The “Chip” People

By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger

wilder
Wonderful Gene Wilder With A Grammatically Correct Meme

When I was a young lawyer twenty-five years ago or so, I remember a particularly enlightening client meeting. A 30ish woman had scheduled an appointment to discuss a sexual harassment case against a prominent lawyer in town. Being the new guy at the firm but with some considerable jury trial experience even then, I was asked to sit in while our senior partner met with the client. The client arrived and began a convincing narrative about a sexually charged work place replete with provocative innuendo, being subjected to daily dirty jokes, some pass-by groping in the hallway and even arriving at the office in the morning with an open Penthouse magazine on her desk. Despite complaints to the other partners with nothing of substance being done, she claimed, the client had taken all she could and resigned citing this treatment as the reason. Since the claimed harassment involved a superior and a text-book hostile work environment seemed evident, we were seriously considering taking the case despite what we knew would be a no-holds barred defense.

When we came to the part of the meeting where we asked about corroborating evidence in the form of witnesses or documents confirming her version of events, the client’s demeanor changed from cool professionalism to anger. “Don’t you believe me?”, she shot back like a dagger. “No, it wasn’t that,” our senior guy said. “We just need to know what kind of case we can present.” Wrong answer! ” I don’t want a lawyer who doesn’t believe me. I know what happened and all you have to do is subpoena every staff person there and they’ll tell the truth.” I recall thinking at this moment about all the clients I represented and their look of absolute betrayal as witness after witness “couldn’t remember” this event or that one in deference to preserving their job status. I didn’t say anything, but the senior lawyer did. “Look,” he said quite understandingly I thought, “This is a bad situation for you but he’s a prominent person in the community. His firm is on tv doing all kinds of charitable work around the holidays. He has represented thousands of people in the area, is well-connected politically, and has tons of financial resources to throw at you. We need to know how strong your evidence is going to be.” That broke the camel’s back. “You’re in cahoots with him aren’t you?,” spat the client. “I was told you would take the case because I was in the right, but now all you want to do is talk me out of it by telling me how good his case is going to be.”

“No, not at all,” came the reply as the client was gathering up her papers to make a fast exit. “I not interested in you representing me ,” came the terse rejoinder and “I’m thinking about reporting you to the bar for being in league [with her tormentor].”  With that she turned on her heel and strode out the door. A little sheepish, I asked “Should I go and try to get her to come back? It looks like a winnable case to me, if we can get some confirmation of her story,” I asked. “No,” came the seasoned reply. “She’s a chip person,  and juries can smell that a mile away.” I went back to my desk thinking here was an intelligent person with a potential case who can’t step away from the emotion of the moment to aid even those who want to help her.  It’s an emotional blindness we all suffer from.

I thought about that while reading about the dust-up between Professor Leong and her Moriarty, dybbuk, as well as the unseemly sandbox dispute between Professors Campos and Leiter.  Let me know how these statements strikes you, the blog jury. First from Professor Leong’s website, Feminist Law Professors:

Some argue that racial and gender harassment are part and parcel of participation in online discourse.  As one white man commented on my prior post:  “Welcome to the jungle . . . . If you want to have a voice . . . just do what we have been doing for over a decade and laugh it off.”  (In context, “we” meant “white men.”)  Of course, it’s easy to talk about “laughing it off” when, because of your status as a white man, you’re virtually never the target of identity-based harassment that deploys historically subordinate or marginalized status as a silencing tool.

My obvious question is how does Leong know that her poster is a “white man”? Does he say so? Did she ask? Did she track him down and call his workplace to find out? Or is she just assuming and making the same stereotypical argument of which she complains herself? Are her assumptions about white men any more venomous than the assumptions about a “white man’s” reaction to her identity? My reaction, which I think some will share, is that Professor Leong is a “chip person.” That is she views every criticism through the lens of her own personal battle and doesn’t understand how the same statement would be viewed by an independent person freed from the emotional involvement of her circumstances.

And for Exhibit A consider this screen shot of the exchange between Leong and dybbuk which she entitles “Luau Train”:

LuauTrain

Leong’s take on the first comment: “Rather than explaining why (for example) he thinks that the racial capitalism framework is analytically flawed, the first commenter disparages my Native Hawaiian background with a reference to the “luau train.” He then attempts to undermine my intellectual contribution to an academic conference by claiming that the reason for my presence is to serve as an object of sexualized attention for a presumed heterosexual male audience.”

Professor Leong in word and deed (naming the image) obviously considers this comment by dybbuk to be a slur aimed at her heritage, but there is also a more benign interpretation that dybbuk is merely commenting about the location of her speech and not her heritage. Why does an educated person fail to consider the view of things than a simpleton like myself would have to concede could also be true? For his part, dybbuk claims he has no knowledge of Leong’s Hawaiian roots and was referring to the sumptuous spreads some speakers get at these seminars that never seem to be scheduled in Dubuque in the winter time.

Now consider the case of the dueling professors. Prof. Campos sends the following email to his apparent long-time intellectual adversary:

From: Paul F Campos [mailto:paul.campos@Colorado.EDU]

Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:03 AM

To: Leiter, Brian

Subject: Dybbuk

Brian,

I have been asked by somebody who has passed on (unsolicited) some potentially very embarrassing personal information about you to me, regarding your activities in cyberspace and some related goings-on in the real world, to make this information public, should you choose to “out” Dybbuk.

Paul

Professor Leiter upon receipt of the email launches a broadside attack lambasting Campos for, what he says, is “resorting to blackmail.” He then adds the following dittie that struck my logistician’s eye:

I am told by a colleague who teaches criminal law that this threat is blackmail (criminal “intimidation” as we call it in Illinois, or “extortion” or “criminal coercion” as it is in many other jurisdictions).  I have no idea what fabrications Campos would produce this time, but there is nothing truthful he could post, and he knows it.  (Remarkably, this is also not the first time Campos has tried to coerce another law professor with threats.)

You guessed it the classic logical fallacies of an ad hominem attack (Campos is bad because he’s done bad before and he lies ergo he is not to be believed) and a borderline appeal to authority (My colleague teaches criminal law hence he must be knowledgeable in charging decisions by local prosecutors. Maybe he does, but Leiter never tells us.) by an unknown source.

For his part, Professor Campos says his email was mere warning and the twisted grammar aside, it’s a reasonable interpretation especially if Lieter has already “outed” dybbuk thus making any such disclosure of “embarrassing personal information” an empty threat since the trigger on the disclosure has already been pulled.

Leiter comes off as prickly and seeking to find the worst possible interpretation of Campos’ actions. I don’t think a fair-minded person would make the same mistake in the courtroom or that other bastion of democracy, the court of public opinion. So why lose your case in both courts simply because you need to “strike back” by questioning anyone and anything that contradicts, in the slightest way, your interpretation of other people’s motives.

Ultimately these two episodes prove to me why litigants need to arrive at court with everything except that chip. It’s unattractive and lends an air of holy crusade to a civil dispute that the resolver of fact will assuredly sniff out. Juries have their limitations but divining motivation isn’t one of them. Oh, they can be mislead and fooled but  they never miss a chip the size of a 2×4.

As the pre-eminent blue ribbon jury on the blog-o-sphere what say you about these two alleged wrongs? Chip people or victims — or both?

~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger

256 thoughts on “The “Chip” People

  1. This is one crazy situation that needs to stay in the sandbox….. No one will win… If they have such fair skin… Maybe they should stay out of this area….

  2. Fifty years ago we needed a Feminism Blog. Of course fifty years ago we had not blogs. Now we need a Civility Blog.

    What the Leong professor is doing, and has done, is create a niche for herself in her law school so as to get tenure and secure herself from criticism for not being a good teacher of law.
    The law school can boast of having The Feminist Blog. Detractors of her ability to teach will be called out as sexist.

    The other two characters do not seem to measure up to law professor qualification to me.

    The bigger picture is that the law schools produce too many grads each year for the marketplace for new lawyers. There is no mechanism for paring down the law schools. There are ridiculous courses and seminars being taught. The third year should be clinical or “in court”. Law schools need to require more courses in con law. They need to take some of the cons out of the faculties.

  3. Well mespo, one of thee things that I like about you is you have a vast amount of real world experience, and not just in law, but coaching. You have the chops to be able to call out someone w/ a chip on their shoulder, that while obvious to objective observers, is a blind spot for some. I’ve dealt w/ “chippy” clients, witnesses, cops, students, athletes. parents, etc. You can get through that defense mechanism but it takes time and patience. But, the folks that are sometimes workable are those w/ a situational chip on their shoulder. Those who walk through life w/ that chip are best avoided if @ all possible.

  4. Moore’s chip law:

    the power of chips doubles approximately every two years.

    Dredd’s Blogging Law:

    the power of chips doubles approximately every two years.

  5. I am intrigued by the level of incivility in the postings of the parties, slurry far beyond any notes I would expect to see in my white-collar profession (at least in the last 25 years or so). But it is a bit like watching an old TV show where mild mannered entymologist Professor Turley, chasing an interesting butterfly, falls into the quicksand. Be careful and make sure Lassie / Fury / Rin tin tin is in a position to go for help.

  6. @ Mark Esposito “I have been asked by somebody who has passed on (unsolicited) some potentially very embarrassing personal information about you to me, regarding your activities in cyberspace and some related goings-on in the real world, to make this information public, should you choose to “out” Dybbuk.”

    I think there is at least one interpretation you have not considered. As I read the passage, it is Campos who has been asked to make the attack. If Compos has no intention to attack then there is no need to warn – the attack will not take place. But if Compos is communicating the possibility of an attack he is acknowledging that he may indeed attack. That would be a threat, not a warning.

    I think Compos might have avoided much of this discussion if he had made his intention not to attack explicit and stated clearly he would not be a party to any harmful or harassing actions.

    Compos did not do that. On the contrary he stated he had been asked to attack, he had the damaging information, and Leiter should be aware of those facts. Broken down to those simple facts, the communication is pretty clearly a threat.

  7. bfm I think that you are right, but it is a very poorly worded post, and if an attack is intended, it is a very oblique one. So I think that there is a valid defense to saying it is a threat, and it is not a slam dunk for being clearly a threat. Your argument is that by failing to say he would NOT use the information or attack, he is guilty of making a threat. That is seeing a crime by omission, something which is far less clear for me.

  8. @randyjet

    I agree it is poorly worded and (perhaps intentionally) ambiguous.

    But my point is actually straight forward – but maybe just a questionable.

    Compos, in his email, admits he has been asked to attack. He is the agent of attack. If he is communicating a warning, the only reasonable interpretation is that Compos will attack. That makes the warning also a threat.

    Well that is one interpretation. Actually I think one could argue pretty much anything you darn well please about that email and have a chance of being right. But that is what makes it fun.

  9. bfm:

    I don’t necessarily disagree but I think its open to interpretation and Leiter doesn’t allow for that. And, as you say, Campos could have expressed a clearer meaning and explained with better syntax. However, I learned in the courtroom along time ago if something is said that could be interpreted innocently or aggressively, take the first choice. the jury will fix it if you’re wrong and you come off looking all the better as the gentlemen.

  10. nick:

    Interesting what you alluded to in coaching kids. I had a kid a few years ago who absolutely hated playing. He was doing it for his parents who adored the game. They were originally from Pa. where it’s a right of passage. The kid did everything he could to make me angry so I’d yank him out of drills or not play him. Finally, I went to him alone and asked what was going on. He told me and I told him I’d think about what to do. The kid was smart so while he did everything the rest of the kids did I gave him some coaching responsibilities like keeping the play sheets, organizing the wrist bands (we did no huddle/number system) and helping me signal plays. He only played the minimum plays by choice but he really enjoyed the games. We let him wear a coaches cap instead of his helmet. The kid and parents thanked me after the season. I got a card from him a few months ago. He is studying to be a coach albeit of basketball but that’s fine with me. I think that’s a good example of a situation chip.

