"Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us?" ~ Justice William O. Douglas
Since I first posted my take on Professor Brian Tamanahara's blog article about the scamblogging movement, there have been some, see comments, who feel/think I went too far in criticizing the learned scholar who
Here's the main reason why Professor T should be embraced with open arms:
Tactically, his post is symbolic of the scambloggers gaining traction/being noticed by the very group that was responsible for the current paradigm, benefited from it, and will continue to benefit from it. We should therefore embrace Professor T and others like him who will post other things on the internet because somehow it will create more press or lead to corresponding action from within towards change.
Really? You think that the professors and administrative professors at these schools, who are teaching because they couldn't make it in private practice, burned out of private practice, got sick of it, wanted to play teacher, or just found a sweet retirement gig are going to be the agents of change? That's how these kinds of things work? You think they are going to voluntarily elect to take pay cuts, cut positions, or close schools? In the words of Ricky Gervais, are you mental? *See every social justice movement to see how well that works.
Currently I find myself as a blogger on one side of an adversarial zero-sum game, that can be framed in a number of different ways (but here are 2 for argument's sake):
Plaintiffs = 0L-3L's & Young Attorneys
Defendants = Law professors & their respective schools / State bars & ABA
Victim = 0L-3L's & Young Attorneys
Offender = Law professors & their respective schools / State bars & ABA
Let's be clear, the Defendant-Offenders didn't break a single written law---whether it's the payment/debt structure created, the divorce between education & practice, the privatizing/massive subsidy of bar exam review, the multi-year procedural hurdles involved in becoming a licensed lawyer, the outsourcing of jobs overseas, etc. All of the things that I rant and rave about are a-ok according to positive law.
In fact, the Defendant-Offenders wholeheartedly embrace the above mentioned items. They even make regular claims about the amazing good they provide to the society at large along with the great calling that is the law. What I'm talking about is justice--that nefarious and hard to define concept of natural law, the underlying current of imagination and a sense of what should be running through all hard legal doctrines.
Would I like this whole debate to be a cooperative, open minded, win-win process that leads to rational reform? Of fucking course.
However, the founding nature of the law is that it is an adversarial win-lose dispute resolution system (literally replacing intra-societal combat). It permeates the education and practice (understandably). So it would be ridiculous to start thinking that my blogging is anything but adversarial/contentious/offensive in nature. There's a reason this is all done anonymously. You think if I made these same arguments, regardless of offense or vulgarities, that I wouldn't be the target of utter destruction by the powers that be?
The judge then threw Spencer Tracy in jail.
I'm sure Professor T is a great guy in his personal life, in fact I'd be more than willing to share a Dos Equis with him, but he cannot absolve himself of his role in all of this. I utterly refuse to accept that. The fact that he wrote about it and it's a sign of "buy-in" makes no difference to me.
I don't care what the legal industry or its members have to say about this. My focus is not on them. My focus is on the Zero Lemming out there considering
What follows is the original blog post with revisions for clarification's sake.