romano (at least) has gotten her hands on.  Although I don't have a copy of the paper, they seem to be objecting that Coffee referred to them as "the 'Tea Party Caucus' of corporate and securities law professors."  Romano also says that they are referred to as "conservative critics of securities regulation," and that Ribstein and Bainbridge are Romano's "loyal adherents."  Romano calls this "serial name calling," Bainbridge complains that this is "insulting" and a "series of ad hominem attacks," and Ribstein says, "It’s sad a scholar of Coffee’s stature sees a need to resort to such rhetoric, though almost understandable since Romano’s devastating critique doesn’t leave him much of a ledge to sit on."

Somehow, I can't gin up much sympathy.  

Only one of those things in the "series of attacks" is really all that remarkable.  Being called a "conservative critic[] of securities regulation" is insulting?  Romano claims that the "conservative" adjective is erroneous, but c'mon -- you all are conservative!  Maybe not on all issues, maybe not in your heart of hearts.  And look, I've written before about how political labels in the context of corporate law can be misleading.  But I still don't think being called "conservative" is an ad hominem, especially if used in reference to the issue being debated.  On Sarbanes-Oxley, on Dodd-Frank -- you all are conservative!  As to the "adherents" thing, I suppose it makes Bainbridge and Ribstein into followers.  But Steve, you did use the whole "quack" meme after Roberta!

That still leaves the "Tea Party" remark, and sure, depending on what you think of the Tea Party, it could be pejorative.  (Not everyone would agree!)  But it seems pretty mild to me.  Plus, it's making a rhetorical point: these three are to corporate law what the Tea Party is to American politics.  I don't agree with the rhetorical claim, but it seems like a point one could make legitimately without being too offensive.

And this brings me to my real point.  There's the whole "Really?" thing that Seth Myers has going.  I find it kind of annoying.  But if you like it, then just insert "Really?" after each of these bullet points. 

So folks, you're upset about name calling when you've:

• Called a major piece of federal legislation "quack corporate governance."  A quack is a fraud; someone who intentionally subjects others to harm and even death in order to make a quick buck selling bad advice.   So you're saying that the bill is equivalent to this?
• Called a second major piece of federal legislation "quack corporate governance."  Did you not think that calling it "quack" might be offensive?
• Referred to Gretchen Morgenson as "Morgenscreed."  And referred to the columns by said Morgenscreed as "lining Wall Street's birdcages."  Called one of her columns "the latest extreme idiocy." Called her a "clown[]."  And called her reporting "muck" and "fairy tales."  Not resorting to rhetoric, eh?
• Called the Occupy Wall Street folks "a bunch of childish narcissists" and referred to the "moronic" campaign against corporate personhood. Called on state government to "kill" a nearby law school.
• Said this about someone else: "I've spent the better part of my career crossing swords with these folks and I find them a remarkably thin skinned bunch. Call them 'self-appointed' or 'gad flies' or 'water carriers for left liberal organizations like unions' and they get all offended."

I feel like Jon Stewart here -- I could roll clips for twenty minutes.  The point is, these three are some of the most elbows-out academics that I know of.  And yet here they are, complaining about pretty soft stuff.  C'mon, people -- you're looking a little like Scut Farkus. 

UPDATE: Stephen Bainbridge responds.  He mentions that Coffee apparently compared him to Sergeant Schultz of Hogan's Heroes at AALS a few years back, which I left out because (1) it's not in Coffee's paper and (2) Romano & Ribstein didn't mention it.  Surely, that seems insulting, and I wouldn't blame Bainbridge for being upset by it.  And I also agree with him that blogging is less serious, more shoot-from-the-hip than scholarship, and different standards apply.  But even so, blogging is not a personal diary.  People do read it.  So perhaps it's less gauche to insult someone on a blog than at a conference.  But wherever you dish it out, you should be able to take it, too.

More importantly, I think Steve is wrong when he justifies his "quack" title with: "BFD. There's a huge difference between uncivil towards a person and being uncivil about a piece of legislation."  Saying a piece of legislation is "quack" legislation, in the title of your paper, is basically saying that only idiots or frauds could support that legislation.  So it's being uncivil to a large swath of people, rather than just one.  And it's not an aside at a conference -- it's the whole point of the paper.  If we're talking about civility in the context of scholarship, that is NOT civil.  Sorry!  When you call someone a "quack," you are not "avoiding insulting, demeaning or derisive language" or "genuinely listening to (and trying to make good sense of) what the other person says."  You're name-calling.  And that ain't civil!