  11. It’s clear that Campos was employing a ruse. He wanted to let Leiter know he has potentially damaging info and if he needed to he would use it if Leiter took certain steps. He was the agent of the threat maker and possibly the threatener himself. What game playing! I suggest that most juries would see through this in a heartbeat.

  12. Dybbuk’s snark re the Luau train seemed to rather obviously flow from his comment about the conference location.

    He didn’t need to follow with his observation about her physical appearance, but it was honest, and like the most honest comedy, rooted in reality. Men do this. So do Women.

    No amount of preaching about “pragmatic approach[es] of reactive commodification” will change this. And I’d hate to live in the humorless world that would result if it did.

  13. I’m a bit curious about part of the claim that Leong is a “chip person.” (No question on the Leiter point). To my mind, the August 12 comment you highlight is unquestionably sexist and ambiguously racist. As you quote her response, she addresses both of these issues. If the comment included only the ambiguously racist statement, I’d be inclined to agree with you that her response may primarily tell us something about her own “personal battle.” But it didn’t. At the point that the commentor plainly deploys Leong’s womanhood as a basis for criticizing her intellect and right to participate in scholarly endeavors, I don’t see why she–or frankly anyone–should give him the benefit of the doubt. To me, it doesn’t matter whether the comment is also racist, the sexism it exhibits is itself worthy of condemnation. Why do you view the sexism as an afterthought that doesn’t justify a response?

  14. Dr. No JD,
    Could it be because sexism is still easier to cloak umder the guise of free speech than is racism in today’s world?

  15. Could it be Dr.No JD, that because sexism is easier than racism to hide under the guise of free speech in today’s world?

  16. I would be interested in hearing what the author of the post thought of dybbuk calling leong a “comely young narcissist” in a different post. Your analogy to the chip person in your law firm fails because the client was seeing her lawyer as part of a conspiracy because she had experienced it by others, rather than anything the lawyer had done. Here, she was clearly subject to sexist harassment by dybbuk and a lot of others in posts he started, read ALL the posts she cited in her thread. Maybe you can parse any specific post and think she overreacted to that one — but viewing a post as sexist because someone previously made a sexist post about you is being a reasonable viewer, not a chip person.

    WIth respect to the Leiter-Campos feud, it is appropriate for either of them to view any communication by the other as hostile; they clearly hate each other and have for a long time. The chip person would be someone who projects their feud onto interactions with others they perceive to be friends of their enemy. Sometimes, that is misplaced.

  17. Annieofwi, an interesting thought. I don’t know enough about the First Amendment to know if it’s true as a legal issue, but it sounds true to my ear. Is your thought that because as a legal matter racism receives less protection, that means that the rest of us are more willing to overlook sexist comments?

  18. No Dr. No JD, as I see it most racism is easy to spot, in your face, so to speak. Sexism can be excused as having a chip, or in the case of women, they are “overly sensitive, emotional, a harridan, a nag, a biatch”, so many things that get attached to a strong woman. And to go a step farther, when a woman defends herself against sexism, she is doubly dismissed or vilified.

    I’m not an attorney, my daughter is. I’m a nurse who has seen sexism in action.

  19. Dr. No JD:

    “To me, it doesn’t matter whether the comment is also racist, the sexism it exhibits is itself worthy of condemnation. Why do you view the sexism as an afterthought that doesn’t justify a response?

    ******************

    That’s a fair question. The reason I emphasize the almost breathless attempt to couch the poster’s words as anti-Hawaiian is because that’s how Prof. Leong sees it. She raised the issue of her ancestry before commenting on the gender prejudice and she named the screen shot “luau train” and then proceeded to assume the poster knew her racial identity. A point the poster denies. That tells me the racial prejudice issue was primary in her mind yet ironically that case was the hardest for her to make. While the sexual comment was important and NOT an afterthought it was literally secondary in Dr. Leong’s mind in my judgment. No one is promoting sexual stereotyping, minimizing it, or justifying it. That was the point of my little anecdote about a probable valid claim. I was merely pointing out that even meritorious claims are undermined by a rabid sense of self-justification and indignation at mild criticism. Hence,a “chip person.”

  20. as for the women in the original post who had a “chip”, lawyers in local areas do[can] stick together [not a universal statement] so it isnt necessarily something to be dismissed as having a chip. I know people who have had to leave a local area to seek legal counsel because of the old boys or old girls network to get a lawyer who would advocate for them.

    Small towns are the worst for this sort of thing but in large cities lawyers are a small community so I imagine the same would hold.

  21. Gring:

    I haven’t read that post but if you point me there, I’ll be happy to give you my thoughts. I may have seen it. I just don’t recall it.

  22. Remember the Randy Newman song called Short People?

    {music}
    Chip people got no reason.
    Chip people got no reason to liiiivvve!
    They got little bitty eyes, and little bitty feet.
    An little bitty voices that go beep beep beep.

    Don’t want no Chip People.
    Don’t want no Chip People round here.

  23. mespo, thanks for responding. Let me just share my perspective. It doesn’t surprise me that once some feels attacked because of something about her identity, she acquires jaundiced eyes with regard to the person making those comments. In other words, the blatant sexism exhibited in the comment informed Leong’s reading of the ambiguously racist comment. But once that comment is read as racist, it could take prominence, particularly because as annieofwi notes, women defending themselves against sexism are often put down and ignored.

    To make up an example. Imagine if someone wrote a rambling internet comment about me that included: “I hate white. And you’re a man pig with an over-sized ego.” The second statement would inform my reading of the first. The person could be making a non-race-related comment about color preference for shirts, but once they’ve attacked me based on my gender, I’d read the first sentence more ominously and infer racism. And at that point, the ambiguously racist statement would strike me as the more problematic. I don’t think that would make me a “chip” person. Rather, I’d be using the information available to me (commenter makes sexist comments) to inform my understanding of the ambiguous statement (ambiguously racist comment more likely to be racist because commenter is type of person willing to attack people based on sex).

    Now it’s true that “luau train” doesn’t immediately strike me as racist — but I’m not a native Hawaiian, so I don’t have an ear for racism directed at that group.

  24. Mespo, Those are the type of coaching stories I love. However, it is a bit melancholy. A great coach left “the calling” as I call it, for righteous reasons. You have expressed how much you miss it. What about baseball or basketball? Football is obviously your love. But, I coached basketball on a lower level for about 5 years and really enjoyed it. But, I didn’t love it as I do baseball.

    Rachel Nichols is a great addition to CNN. She did a good interview of Russell Wilson last night that’s up on the website if you didn’t catch it. I would vote for that kid for any political office. “Kid”..he’s a man!

  25. I won’t speak to the racism of his comment, though I think it is there. As a female law professor, the sexism of the comment is breathtakingly obvious to me, and I am flummoxed by your assertion that her comments about this make her what you call a “chip person.” That someone would respond to a scholarly presentation by sexualizing this woman with crude comments about her appearance is sexist and demeaning, and meant to be so. Female colleagues, as well as myself, have had similar experiences and find them offensive.

  26. annie,

    I posted the following on another thread earlier today:

    Why Women Aren’t Welcome on the Internet
    By Amanda Hess
    January 06, 2014
    http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-arent-welcome-internet-72170/

    Excerpt:
    “Ignore the barrage of violent threats and harassing messages that confront you online every day.” That’s what women are told. But these relentless messages are an assault on women’s careers, their psychological bandwidth, and their freedom to live online. We have been thinking about Internet harassment all wrong…

    A woman doesn’t even need to occupy a professional writing perch at a prominent platform to become a target. According to a 2005 report by the Pew Research Center, which has been tracking the online lives of Americans for more than a decade, women and men have been logging on in equal numbers since 2000, but the vilest communications are still disproportionately lobbed at women. We are more likely to report being stalked and harassed on the Internet—of the 3,787 people who reported harassing incidents from 2000 to 2012 to the volunteer organization Working to Halt Online Abuse, 72.5 percent were female. Sometimes, the abuse can get physical: A Pew survey reported that five percent of women who used the Internet said “something happened online” that led them into “physical danger.” And it starts young: Teenage girls are significantly more likely to be cyberbullied than boys. Just appearing as a woman online, it seems, can be enough to inspire abuse. In 2006, researchers from the University of Maryland set up a bunch of fake online accounts and then dispatched them into chat rooms. Accounts with feminine usernames incurred an average of 100 sexually explicit or threatening messages a day. Masculine names received 3.7.

  27. Mespo – Extremely well argued. I think you are right, that chip people is the overriding factor. Nevertheless, I assume you would agree that some lessons in civility are warranted for everyone involved.

  28. From what I’ve read, dybbuk left many dozens of derogatory and sexist comments about Leong (and others) at five different blogs over the course of more than a year. Is being fed up/upset with ongoing sexual harassment in the work place or a cyber harasser to be equated with having a chip on one’s shoulder?

  29. It’s becoming obvious that women need to speak in a louder voice when it comes to cyberstalking, harassment and sexism.

    There outta be a law, or is here one already, underused? Free speech isn’t an excuse for this type of activity. It makes free speech appear cheap, ripe for the taking, to be used and abused.

  30. I would like to remind folks again that dybbuk is a public defender. And as I’ve said, I have NEVER met a conservative PD. All the ones I’ve known are liberal, quite liberal actually. I’ve known @ least 20-25. I have a couple as good friends, one is on my VERY limited cell phone contacts. I’m sure there are a few conservatives, but my guess is less than 5% or so. Just sayn’!

  31. I have encountered any number of people such as the one Mark described in his story. I never heard the term “chip people,” and wondered if that is some kind of idiosyncratic regional slang. My take is probable paranoid personality disorder. Paranoia is not a static thing, but is on a continuum from chronic mild auspiciousness up to a paranoid psychosis. Over the years, I have run into more of them in child custody cases than any other type of case. Usually, the reason for the divorce and custody battle in the first place is the presence of a clinically significant paranoid disorder on the part of one of the parents.

    It is not unusual for the paranoid parent to file bar complaints against all the lawyers and even the judge. The same goes for any experts unfortunate enough to get caught in the middle.

    Here is a typical example. The somewhat paranoid losing party who wants all the experts to provide an itemized statement for the time they spent reading medical and legal histories. They only want to pay for the time the expert spent reading about their part of the case, and not any reading time on the estranged spouse’s material. I have seen losing parties spend thousands for legal fees obtaining more depositions and added hearings, trying to save a couple of hundred dollars in such instances. I really don’t understand why any lawyer would be desperate enough, or hungry enough, to take such a case.

  32. I don’t think Leong sued anyone here. Or outed anyone. She told the bar what dybbuk did and asked them to determine whether to proceed. And blogged about varuous pseudonymous people who had posted sexist things about her; again without outing them to the world. And tried to contact her lead tormenter before telling the bar.

    I think that shows a lot more restraint than a chip person woukd exhibit — and I have certainly had a few chip clients and opposing parties.

  33. Nick, I’m not sure how the political views of dybbuk matter. Liberals engage in sexism and racism too (as much as I wish we didn’t). Need an example? What about the San Diego Mayor disaster.

  34. Otteray,

    Don’t you think someone who was subjected to ongoing harassment at work would be adversely affected by it psychologically? Would that mean that the victim of the harassment had a paranoid personality disorder?

  35. Elaine. Thanks for information. I always like a good storyteller. And, I must say, I’m enjoying the exchange on this blog. I have a handful that I read with regularity and I may have to add this to the rotation.

  36. Dr. No JD, You just impressed me. I’m glad you joined us and hope you stay. There are so many ideologues who are not intellectually honest. I’m talking BOTH left and right. There are so many negative and “positive” stereotypes on both sides. A “positive” stereotype is that liberals are not sexist, racist, etc. that’s strictly the purview of conservatives. You gave a great example of Bob Filner. We spend winters in San Diego. The FIRST time my very perceptive and more liberal wife saw Filner she physically shook and said, “That guy is a creep.”

    It’s heartening to hear your positive feedback about the exchanges on this blog. Some changes were made recently and you giving a spontaneous appraisal means a LOT to folks here.

  37. Elaine,
    That is not at all what I am saying. I used to have a poster on my office wall that said, “Just Because You Are Paranoid Doesn’t Mean They Are Not Out To Get You.”

    Years ago, I interviewed a defendant whose lawyer wanted a mental competency exam before going to trial. The young man, wide eyed, told me in almost a whisper, “They are coming through the wall at night to get me. I can hear them. They are coming through the wall and they are going to get me.” He went on in that vein for some time.

    He had been transported by a deputy sheriff, who was waiting to see if we were going to keep the defendant or send him back to jail. I told the deputy the guy was hearing things, so we would keep him for further observation. The deputy wanted to know what he was hearing, and I told him.

    Deputy laughed. “He is not hearing things. We caught the guys in the next cell digging out some of the cement blocks so they could get at him. They want to kill him because he is a snitch.”

    I am pointing out that some litigants, and potential litigants, have their antennas out for every real and imagined slight. Real is one thing, but imagined quite another.

  38. Amazing how Spinelli feels he can speak for the community here. He is not my spokesperson Dr.No JD, nor for many here I suspect. Of course, I know better than to try to speak for them.

  39. annie,

    Nick is in the habit of warning newcomers to the blog about the ideologues and elitists and posters who aren’t “intellectually honest” that they may encounter here. He feels it’s his responsibility.

  40. Elaine, could it be that such people were never allowed to be hall monitors in their childhood and now recreate that role as adults? Just sayin’.

  41. nick spinelli

    I would like to remind folks again that dybbuk is a public defender. And as I’ve said, I have NEVER met a conservative PD. All the ones I’ve known are liberal, quite liberal actually. I’ve known @ least 20-25. I have a couple as good friends, one is on my VERY limited cell phone contacts. I’m sure there are a few conservatives, but my guess is less than 5% or so. Just sayn’!
    ======================
    Studies show that this is to be expected (Conservatives Have Inquisitional Personalities). ;)

  42. Mespo,

    The graphic “Tell me again how your smarter …” should be “Tell me again how you’re smarter …” … unless “your smarter” is a body part.

  43. It has been said several times, my welcoming people is an homage to the deceased commenter, Idealist. He welcomed and mentored me through the jungle that existed @ the time. His fundamental philosophy was also mine, “the more the merrier.” I find it marvelous that just in the past week or so we have new people commenting. Although I am an optimist, I am savvy enough to know that some miss the past. But, different voices, different perspectives, are what Mr. Turley wants. It also happens to be what I have spoken for since I got here. I’m happy about the new civil atmosphere and new voices. It’s a progressive philosophy.

  44. Dr. No JD:

    I appreciate your perspective and it makes sense, too. I was looking at Prof. Leong’s statement as a lawyer would look at another lawyer’s. The rule of primacy and the “naming” of the screenshot were persuasive to me that this lawyer intended to convey more umbrage at race than gender. Certainly, I could be wrong but I guess my point is that people honestly looking at the same set of facts can reach different conclusions. That said, I would no more disparage your interpretation that I would assert categorically my own. That’s the difference I try to make between “chip people” and folks who fervently believe in their position but are willing to listen to new information before fixating.

    Like nick, I hope you stay on and welcome aboard, if you do. We really think we have something special here and that’s probably my situational “chip.”

  45. Dredd:

    I debated the grammar snafu of the picture but Gene Wilder looked so disarming (but with a dagger at your ribs) that I couldn’t pass it up.

  46. I find it a bit insulting to Professor Turley, that Spinelli continues to place himself as the spokesperson for Professor Turley and other commenters here. It’s not incivil to point out that he does not speak for everyone here and I don’t think Professor Turley makes a good dummy for any ventriloquist.

  47. I can’t believe anyone is seriously defending the conduct of Prof. Leong and her full frontal assault on free speech, as an academic no less. Her attempt to use disciplinary rules to silence a critic is reprehensible.

  48. Ah so easy to hide behind free speech in an attempt to destroy someone’s career. What an insult to the principal of free speech. Just
    like any really good thing, it’s so good it’s abused.

  49. I posted the following comment on another thread earlier today:

    I know most of the people commenting here feel that Leong took the wrong approach in order to deal with her cyber harasser. I’d like someone to provide a suggestion/some suggestions for how she should have dealt with “dybbuk.”

  50. Mespo, You make a great point. People can look @ the same incident and have very different takes on it. If you gave both a polygraph, they would pass it. I’ve had that happen many times investigating civil cases. Hell, I would get suspicious when I interviewed several people and they had almost identical takes.

  51. Susan Apel:

    Thank you for your legal input as well as your personal perspective which by reason of my gender I will likely never fully appreciate. That said, I have no doubt the comment was sexist. My focus as I tried to explain in a prior comment to Dr no JD (and I assuredly don’t expect to hang on my every word) was that:

    ” No one is promoting sexual stereotyping, minimizing it, or justifying it. That was the point of my little anecdote about a probable valid claim. I was merely pointing out that even meritorious claims are undermined by a rabid sense of self-justification and indignation at mild criticism. Hence,a “chip person.”

    I say this as an a person with some advocacy skills not as a judge. Forced to render an opinion of the offending poster I would agree his comment was … well … offensive. I am just critiquing an obviously intelligent woman’s approach to the affront by tracking him down at his workplace and expecting a reasoned discussion. Not going to happen and I suspect Prof. Leong knew that in her heart of hearts. I’m also not enamored of the horn tooting or the Hamlet-ian angst over whether to “out” or “not to out” — despite the slings and arrows. In my judgment, that really shouldn’t be a tough question for a teacher of US Constitutional law absent a credible threat of serious injury or death.

    I think she put herself in the same position our prospective client did in seeking justice with an indignant attitude. It just doesn’t work even if you’re as right in your position as moral certainty allows.

    That said. I hope you will stay aboard with your commentary and insights.

  52. annieofwi:

    “Amazing how Spinelli feels he can speak for the community here. He is not my spokesperson Dr.No JD, nor for many here I suspect. Of course, I know better than to try to speak for them.”

    **************************

    Since I started here in 2008, many regulars have come to feel a certain attachment to this place. I like that and we welcome lots of people into our little soiree all the time. JT is a magnanimous host and he has described himself as our bartender in the cyber-bar where ideas get imbibed. (Some are lots “harder” to take than spirits, by the way). I think JT is happy to welcome any new face and I don’t think he is in the least bit offended by nick placing out the welcome mat in his absence.

  53. Mespo, I’m am in no way saying that Professor Turley wouldn’t be happy to see new commenters here. My issue is with Spinelli appointing himself spokesperson, it grates and is annoying and if and until Professor Turley states its just fine with him, then I’ll shut up.

  54. Mespo – I appreciate your willingness to consider my perspective on the matter. And to do so respectfully. Since you’ve been nice enough to respond to my little clarifying questions, I hope you’ll consider another. I’m confused by part of your response to Professor Apel. Maybe I’m reading into it, but it seems like you’re saying that constitutional law somehow dictates what Professor Leong may or should do with information about the identity of this commentor. I’m having trouble seeing this. Professor Leong is not the government and is not restricted by the First Amendment. Indeed, I would think that the First Amendment would protect her right to disclose such information publicly (as long as it was legally acquired). As I said earlier, I’m not a First Amendment expert, so maybe I’m wrong.

    Let me also (gently) suggest that I think you might be engaging in a small bit of the tunnel vision that is the theme of this post. I say that because it seems to me that you’re conflating, to some extent, what Leong has said and what Leiter has said. (I’ve been sufficiently intrigued by this thread to read through the various posts written by most of the principles — at least the one’s that I could find). Leiter has been hand wringing about outing the guy. He even hosted an online poll about it. As far as I saw (and my apologies if I missed something), Leong talked about it only once in a blog post about internet harrassment more generally. As I read her comment, she was suggesting that outing a pseudonymous poster may be appropriate in some circumstances, but that she decided that from her perspective this wasn’t one of them. It may make for a neater narrative to view her as similarly beating that issue, but I don’t think it’s quite accurate.

  55. davidm:

    ” Nevertheless, I assume you would agree that some lessons in civility are warranted for everyone involved.”

    **********************
    Thank you for the reply. I would absolutely agree that all involved could benefit from some civility counseling and a slice of humble pie. As you know, I am not a civility absolutist as I know it can be used by the powers that be as a blunderbuss against change that is needed. Still that’s not the magnitude of the situation here. This is a jerk goading a nice but inexperienced person into an unflattering position that she could have avoided. That she didn’t is what caused me to write the article along with the Campos-Leiter situation.

  56. mespo,

    I do feel an attachment to this blog. I have been disheartened by some things that have gone on here and by the recent loss of two fine guest bloggers–as well as some of our most respected longtime regulars who always added greatly to our discussions. I feel sad that it came to pass. I miss them all.

    I think you missed the point that Annie and I were trying to make. It is indeed cordial to welcome new posters. Is it magnanimous to warn newcomers about elitists and ideologues and people who are “intellectually dishonest” that they will encounter here? Is that a good/an appropriate way to welcome new folks to this forum?

  57. How could she have avoided it? He posted this drek on 5 different blogs. You place the onus on Leong, who is the victim.

  58. Dr no JD:

    “that constitutional law somehow dictates what Professor Leong may or should do with information about the identity of this commentor.”

    **********************

    I am freely admitting my Popeye position that ” I am what I am and that’s all that I am.” As a lawyer who has litigated these US Constitutional issues in some occasions (my law partner has one of the seminal cases on it here in Virginia), I am sensitive to the value of the First Amendment. One of those principles implicit in the notion of free speech is the right to comment anonymously. Prof. Leong admits this herself in her blog post and shares the case citation. This has been a bedrock of our democracy since Thomas Paine made his way into the print shoppe. That a teacher of Con Law would seriously debate infringing this right for someone else absent a threat of serious bodily harm struck me as intellectually schizophrenic and hence my comment.

    As for Prof. Leong’s dilemma over the “outing” I think that while Leiter was considerably more vocal and publicity minded she likewise made her personal agony on the topic public. Here’s her post where she describes her angst:

    I thought about publishing the names of some of my harassers. Several colleagues, both within and outside the academy, urged me to do so, particularly with respect to my most persistent harasser, and particularly after they learned that he was a public defender. As one eloquently explained: “This person is a public servant with a very important job. His work has a very direct effect on the lives and freedom of his clients. Even if this person is struggling with a mental illness, if that illness is manifesting itself as bigotry, then it’s important that his clients, the courts and his employer know that.” Another agreed: “Out his ass. He is an officer of the court with duties and obligations to his ENTIRE community. People have a right to know. You do not control what is done with the information thereafter.” And another: “Public defenders have an incredibly important job and need to be held to incredibly high standards.”

    I struggled with this decision for a long time. Ultimately, however, I decided against publishing the person’s name for the reasons I have already described. Without full information, I hesitate to expose someone else’s life to the permanent censure of the Internet. I see a fairly obvious irony in the situation: I am protecting the online reputation of someone who has shown nothing but contempt for me and many other women and people of color, and who has polluted my google search results with hateful and disparaging statements. (emphasis mine).

    Leong, Nancy, “Consequences and Conclusions,” Feminist Law Professors. Dec. 17, 2013. http://www.feministlawprofessors.com/. Accessed Jan. 10, 2014.

  59. Elaine M:

    Sorry, not to respond to Elaine’s question. Professor Leong actually posted alternate way she could have handled the situation on website. See the citation for her site above in my reply to Dr No JD for the ways.

  60. I think sometimes we don’t know how we’d react to certain situations unless we are faced with the same types of circumstances ourselves. When I hear stories like Leong’s, I try to put myself in her position and think about how I would feel if someone were continually harassing and making derogatory comments about me in a public forum. How long should she be expected to put up with it? What could/should she have done?

  61. Mespo: Thanks for clarifying your perspective on the First Amendment values. I suppose I just see the First Amendment as very definitely about government restrictions on speech. The right to speak anonymously is a right against the government, not against other people. To me this is very important and I don’t view my personal decision to speak (or not speak) as having First Amendment implications. But I can see the counter perspective.

    On the second point, you’re quoting the blog post I was thinking about (so I’m very glad not to have missed something). I suppose it’s a matter of perspective, but I don’t see a two paragraph discussion as amounting to “horn tooting or the Hamlet-ian angst over whether to ‘out’ or ‘not to out’.” Instead, it seems like a thoughtful description of her thinking.

    Of course, the two issues may be interrelated. Because Professor Leong and I seem to have a somewhat similar view of the First Amendment (in the sense that it doesn’t really bear on the moral calculus of the decision she is discussing), I may read her recounting of her thinking process as more relevant to her overall themes than you. It sounds like you view the moral equation to be very straightforward. And if that’s true I can see how you’d think any discussion of this issue at all would be somewhat self-indulgent.

  62. In my opinion and it can be rejected, is that there comes a time when there is no more time for ignoring, when there is no alternative but to fight back.

  63. Dr No JD:

    “Thanks for clarifying your perspective on the First Amendment values. I suppose I just see the First Amendment as very definitely about government restrictions on speech. The right to speak anonymously is a right against the government, not against other people.”

    ********************

    Well that’s the issue. I have no problem with Prof. Leong going directly to the poster or his wife or even his momma, but when she seeks redress through the Illinois State Bar — an arm of the Illinois government — I have a problem. Prof. Leong knows full well that this is invoking government sanction against free speech she (and I) finds offensive, and while she doesn’t control the Bar she controls her own actions. As a constitutional scholar devoted to defending the Constitution as we all swear to do, I find this “schizophrenic.”

    As to your second point about the volume of angst we can agree to disagree. I find making your struggle public in any way is a way of seeking sympathy or to make you appear reasonable — whether you are in your heart of hearts or not.

    Shakespeare got the point across about the torn Prince of Denmark in 5 lines:

    To be, or not to be: that is the question:
    Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
    The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
    Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
    And by opposing end them?

    She’s no Shakespeare, but I got the message.

  64. Really, you think it was acceptable for her to go to his wife and seek her help in reigning in the cyber staker husband? Yes I agree.

  65. Sorry to blog and run but Suzanne and I are meeting some friends for a little real imbibing and she says I ‘m late in getting ready since we have to make a significant drive in the rain. I ignore that to my detriment — and I don’t like detriment.

  66. Why is Leong’s indignation something you find inappropriate? What would be an appropriate response ? The Amanda Hess article is illuminating. Are women just supposed to laugh this off, be charming, not take it seriously?

  67. Elaine M.

    You asked: “Would that mean that the victim of the harassment had a paranoid personality disorder?” It’s a good question. But the answer is “no.” Although I agree that a person who is harassed can suffer psychologically, particularly if they are not believed by others, that is not the same as having a Paranoid Personality Disorder. The criteria for diagnosis, according to the DSM-IV-TR, is as follows — I have highlighted the operative words by putting them in CAPITAL LETTERS:

    The DSM-IV-TR[14] describes the paranoid personality disorder as a PATTERN OF PERVASIVE DISTRUST AND SUSPICIOUSNESS of others such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent. To qualify for a diagnoses, the patient must meet at least 4 out of the following criteria: (1) suspects, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT BASIS, that others are exploiting, harming, or deceiving him or her (2) is preoccupied with UNJUSTIFIED doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends or associates (3) is reluctant to confide in others because of UNWARRANTED fear that the information will be used maliciously against him or her (4) reads hidden demeaning or threatening meanings into BENIGN remarks or events (5) persistently bears grudges, i.e., is unforgiving of insults, injuries, or slights (6) perceives attacks on his or her character or reputation that are NOT APPARENT TO OTHERS and is quick to react angrily or to counterattack (7) has recurrent suspicions, WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION, regarding fidelity of spouse or sexual partner.

    Hope this helps clarify things.

  68. Lawyer Chuck:

    See my reply to Dredd about the picture at 3:41 p.m. above. I just love Gene Wilder and the bad grammar wouldn’t stop me from using it.

  69. I feel that the topic about which way dogs point when they poop or pee is more important than this mush here about whether blog bashers are igPays.

  70. Susan Apel:

    “Why is Leong’s indignation something you find inappropriate? What would be an appropriate response ? The Amanda Hess article is illuminating. Are women just supposed to laugh this off, be charming, not take it seriously?”

    *******************

    No, my dear professor, not women. People are supposed to laugh this off, be charming, and not take it seriously. Just people. Subsets not required.

    And I think I articulated in the article why I thought Prof. Leong’s indignation at the presumed racial prejudice was inappropriate. But even if that were not so, I would say that indignation is not a desirable quality in a claimant and I would counsel my clients against that type of emotional and ultimately counter-productive response.

    As to Amanda Hess’ article, she’s talking about threats to her safety and those concerns are quite valid. However, Prof. Leong herself says her poster was not a threat to her safety nor taken as such. So conflating the two might make for good emotional appeal. It just fails the logic test.

  71. BTW, Professor Apel, since Prof. Leong is in your blog circle I would welcome her input on this topic or my article. I understand that she may not want to participate for several very valid reasons but I always find original sources the most illuminating and I am anxious to hear all points of view. I believe in new information and,in fact, I welcome it gleefully. I’m likewise happy to confirm or discard any assertions/assumptions that I may have made about the issue and to change conclusions based on any new information. She would be the best source for that as well.

  72. I want to make it clear that in my comment above about some clients being paranoid, I was responding to the anecdote about the potential client who refused to provide the attorneys anything they could use as evidence. That is a phenomenon I have seen before, and has nothing to with Professor Leong’s complaint. When a client comes in wanting to go to court, becoming offended when asked to provide evidence other than their word, that is a red flag.

    Well that, and the accusation that the lawyers were all in cahoots.

    Ipse dixit does not cut it in a court of law.

  73. Oops, I suddenly feel a disturbance in the the force. :)

    Well, you know what they say if you can’t take a joke, ………………

    Jeezus, do you people any idea the suffering my poor lil wife has to put up with living with one of the last remaining pure blood Rednecks? :)

  74. There is a considerable back-story here – which may have some bearing on the “chip people” issue – and an aspect, which is the inability of such people to view their own conduct through the chip lens.

    Let’s start with Leiter. Brian Leiter has a major issue – he objects to anonymous posters on the Internet. In pursuit of that objection he has outed numerous anonymous posters on philosophy and legal issues. In the last years he has focused on seeking to silence “scam-bloggers,” i.e., bloggers who comment on law schools excessive tuition, falsification of employment outcomes (which has been proven in court, but dismisses as “puffery”), etc. His modus operandi is to determine the blogger’s identity – gather information – and then send them an e-mail threatening to “out them” to employers and superiors unless the stop blogging. One of his targets was Paul Campos who was anonymously blogging on the subject. He then went on to target numerous other bloggers. In this he was abetted by the blog “the Faculty Lounge” which bizarrely made IP addresses and blogger e-mails open to dozens of past and present guest bloggers (and according to one was still doing so a month or two ago.) Notably the manager of the Faculty Lounge is Leiter’s co-blogger Dan Filler. Leiter passed on identity information to other bloggers, notably Steve Diamond and it now seems Nancy Leong.

    The ironic and indeed hilarious side of all this is that Leiter is a prolific anonymous blogger himself, using a variety of sock-puppet handles. One of the handles was the sock-pupper Aduren (Neruda in reverse.) Someone guessed from Leiter’s clichéd writing style that Aduren was Leiter and announced that fact and the Neruda link. A further anonymous person tested a webmail accound, probably G-mail for the aduren@…. address with the password Neruda – and announced that they had reviewed the contents, and left a warning for Leiter. It is probably something to do with this hack that underlies the threat to Leiter. At the time the hack was disclosed Campos publicly deplored it and stated that materials found in it should not be disclosed. However, some of the aduren posts can be found on an array of websites and they are pretty embarrassing as it is for Leiter – attacks on for example Richard Posner and other colleagues.

    I think one should consider the irony – Leiter has engaged in cyberstalking, disclosure of confidential information, blackmail (unless you think demanding silence in return for not disclosing wrongfully obtained identity information is not blackmail.) He then cheerleads bar complaints and complains about an ambiguous e-mail from Campos in terms that would make his conduct highly sanction-able? I would add that Leiter is pretty well bragging on his blog that he put Leong up to her complaint (and may have helped draft it.) It is possible that the criminal law prof he consulted about Campos’ e-mail was Leong (he may want someone with more experience.) Leiter is, so to speak, seeing everything through his “chip,” including his own behavior.

    Now I will admit – I am someone who received one of Leiter’s threatening e-mails, and as a result of this and other activities I bear Leiter considerable ill-will – so you can judge this posting in that light. I would however wonder about some of those who will simply say I should shut up – so many “sock puppets” out there.

  75. Leong also suffers from a tendency to her own conduct through her chip.

    Let me start by stating a simple fact Leong’s article The Open Road and the Traffic Stop ( http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1905717 ) really is dreadful, awful, embarrassingly sophomoric nonsense. Read it for yourself, reach your own conclusion. To many it is apparent that Leong’s main complaint against Dybbuk (as demonstrated by her original e-mail to him) was that he loudly pronounced the awfulness of the article and linked it to Leong’s status as a Criminal Law professor of zero practical experience. For Leong, who is transparently ambitious and wants to “move up” from the Sturm school of law (one of those that may close in the near future) this is hugely damaging. Articles are usually just lines in a resumé (published – check) that no one reads. Now this article is prominent, going to be read, and in an environment where law schools belatedly want to show experience credentials on the part of new hires, draws attention to Leong’s lack of experience.

    Leong really has no defence to the basic allegation Dybbuk makes, that The Open Road and the Traffic Stop is dreadful crap and that her experience in criminal law is non-existent, indeed her legal practice experience is a sad joke about the state of the legal academy. Anyone seeking to support Leong here needs to recognise that this is the case – she really cannot attack Dybbuk’s basic thesis.

    Leong also cannot attack Dybbuk’s basic complaint about holding group annual meetings in Hawaii – especially since student tuition is funding this bacchanal. Given that one of Dybbuk’s issues is (a) law school cost, and (b) the poor credentials of law professors – that such a meeting should happen in Hawaii rather than a cheap hotel in an out of season resort is a fair point – and that a key speaker would be someone of almost ludicrous lack of experience is also a fair point.

    So we start with a situation where Dybbuk has addressed some pretty devastating criticism at Leong, to which she cannot easily respond, since, well, it seems true enough.

    Thus leads to the racial complaint and the sexism complaint. Lets take the racism complaint – Luau train… don’t be silly.

    Now the sexism complaint – yep, Dybbuk should not have mentioned that Leong is “comely” and the “undressing her with their eyes” comment was uncalled for. It was not as bad as some sexism I have heard, but it was sexist. Indeed it was sufficiently mild that Leong (and her supporters) have sought to claim that other posters on the same blog were Dybbuk.

    Leong (and it suppose Leiter (maybe ghost writing)) have, from behind the security of tenure, and their lack of any need for a law license (they never practice law) have decided that they will seek to have Dybbuk disbarred for these offences.

    Now, here is where the chip in Leong’s own eye comes in. Leong is loudly sexist. Her twitter thread for example complained recently that a man seated on an aircraft several rows ahead of her was a “man child” having a “mantrum” because he objected to being given a middle seat – a very sexist comment that completely ignores the fact that women and men both hate and tend to object to middle seats – characterising this as male behaviour. There are numerous other comments and postings in blogs by Leong that display a tendency towards at least sexism…

  76. First, I will say I have nothing to do with the e-mail to Leiter and I did not hack the aduren e-mail account and can only make (educated) guesses as to what is in it. I am almost certainly wrong in my guesses.

    That said, I’ll add a sudden guess. At the bottom of this blog are two check boxes:

    – Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
    – Notify me of new posts via email.

    Leiter’s tendency uses sock-puppets for an array of blogging and online purposes led him to set up the anonymous web-mail identity “aduren.” Leiter tends to respond very rapidly in the blogs where he uses his sock-puppets. I wonder if Leiter was using this sort of notification tracking for his comments and replies? Maybe as a crude index to his previous comments?

    I’m speculating, but if he did do this, then there would have been a lot of evidence of his pseudonymous activity in the aduren e-mail folders.

    I will note that in response to Campos’ passing the warning e-mail to hime we did not see the answer from Leiter “Publish and be damned”, famously deployed by the Duke of Wellington. Perhaps Leiter should quote Wellington – but, I’m guessing he won’t.

  77. mespo727272

    Dredd:

    I debated the grammar snafu of the picture but Gene Wilder looked so disarming (but with a dagger at your ribs) that I couldn’t pass it up.
    ====================
    Tru dat. And it does fit the narrative quite well.

  78. These allegations are more akin to Three Spots On The Wall by Who Flung Fu. That book was published in Hong Kong in 1964. The gist of the book is that there is no such thing as defamation if the defamer is not a person and the statements are made in gest by a clown at a carnival. This story about this law professor on her blog with these characters who remain unidentified and who might preach interchangeably from the same alter under cover of mask is remarkably similar to Three Spots On The Wall. Over time, many people think that Who Flung Fu was a made up name and a joke to explain how some fu got on a wall. But Three Spots On The Wall is an English translation for a small town in China and Who Flung Fu is the English translation of a Chinese name that does not sound like that when spoken and is not a translation about anyone flinging poop. As with the story on topic here with the Leong and her blog and detractors whom remain unidentified poop slingers, there is much more than meets the ear.

    I think that its time for us to tell this lady to go pound sand. Her itchBay is out of order. Her teaching qualifications are questionable. And if she does not like it she can lump it. She can lump it all together with combining the fine art of teaching law with the low farts who comment on law blogs at three a.m. while they are half in the bag. Which is something that this dog never does. It is now 8:56 a.m. in Florida. Over and ausfhart.

  79. Zipser seems overly invested in criticism of Leong. He seems obsessed with Leiter. What a petty, seedy, dirty side of the world of legal scholarship and the legal profession these people have revealed.

    It doesn’t change the fact that someone named dybbuk is a sexist pig intent on ruining the career of another.

  80. Clarification:
    Another professor, or another attorney, not another sexist pig, because if it’s sexist to call a man a “man child” or as having a “mantrum”, I would say that doesn’t compare to sexualizing and objectifying, does it?

  81. It may be mud wrestling with an idiot

    But anni – what happens to Dybbuks career if Leong’s complaint succeeds?

    Leong and Leiter are tenured – what harm could Dybbuk do to her professor status?

    Te only thing Dybbuk said that could prevent Leong moving to a higher ranked school is that her scholarship is a joke and her practice experience non exitent. Should she be a law professor at a higher ranked school with poor credentials. Should anyone?

    If you won’t answer these questions then you are someone who has one theme, no intellectual honesty, and nothing but the same thing to say.

    My bet is you will post a response that does not answer the questions I just pu

  82. Zipser:

    “I will note that in response to Campos’ passing the warning e-mail to hime we did not see the answer from Leiter “Publish and be damned”, famously deployed by the Duke of Wellington. Perhaps Leiter should quote Wellington – but, I’m guessing he won’t.”

    **********************

    My favorite Wellington comment occurs while “the Iron Duke” was answering Queen Victoria about what to do with the plethora of sparrows flying about the Crystal Palace. “Sparrowhawks, ma’am. Sparrowhawks,” came the reply.

  83. Your facts will be pertinent to all but a few here. I’m not a barrister but will read the Leong writings.

  84. Zipser, as an attorney, when you get sworn into the bar, do you take a pledge, oath, whatever, to uphold a higher standard than, um, lets’s say a sexist cyber harasser? If you break that oath are you subject to investigation and perhaps sanctions of some sort? Use your big brain to answer.

    Pre law? You couldn’t possibly be an attorney or even in law school, at least I hope not.

  85. zipser, You’re new here. We had a recent dust up and Mr.Turley codified the civility rules. You should read them. Some loathe them and will try and sucker you into breaking them w/ an escalating tit for tat. You are welcomed here by myself and virtually everyone. But I’m sure you’re urbane enough to identify “chips” yourself. Again, welcome, and stop in for a drink anytime. This is a Vegas bar, open 24/7!

  86. Zipser wrote: “Leong and Leiter are tenured – what harm could Dybbuk do to her professor status?”

    *****
    From the ABA Journal:
    Blogging law prof requests ethics probe of ‘dybbuk’ commenter
    Posted Jan 7, 2014 6:13 AM CST
    By Debra Cassens Weiss
    http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/blogging_law_prof_files_ethics_complaint_against_pd_after_concluding_he_was/

    Excerpt:
    Leong says in the letter of complaint that dybbuk’s “sexualized comments about my appearance and other disparaging remarks made me concerned for my safety.” She says she was relieved to learn he lived in a different state.

    “There are over 6,000 tenured and tenure-track law professors in the United States,” Leong writes in the complaint, filed with the Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission. “Many of them have less practice experience than I do. Most of them have weaker publishing records than I do. Most of them have weaker teaching evaluations than I do. Almost all of them have been members of the legal academy longer than I have. Almost all of them have more power and prominence than I do. In light of these facts, it is difficult to think of a reasonable explanation for [dybbuk’s] obsessive attention to an untenured professor.”

  87. Or Zipser knows and is jealous of Leong for some strange reason and wishes to misrepresent any harm that may have come to her because of dybbuk’s sexual harassment and obsession with her.

  88. Nick – lost my reading glasses, small iPad – autocorrect, argggh. Switched to laptop.

    I’ll read the civility rules.

    One of the big issues that has arisen in the law school debate is that certain professors, sheltering behind tenure, have engaged in prodigious efforts to silence critics of the current state of affairs in legal education. Those efforts have included cyberstalking (Leiter), outing (Leiter, Diamond), contacts to employers, etc. In effect Leiter and his crew of colleagues have, secure in their own tenured employment, sought to destroy the careers of their critics. Leiter has engaged in a protracted campaign against two critics in particular, Campos and Dybbuk (though there have been quite a number of others.) Some of Leiter’s helpers in this have included Steve Diamond and Dan Filler. So, to be blunt, Leong’s behaviour, especially since she seems to be coordinating it with Leiter and Diamond, is seen as her joining Leiter’s little cabal.

    I do have to say that I fail to see what I have said in response to annieofwi that remotely approach her comments to me and many others … I suppose she suffers from a little myopia.

    It is a fair question – how could sexist comments by Dybbuk hurt Ms. Leong’s career? It seems that she is exploiting them pretty successfully to portray herself as a martyr.

    On the other hand the accusation of poor scholarship, getting people to read On the road and drawing attention to her lack of practice credentials to teach criminal law and procedure – that may be very damaging to her promotion and lateral prospects – though being considered a tool of Brian Leiter is probably worse.

    She, however, has filed an ethics complaint against Dybbuk, one in which inter alia, if her postings are to be believed, she has not just accused him of certain sexist comments – but accused him with transparent dishonesty of racist comments and attributed statements to him that he did not say. That bar complaint targets his career and his livelihood – something that annieofwi ironically seems to ignore, while accusing Dybbuk of attacking Leong’s career.

    The debate over the current status of law schools is very heated because the consequences for hundreds of thousands of law graduates have been very painful indeed. Between 2008 and 2013 some 500,000 law students have graduated, most with debts over $100,000 – half of them have been unable to find jobs – and many of the worst impacted have been minorities and women. The majority of those who did find jobs secured paychecks in the region of $60,000 p.a., or not enough to pay their student debt from law school. Their career prospects have been wrecked – they find it hard to even get non-law jobs. It is hardly surprising that they, and many lawyers commenting on this situation, are angry.

    By contrast, there are a lot of law professors, of which Nancy Leong is somewhat of a poster child, who have managed to secure highly paid jobs teaching a few hours a week of classes, despite embarrassingly tiny real experience. They attract a lot of the anger of the law graduates who feel screwed – it is hardly surprising that some of that anger gets pretty irrational when broke and in debt graduates see gloating over a bacchanal in Hawaii paid for by very inflated tuition.

    As far as I can tell, while many law professors may agree with their students in principle – all are frightened by the implications of addressing the crisis (and it is a crisis), which would be reducing law school output from circa 45,000 to 50,000 graduates per annum to a number closer to 20,000, while cutting cost by more than half. That implies a lot of law schools closing and a lot of layoffs at the remaining law schools and stinging pay-cuts for remaining professors. Moreover, the average law professor has 1.6 years of practice experience, which is, for those professors, a very sensitive topic, for multiple reasons. First it means that when such a professor yells at a student “think like a lawyer” he or she has no clue what that means. Second, it means that their non-academic job prospects are very poor. Third, it means that if law schools choose to address this issue, practice-inexperienced professors will be severely disadvantaged when it comes to promotion and lateral transfers between schools. (Leong it should be noted appears to be trying desperately to get a job in a law school other than her current tenured role at Sturm, probably because it is a school with a dubious future.)

    A small group of junior professors in lowly regarded law schools (and Leong could be put in that category as could Leiter’s other vocal supporters) seem to have decided that by attacking the “scammers” they might curry favor with the law school establishment and somehow keep their schools open, or maybe as payback be hired at a more stable school. It is hard to say if this hope is likely to be requited, but it seems that much of the law school establishment is trying to “hide under the parapet” and would not want to bring in someone too closely associated with Leiter, et al.

    In any even, as far as annieofwi is concerned, my questions were unanswered. I see no reason to put them again.

  89. Leong is tenured at University of Denver, Sturm School of law where she is full time assistant professor. She is not tenured at UCLA where she is a visiting professor, but retains her job at Sturm to return to. She is trying to trade up to a higher school and has been given a leave from Sturm to do so – a peculiarity of the academic world is that this is allowed.

  90. Ah, now I see Zipser is trying to circle the wagons around him. This really has gotten to be ridiculous. I wish Ms Leong good luck and let the “chips” fall where they may.

  91. zipser, NOTHING you have said is remotely in violation of the civility rules. I am just sharing some general background information as did you. Serendipitously, you came here @ a time where some emotions are raw and some chips the size of basket balls are sitting on both shoulders of some. We need folks like you. So, hopefully I did not make you gun shy. I am cautious by nature, and while the politics of college professors on campus in cyberspace can be bare knuckled, that has been the case here as well.

    From the comment you just wrote to me, and from your previous comments, it is obvious to reasonable people that you are a bright, reasonable, and serious person. Additionally, as stated previously, you were totally upfront in disclosing your involvement in this brouhaha. As you go though this complex world you’ll see there are some folks w/ chips, agendas, involvement, etc. who are not so forthcoming. I think this Leong situation has been edifying for you. It is maybe more important than what you learn in class.

    Not being an attorney, but having worked w/ them for 35 years, I have a unique perspective. You look like someone to me who will be a good one. Looking for motivation, which you are doing vis a vis the Leong debacle, bodes well for you. Again, you have done NOTHING to violate any rule here, not even close. Just giving you a heads up. Folks have given me heads ups here and in the real world. They can be valuable.

  92. University of Denver
    Sturm College of Law
    2012 Year in Review » New and Visiting Faculty
    http://www.law.du.edu/index.php/2012-year-in-review/new-and-visiting-faculty

    Excerpt:
    New Faculty. We continue our 5-year plan to add 10 new tenure-track faculty members with two excellent new hires last year, including Professors Nancy Leong and Justin Pidot. Denver law also hosted outstanding visiting faculty such as Professor Stephen Daniels, from the American Bar Association, who taught a groundbreaking course in empirical methods…

    Professor Nancy Leong graduated magna cum laude from Northwestern University before attending Stanford Law School, where she graduated with distinction and was a member of the Stanford Law Review. After earning her law degree, Professor Leong clerked for Judge Kermit Lipez of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Prior to joining the University of Denver faculty, she was an assistant professor at the William & Mary School of Law, an adjunct professor at the Washington College of Law American University in Washington D.C., and a visiting scholar at Georgetown University Law Center. She also practiced First Amendment law with Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Professor Leong’s scholarship and teaching focus on constitutional rights, antidiscrimination law and judicial decision making. Her work has appeared in the American University Law Review, Boston University Law Review, Northwestern University Law Review, Stanford Law Review, and the peer-reviewed Journal of Legal Education, among others.

    *****

    When was Leong given tenure?

  93. anniofwi –

    Sexist comments are not sexual harassment, at least in most systems. I think you are prone to exaggeration to make your points – an no, I am not jealous of Leong, though I find your long range psychoanalysis indicative of something….

  94. Elaine, it’s evident to me and perhaps to some others by this point as to what is really going on here. I hope an investigation brings more to light and as I said, let the chips fall where they may.

  95. “that law review article you noted reads like People magazine.”

    I think there are a whole bar room brawl of issues in all this including the quality of Leong’s academic work, the proper forum to evaluate her work, free speech, sexism, racism, stalking, harassment, pseudonyms, trolls, sock puppets… did I leave anything out…at this point I am just not sure.

    I would never claim to be competent to judge the work product of a law professor. But I am entitled to my opinion and I though that article nearly rose to the level of self parody.

    Even if my personal view is absolutely correct regarding the quality of the paper, that would not justify Leong’s treatment which seems to include sexist remarks, stalking, outright harassment. And even if Leon’s treatment is exactly as she describes it, I am not comfortable with her response – despite the fact that I am having trouble specifying a more appropriate remedy.

    What I think I see is, in effect, the claim that the bad action of one party justifies or mitigates the questionable action of a different party.

    I don’t think there is anything hypocritical or contradictory saying I find examples of her work less than compelling, I disapprove of her treatment, and I am troubled by her remedy – a trifecta of bad actors, bad actions and bad effects.

    But I am keeping the paper – to help me prep for when I contest my next moving violation.

    Don’t they realize that when I got that ticket I was steeping in the mythology of freedom, escape, friendship, romance and the possibility of a better life. Don’t they realize that the judicially authorized policing procedure of pulling my vehicle over inflicted the imaginative injury of keeping me from my American dream – not to mention a hundred bucks plus court costs.

    Look, I am working on it – this is a first draft.

  96. Zipser- You seem to know a lot about this situation, although your allegiances are also clear (and clearly disclosed — which I really appreciate).

    I do have a question about the scathing (as you describe it) critique of Leong’s article. As I understand it, isn’t one of the primary criticisms of legal scholarship that it is not useful? In one of the other posts I read, a Leong defender made the point that this particular article seems like it’s actually a pretty bad poster child for that line of criticism because it was quoted extensively by an federal appellate judge in an opinion. That seems pretty persuasive to me — i.e. the argument that scholarship is useless can’t stick because this article has already been of use to a judge. I didn’t see much discussion of that point from Leong’s critics and I’d be interested in your perspective on it.

    More abstractly, I’m curious about your thoughts about what makes a good teacher. I’m generally aware (although in honesty I haven’t paid that much attention) that some have been vocally criticizing professors for not having any hands on experience. I can see some merit to that line of criticism, but I do wonder whether it’s really the best metric for who will be good at teaching. Both my parents were teachers, so I’ve always had particular respect for the profession, and I’ve also always thought of teaching as a particular skill/gift. I would think teaching evaluations would be the way to determine if someone has that skill/gift and I would hope that law schools would pay attention to those. (I also recognize that may be a vein hope because some schools probably don’t value teaching nearly as much as they should). Are her evaluations a matter of public record?

    Both of these questions are a bit off the topic of the thread, but I’ve been wondering about them and thought you might have some insight. I also do seem them as related to one of Leong’s concerns about being the target of these online attacks — which I take to be the “why me?” question. You’ve offered two explanations — her scholarship is bad and she’s a bad teacher — if those explanations don’t quite fit the facts, her concern seems better founded.

    (And thanks all for the history of the civility policy — Zipser– I’m new here too and wasn’t aware of that).

  97. Zipser — You are trying to project your feelings about law school onto one untenured professor at one random school, as if the point of the scambloggers is to promote good scholarship rather than bad scholarship, or to promote hiring people with a lot of practice experience over those without.

    You then take that and say she should be subject to all manner of sexism and uncivility, in people suggesting she should not have her job (and thus, I guess someone else should have it), because she apparently stood up to the sexism and uncivility she was receiving.

    If you and dybbuk succeed in trying to sabotage her career, and another professor takes her place — maybe a while male with some practice experience and some scholarship that you approve of — have you solved the law school problems that you are idenfying? I mean, it does not change the number of people going to law school, or the available jobs. There are obviously going to be fewer law students in the future, and fewer law professor jobs available, shouldn’t dybbuk not be interfering with her fair chance to compete for what is available? I really see this as him trying to interfere with her career first.

  98. annieofwi –

    your lack of empathy for the law students and graduates I described is notable – as is your silence to fair questions. I have looked at a few of your posts – they are all variations on the same theme and show little empathy beyond the limited group you save it for. Would Irma Grese would attract your support if characterised as a victim of sexism.

    And Elaine –

    Sturm described her as at least tenure track (actually they said she was a hire, which could mean tenured) two years ago – since she left a tenure track role at William & Mary, it is a fair assessment that she is tenured by 2013/4 (usually no one moves from one tenure track job to another without a short decision being offered.) (She has also compared herself to both tenured and tenure track professors.) Nothing you posted contradicts that assessment. So she enjoys substantial job security, such that she can take a year off to look for a better job at UCLA. Try going to your boss and saying:-

    “hey, I have a chance at a job at a more prestigious company, can I have a year off this crappy place, with the right to come back at the same pay and maybe a year more seniority so I can give it a try?”

  99. If Leong’s scholarship is indeed bad, what would be he best way to go about critiquing her and her work? The way “Dybbuk” did? Did he lack the courage/conviction to post his critcisms of Leong under his own name? Why the ongoing cyber harassment of Leong? Sounds as if the man has a fixation on her.

  100. Zipser, my daughter is an attorney, she obviously was a law student. I’m empathetic to people like her who mean well, do well, treat others with dignity and respect, work hard to make it to their goals. I give respect to people until they prove they are unworthy of it.

  101. Zipser – I’m not sure that her status as tenured or not matters, but I think that the “assistant professor” title indicates that she is not tenured. I’m not sure that means she faces serious job security issues since, as you say, there’s some interest in her from higher ranked schools.

  102. Dr. No. JD

    You are getting into one of the central issues in the current debate, what qualifies someone to be a law professor.

    In colleges there are various categories of schools – most academic, some liberal arts, some sciences and engineering. Then there are “professional schools,” i.e., those that exist primarily to provide the pre-requisites to practice a profession – medicine, nursing, dentistry, law, education (though less serious than in say Finland), etc.

    At the heart of what is happening with law schools is the desire of law professors to straddle the line between been a professional school – and hence argue for pay that reflects what they say they could have earned as lawyers – but to also present themselves as academics in a research university – thus getting opportunities to engage in what they call “research” and also have very light teaching loads. The problem for most law professors today is that their legal education is 3 years for a JD on top of a degree in some not very relevant subject, like say English. Most are incapable of real research or scholarship. The catch is that compared to professors at other professional schools, medicine, dentistry, nursing, etc. they have negligeable practice experience.

    This situation has run hard into a second issue – law school tuition and law school debt. The problem is that the cost of attending law school, tuition and living expenses is now typically in excess of $200,000. A rough guidelines is that educational debt should not exceed a likely starting salary – but according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, lawyers’ average earnings is around $100,000 p.a., less for women and minorities (not something I will defend.) That is for all lawyers – and experience matters in practice.

    This has led to demands that legal education do a better job of preparing young lawyers for actual legal practice and become less focused on “research and scholarship.” This is where the issue of the very minimal practice experience of so many law professors is becoming a very hot topic, along with the utter irrelevance of their scholarship. It is also an area where many professors are hugely defensive, because it is something that those without practice experience but tenure or tenure track cannot fix. If you are 2-15 years out of law school, but with no real experience but being a professor, no one will employ you as a lawyer, certainly not paying what a law school would pay.

    Leong’s misfortune is that she managed to display in one individual all the aspects of the modern legal academy that attracts fury on the part of recent graduates and practicing lawyers:-

    -no-real qualifications beyond a Yale law degree;
    – a ludicrous lack of experience, teaching subjects – criminal procedure and criminal law – where experience is important;
    – smug preachiness to public defenders and prosecutors;
    – inane writing;
    – a willingness to take legal junkets to luxurious conferences;
    – presence at a law school with notably poor employment outcomes and high tuition;
    – and an overall aura of being very pleased with herself.

    Cripes, there was so much ammunition – why Dybbuk was foolish enough to mention that she is attractive (though she may highlight her advantages in that regard) is beyond me. She was already a caricature.

  103. The entire debate (in multiple fora) has pointed out, again and again, that she is a tenured law professor. She has not denied it – she was at some point tenure track and that has a time limit. Assistant professors can be tenured (it is a matter of pay and seniority.)

  104. annieofwi:

    Does you daughter carry significant law school debt? Were you well off enough to pay her way through law school – it is a fair question? If she is not in debt, talk to some of her peers.

    Did your daughter go to a top law school or to a lowish ranked but expensive law school with poor employment outcomes like say Sturm College of Law (where??) If your daughter went to a T-6 to T-20 law school your perspective may not be the same (I went to a fairly highly regarded law school compared to Sturm.)

    Though you may not like doing it, I think you need to ask the same hard questions Dybbuk asks Leong about the overall morality of teaching at a place like Sturm. I think Dybbuk needs to ask himself whether his view of the moral bankruptcy of Leong’s role at Sturm justifies making sexist comments on top of the cutting if probably fair other points he made. I frankly did not think he needed to go to comments on her looks.

    I will say though that there is an interesting issue around “lookism,” i.e., that attractive men and women are treated, from childhood, with considerable favouritism. I just don’t think that the law school debate is a good place for it – I mean neither Campos nor Leiter can be described as good-looking, while Jonathan Turley’s photo certainly makes him appear a reasonably handsome man.

  105. Zipser, Thanks for providing the additional context, and I have to say I share some of the concerns that you and others voice. Particularly the concern about costs and debt. I still don’t see two things: how is this particular piece of scholarship “inane” (or useless) if a federal judge quoted it extensively in a circuit court opinion? I’m certainly not saying that all judges are brilliant, but that would strike me as the gold standard in terms of an objective measure as to the usefulness of a piece of scholarship (of course, each of us can make our own subjective assessments). Second, do you have any information about her teaching specifically, rather than inferring that she is a bad teacher based on her amount of experience?

    I actually think Leong did speak directly to the tenure question in one of her blog posts, where she describes herself as an “untenured professor.” (It’s the one anniefromwi and others linked to above). A quick search didn’t turn up anything about DU’s policies, but the ever reliable Wikipedia states that assistant professors are untenured positions. Again, I’m not sure this is a central point, but I do think it’s worth having the facts right.

  106. Sorry for the multiple posts, but one follow up. Isn’t DU sort of a strange school to target as the example of a school churning out grads with poor employment prospects? I realize rank 64 (just looked at US News) isn’t the best by a long shot, but there are more than 140 schools ranked worse. Does Colorado have lots of law schools in it? I guess if DU was the fifth best law school in the state that would make it a fairer target, but I can only think of one other myself. Compare that to San Francisco which has tons of law schools and DU seems like it’s better situated in terms of getting students jobs.

  107. Zipser Glad to see you here since I have learned a lot on this subject. I have also learned some from annie, though in a negative way, so her posts serve an educational role too. bfm I think I will read the article Leong wrote since it sounds more entertaining than I thought. As for it being worthwhile because some appeals judge cited it is not a great point, since I have seen some appeals judges who are not exactly mental giants and care little for law or reason.

  108. Zipser, yes indeed she still owes plenty in student debt. She got her JD from Florida State. She was a visiting student in her 3rd year at UW Madison.

  109. bfm:

    “Don’t they realize that when I got that ticket I was steeping in the mythology of freedom, escape, friendship, romance and the possibility of a better life. Don’t they realize that the judicially authorized policing procedure of pulling my vehicle over inflicted the imaginative injury of keeping me from my American dream – not to mention a hundred bucks plus court costs.

    Look, I am working on it – this is a first draft.”

    ********************

    Look, bfm, you’ve painted the word picture just fine for me. I can see you tooling down Route 66 somewhere just outside of Amarillo in your white ’69 Camaro with the blue racing stripe. Bright sun, top down, and traveling the speed of whatever’s “reasonable and prudent.” Hair billowing in the wind with your Molly Hatchett cranked up and singing along to “Flirtin’ With Disaster.”

    I “damn sure know what you mean!”

  110. Poppo:

    I am not as you say suggesting that Leong “should be subject to all manner of sexism and uncivility, in people suggesting she should not have her job (and thus, I guess someone else should have it), because she apparently stood up to the sexism and uncivility she was receiving.”

    I am suggesting that the sexism in certain things said by Dybbuk is being highlighted to hide the fact that she is embarrassingly unqualified to teach criminal law and criminal procedure and that at least as far as the Open Road article her so called scholarship is what lawyers call “scholarship” of the most puerile quality.

    I will add that many of those blogs that seek to address the law school crisis are frequently puerile (images of turds in toilets!) and many of those posting on those blogs are sexist and fixated on affirmative action. Certainly to suggest that at least in getting into law school Leong benefited from affirmative action is silly – women are generally overrepresented at law schools – to the extent that any affirmative action is happening they are probably looking for male students, while Asians are also overrepresented in US colleges and again cannot be said to need or be benefiting from affirmative action (and I am not getting into the debate of whether it is right or not.)

    At times it seems impossible to have a debate without the issue of race or sex coming up. Dybbuk did not need to mention that Leong was a woman or attractive – it was stupid to do so (the racism accusation is ludicrous.) However, in my view the main animus against Dybbuk is not driven by his sexist comments – it is because he has highlighted issues that many law professors, law schools and Leong would like to be ignored.

  111. Zipser, One of the reasons I came to this blog is because Mr. Turley is both academic and real world. He teaches, writes, and works cases in both civil and criminal court. Again, it’s motivation that is key. Folks come here for all type motivations, respect for Mr. Turley, inquisitiveness, libertarian, etc. But, not all come here w/ positive motivations. You will learn a lot in this forum. Hang in there!

  112. randyjet –

    and anifromwi –

    yes, a lot of appeal judges (and judges) are far from intellectual giants – many are clowns. Practicing lawyers tend to be discreet about this, because it would not help my client for Judge ***** to know I think he is hopeless or Judge —– to know I think she is lazy and indecisive. We bite our tongues, because speaking up is not in our clients’ interest.

  113. randyjet — I’m not saying that appellate judges are necessarily brilliant (or even competent) and I don’t know anything specific about Judge Davis. Instead my point was that if a judge uses the article, that is good evidence that it is useful. Even if the judge is a moron, the judge found this article to useful. If you want to see the opinion, it’s in a case called US v. Mubdi (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1608673.html). I don’t know enough about criminal law to be able to assess whether his opinion is any good.

  114. “I am suggesting that the sexism in certain things said by Dybbuk is being highlighted to hide the fact that she is embarrassingly unqualified to teach criminal law and criminal procedure and that at least as far as the Open Road article her so called scholarship is what lawyers call “scholarship” of the most puerile quality.”

    ****
    It appears there’s a number of law schools that feel she IS qualified to teach criminal law. I’d add that some of the criticism of Leong can certainly be described as puerile.

  115. Once someone has written a paper/article/book/poem/essay and “put it out” in the public, said piece is fair game for criticism. Tear it to shreds, if you want. But why feel the need to make sexist and other derogatory comments about its author?

    And now we have someone who is critical of Leong’s supposed attempt at career advancement.

    *****

    All this sniping about one law professor that some individuals appear to have a rabid dislike for seem like scenes from Mean Girls.

  116. aniofwi:

    FSU – one of the two top law schools in Florida – a state with 12 (way too many) law schools, most of which are outright ripoffs. UW Madison is a top regional law school in a state (unlike Florida) that has just 2 law schools. Overall, debt aside, she is better off than most law graduates – not something I’d hold against her. I’d say moving to UW Madison may have been very wise. Florida is a terrible place even for top Florida graduates – not as bad as Vegas, but bad.

    I think your daughter is in a better place than most of her peers.

  117. zipser,
    isn’t the decision whether Leong is qualified to teach left up to the school or schools that hire her? You may not like it, but if a school hires her, at least they think she is qualified. Her students are free to complain to the school if they think she is unqualified or not doing a good job. One teacher I had in law school comes to mind that I don’t think belonged in the job and the school figured it out and he was not there too long.

  118. Elaine, precisely.

    It appears to me that what we may have here is jealousy, cyber harassment and sexism run amok by a public defender that should’ve known better, which brings me to the conclusion that he acted unethically and has rightfully opened himself up to investigation.

  119. It appears there’s a number of law schools that feel she IS qualified to teach criminal law.

    And that is the point that many want to make … would you hire her if you were charged with a crime – I would not. But law schools think she can teach those who will be fighting for the rights of those facing incarceration or worse.

    Does she need to be the sole target for people like Dybbuk – I’d rather he picked a good few more poster children (he did do this to a male protégé of Leiter already.)

    Much of the animus against her is that she has apparently decided to be one of Leiter’s minions. I certainly would not give a damn if she were not.

  120. anniofwi –

    ask your daughter if she thinks an ethics complaint was justified – I have yet to find a lawyer who agrees – who is not an academic. When you ask her, I’d make sure she has the actual facts of the situation, not what you, Leong (or Leiter – or the ABAjournal) says are the facts.

    I think you really do not understand how serious a bar complaint is, what it means. You may need to ask her about that too.

  121. Mespo at 1:14 — You asked me to point to the “comely young narcissist” post. Here is the comment on Campos’ blog where dybbuk gratuitously raises Professor Leong’s name (on a post that is not about her), in which he calls her a “comely young narcissist on Campos’ former blog:

    http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/09/camille-andrews-threatens-to-sue-anyone.html — look at the comment signed dybbuk 9/11/12 at 6:16 pm.

    This is a year before she filed any ethics complaint or started fighting back against her harassers. What do you think?

  122. Dr No JD

    She did not say she was not tenured – as I recall she said her qualifications were comparable to many “tenure track and tenured professors” leaving her actual status a non-sequiteur.

    rafflaw – I wholly disagree with you that her credentials to teach law should be left up to law schools. The Federal Government is allowing unlimited student loans to attend ABA accredited law schools, loans that are non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, loans that your social security can be garnished to pay, loans that taxpayers will subsidise in IBR/PAYE. Law schools have responded by hiring such unqualified professors that the average law professor has 1.6 years of actual legal practice experience (Leong has less), and charging huge tuition. The credentials of the professors at such law schools is a matter of public interest — it is also a matter of professional interest for members of the profession. That law schools can charge $50,000 p.a. to attend a law school whose faculty are so ludicrously unqualified is a public and professional issue.

  123. Zipser — that’s actually not the part I was thinking about. In discussing her discovery of the identity of the commenter, she writes: “he was a public defender in his late forties who apparently has nothing better to do than harass an untenured professor.” I don’t know how to read that as anything but saying she’s untenured — which also lines up with her title and the amount of time she’s been teaching (three years — aren’t tenure tracks usually 6-8 years?).

  124. Zipser — I would say the qualifications of a public defender paid directly by taxpayers has a more direct relevance to the public interest. It is important to the profession that public defenders are qualified. So by your reasoning, we should out dybbuk and put his credentials on display so that everyone can judge whether he is qualified. Although we have never met him, we should speculate as to what sort of public defender he is based on what little we know about him or can find on the internet.

    Or would that be just taking general concerns about the qualifications of taxpayers and using it to harass a particular public defender.

  125. Hey where’s our welcome committee? Asleep on the job?

    Ok, I’ll do the honors, welcome Gring! Good to hear another voice of reason!

  126. Gring,

    A public defender operates within a public defender office or bureau in which results matter – does he/she get acquittals. Moreover the public defender is under the observation of senior public defenders and judges – all of whom can say whether he/she is doing a good job. You do not get work at a public defenders office as a retained lawyer unless you are pretty good in court (though you may be utterly under-resourced.) It is pretty easy to be fired as a public defender – hard for a tenure track or tenured professor.

    You and annieofwi have decided that the first year law student evaluations of neophytes, plus the assessment of senior professors who share her lack of practice experience is a good way to judge her credentials. I would submit that that the employment results of the Sturm School of Law is a pretty blunt assessment of whether the school is doing a good job (they are pretty awful.)

    So no, I would not call you a voice of reason – and as for annifromwi – she really is utterly predictable in just about everything she says, and monotonic in her single topic assessments – I could type what she will say with little or no thought.

    Dr No JD – she wrote that with reference to a comment about 2 years ago – since then she has characterised herself as either tenure track or tenured.

  127. Inter alia if her defenders here think they are doing her a favor in this debate – they are not. For Leong the best thing that could happen is that this thing dies down – too many lawyers and law professors think the ethics complaint was a mistake, and associating herself with Leiter profoundly stupid. I cannot see how she gains in any way from being regarded as one of Leiter’s minions – it was foolish to accept his help in the first place. I assume he was the source of Dybbuk’s identity – a more experienced person would have looked that “gift horse” in the mouth and considered the state of its teeth. Leiter has being using her, and like everyone he has used so far, it has fulfilled his objectives at huge cost to her.

  128. Dr. No JD wrote: “I don’t know enough about criminal law to be able to assess whether his opinion is any good.”

    It is interesting how they referenced Leong’s paper like three times, but the thesis of her paper was not used. The courts decision was actually contrary to Leong’s thesis. So it seems to me like the references are somewhat gratuitous, and overly gratuitous if you ask me. If I had the right resources (maybe PI Nick Spinelli does), I would look for a connection of some sort between Leong and either Judge Diaz or Judge Shedd. Looks like someone threw the dog (or fox in this case) a bone. :-)

    In regards to the court’s opinion, it is notable that the Supreme Court sent the case back to this court just weeks later, and the reversed their ruling, remanding the case back for reduced sentencing.
    See: http://isysweb.ca4.uscourts.gov/isysquery/511516d7-cc18-43d5-a713-ba0dbe0d808c/2/doc/105008.U.pdf#xml=http://New-ISYS/isysquery/511516d7-cc18-43d5-a713-ba0dbe0d808c/2/hilite/

  129. Zipser — This is getting pretty off topic and ‘m not sure why you’re advancing all of these arguments that are pretty irrelevant to the actual topic at hand. But I’m feeling a bit invested in having this thread contain accurate facts.

    On the tenure front, the ABA article says she’s an untenured professor (or, more accurately, quotes her as saying she’s an untenured professor). The Leiter blog says she’s an untenured professor. The post I mentioned was written recently. Her title says she’s an untenured professor. The length of time she’s been teching says she’s an untenured professor. Moreover, the tenure-track professor means untenured but in a position that is eligible for tenure (see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tenure-track), so when she refers to herself as “tenure-track” that means untenured.

    As for your comments about the job security of PDs, I have no idea how things are in the relevant office. But I suspect that getting fired from that job is a tough as it is to get fired at other government jobs.

  130. Davidm — I don’t know much about criminal law, but I do know a fair bit about appeals. The fact that the Supreme Court reversed the decision if anything buttresses the credibility of an opinion concurring in the judgment — which by it’s nature expresses misgivings about the majority opinion.

  131. Zipser/Dr. No JD:

    “I do have a question about the scathing (as you describe it) critique of Leong’s article. As I understand it, isn’t one of the primary criticisms of legal scholarship that it is not useful? In one of the other posts I read, a Leong defender made the point that this particular article seems like it’s actually a pretty bad poster child for that line of criticism because it was quoted extensively by an federal appellate judge in an opinion. That seems pretty persuasive to me — i.e. the argument that scholarship is useless can’t stick because this article has already been of use to a judge. I didn’t see much discussion of that point from Leong’s critics and I’d be interested in your perspective on it.” (Dr. No JD)

    It doesnt necessarily follow that the scholarship has to be good. Poltical agendas in court decisions are nothing new. An activist judge could use her [Leong’s] work to bolster his cause and codify her work for further use toward whatever end he has in mind.

    Who cares what level of scholarship is involved if your agenda can be furthered by using a particual scholar’s work.

    I am not a lawyer so I would be interested in your opinions.

  132. Bron — That’s a fair point that judges may not be looking for “quality.” But that really depends on how you judge quality. I could be wrong about this (and Zipser seems to somewhat disagree, but I’m not sure), but the problem that some of the lawyers I work with have about law review articles is that they are too theoretical, abstract, and off-point to be useful to judges and practicing lawyers. These are civil litigators, so things might be different in the criminal law world. An article that is sufficiently topical to be relied on by a lawyer or judge, is more useful in this way than the vast majority of articles. That doesn’t mean it’s a fantastic article, as I said, I don’t really have the credentials to know. But the fact that it was of use to a judge — even if that judge is ideologically motivated or not that smart (and I’m not saying this is true in this case) — is a significant mark in its favor. At least that’s my view.

  133. Zipser wrote: “For Leong the best thing that could happen is that this thing dies down – too many lawyers and law professors think the ethics complaint was a mistake, and associating herself with Leiter profoundly stupid.”

    The earlier statement about not being tenured seemed to be part of her complaint, not something she said years earlier. I do not believe that Nancy Leong has tenure. More importantly, I’m not sure you fully understand the politics involved in a professor securing tenure. If she is not tenured, let me explain my take that puts a political strategy on this whole thing and somewhat contradicts your perception that it would be best for this to die down for Leong.

    The way I read part of this dispute is that Dybbuk probably doesn’t quite like the favoritism that Leong’s female sex grants her, and this is why he calls attention to her sex. Perhaps I am giving Leong too much credit for what I am about to say, but it is possible that she is actually using this situation to help herself secure tenure. She surrounds herself with discrimination issues, so why not capitalize on her own discrimination? Would this not be brilliant? By filing a complaint with the Bar, whether the complaint is successful or not, the tenure committee has yet additional reasons to grant her tenure. First, they have certain diversity goals in hiring anyway, so being a female helps her there, but second, here is a woman who allegedly has been discriminated against. I would imagine she would have the vote of virtually every other female professor for tenure on this basis alone. Third, the notoriety for being discriminated against is highly desired by academics, so in contrast to your suggestion here that she benefits if the situation dies down, the very opposite is more likely in play. For a university, publicity means fundraising success. Fourth, filling a complaint gives her additional real world experience of how it is done, something that works toward her credit by the professors evaluating her for tenure. She can use this experience in her teaching. So what I propose might be happening here is that Leong is shrewdly playing her cards right for advancing her career. We would need to know more about her actual IQ and the IQ of those who counsel her to consider seriously the likelihood of this hypothesis.

    Now I am not saying that I agree with Leong filing a complaint with the bar. I don’t. From my perspective, it is like two people arguing with each other, and then one person throws the first punch. In my book, that crosses the line from free speech to criminal behavior. She’s not physically assaulting a person, but from my perspective, she is crossing a line and throwing the first punch. She is stepping this situation up to a new level where it does not need to go. Inappropriate anonymous remarks on a website do not rise to this level of trouble.

    I will make this prediction: If this is being carefully calculated by Leong, she would never publicly out this person dybbuk because this would discredit the judiciary. Her strategy would be to urge a private investigation by the Bar. In contrast, if her motive is spite or revenge, she would find a way to make him known to the public.

  134. Dr. No JD wrote: “The fact that the Supreme Court reversed the decision if anything buttresses the credibility of an opinion concurring in the judgment — which by it’s nature expresses misgivings about the majority opinion.”

    I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. The Supreme Court caused the the majority opinion of the appellate court to change their opinion. Instead of upholding the lower court decision, they remanded it back to them for reduced sentencing. The opinion we read that quoted Leong’s work was not upheld. I don’t see how that adds credibility.

    If you read the actual reasoning, however, it doesn’t really matter. The reference to Leong’s law review article was extremely gratuitous. It did not affect the case either way. I suspect relationships behind the scenes that we don’t know about, and I am sure that Ms. Leong was very appreciative that her law review article was quoted in an actual appellate court ruling.

  135. So, her being harassed for over a year on 5 different blogs by Dybbuk was mere “arguing”?

    She took plenty of punches before she fought back.

  136. annie wrote: “So, her being harassed for over a year on 5 different blogs by Dybbuk was mere “arguing”? She took plenty of punches before she fought back.”

    How many remarks were questionable? He says 20, she says 70? That might be high over a period of a week, but a year? That seems very low to me. Furthermore, verbal assaults are not punches. She took no punches before she threw her punch that could be serious trouble for this public defender.

  137. Davidm — I can’t say that I approve of speculation about behind scenes connections. I don’t see any evidence of it myself, other than the fact that you don’t like the underlying article.

    As for my comment about the procedural posture: As I understand it (from the Westlaw history), the Supreme Court GVRed the opinion (usually done because of subsequent authority by the Supreme Court). Such a disposition doesn’t particularly undermine the logic of the majority opinion, but indicates that the Supreme Court has subsequently decided a case on the subject. My point was that often an opinion concurring in the judgment identifies flaws in the majority’s reasoning, and therefore, a GVR from the Supreme Court may buttress the reasoning of the concurring judge (although not necessarily).

    These are all just general comments, and not specific to this particular case (which I don’t know much about).

  138. Off topic–but on the subject of blogging and the First Amendment:

    Blogger’s Incarceration Raises First Amendment Questions
    By CAMPBELL ROBERTSON
    January 11, 2014
    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/01/12/us/bloggers-incarceration-raises-first-amendment-questions.html?referrer=

    Excerpt:
    BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — For over six years, Roger Shuler has hounded figures of the state legal and political establishment on his blog, Legal Schnauzer, a hothouse of furious but often fuzzily sourced allegations of deep corruption and wide-ranging conspiracy. Some of these allegations he has tested in court, having sued his neighbor, his neighbor’s lawyer, his former employer, the Police Department, the Sheriff’s Department, the Alabama State Bar and two county circuit judges, among others. Mostly, he has lost.

    But even those who longed for his muzzling, and there are many, did not see it coming like this: with Mr. Shuler sitting in jail indefinitely, and now on the list of imprisoned journalists worldwide kept by the Committee to Protect Journalists. There, in the company of jailed reporters in China, Iran and Egypt, is Mr. Shuler, the only person on the list in the Western Hemisphere.

    A former sports reporter and a former employee in a university’s publications department, Mr. Shuler, 57, was arrested in late October on a contempt charge in connection with a defamation lawsuit filed by the son of a former governor. The circumstances surrounding that arrest, including a judge’s order that many legal experts described as unconstitutional and behavior by Mr. Shuler that some of the same experts described as self-defeating posturing, have made for an exceptionally messy test of constitutional law.

    “You’ve got a situation where sometimes there’s no good guys,” said Ken White, a former federal prosecutor in Los Angeles who writes about and practices First Amendment law.

  139. Dr NO, Thanks for the cite and I also read her article which I found to be astounding that it would be in any law review since it seems that it would be more appropriate in a review of American Lit. The judge who used a very small portion of it missed the main points, which is funny since he CONCURRED in the finding of the whole court affirming the judgment that the traffic stop WAS legal and justified. Even though the original intent even after finding lots of other things was only to give a warning, the subsequent search was only initiated after another patrol car with a drug dog came on scene and alerted.

    As for the article itself, I was amazed that the thesis was one of the damage to the freedom to violate the law. It also was poorly edited since obvious errors of wrong words were used in writing it or was not caught in editing. Just one example is the one of the Chris Rock video of how not to get beaten by a cop. She goes on about the injustice of driving while black, and missed the MAIN point Rock made which is OBEY THE LAW! If she wanted to actually provide some good points on discrimination in traffic stops, that would have been a better article, but instead she goes off on the psychic damage and imagination, and other things that are totally outside the scope of law. I also noted in her published references she does NOT refer to that one at all. I don’t blame her for not wanting too many lawyers to read that one.

  140. davidm2575

    Generally I agree with you. I do note (Leong is wrong in this number when she says 6,000) that there are about 12,000 full time law professors (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) in the US. Law school have massively increased their employment over the last 25 years, so most law professors are 20 or more years from retirement, even at top law schools. Assuming the scambloggers are right, or the Feds impose some sort of standards for student loans, a lot of law schools could close in the next few years – while the top law schools may stop hiring for a while. Junior professors at lower ranked schools are very much in the medium term firing line – a situation not helped by the pressure to have more practically experienced faculty.

    I’d add, relations between academic lawyers and the actual profession are really awful right now. The contempt that academic lawyers have over the last 3 decades shown for practitioners is being returned heavily – but it is academia that cannot really survive that situation. Jonathan Turley is unusual in his practice and academic role.

  141. The esteemed Senator from Ca., Diane Feinstein, wants to define journalists and exclude bloggers from that protected group. the DC folks know they can control the MSM, but these pesky bloggers aren’t part of the cocktail party circuit.

  142. “Zipser
    anniofwi –

    Sexist comments are not sexual harassment, at least in most systems.”
    ***
    Actually they are when the attention is unwanted, causes or contributes to a hostile work environment and or causes personal or professional damage. There are a number of remedies depending on the environment in which they occur. A bar complaint is one of those remedies if the local bar association has guidelines or regulations baring the harassment or its effects.

    Personally, I would have outed dubyuk in a New York minute. If this guy is in fact a public servant in a position of decision making authority over enforcing the law (on the taxpayers dime) I wonder about his judgment as any taxpayer should..

    Was he making any of those postings on work time’? Is there a difference in the way he treats cases featuring women and men? How about in the way he treats men and women working in is office? Are the airing of spanking/dom fantasies and repeated sexualy oriented statements about a professional peer (officer of the court) the level of behaviour and attitude a Public Defender should demonstrate? That says nothing of the level of the critical analysis to a peer’s theories and work products included with such postings. Is that what a responsible PD should to be posting in public fora?

    He should have been outed long ago and a hard look at his work practices should have been taken by his superiors.
    __________

    Zipser: “For Leong the best thing that could happen is that this thing dies down – too many lawyers and law professors think the ethics complaint was a mistake, ….”
    ***
    Maybe they are wrong. Maybe she didn’t go far enough, fast enough.

  143. David,
    Public defenders should be above reproach. Unethical conduct isn’t conducive to the public trust. I resent my tax dollars being wasted on a salary for such a person.

  144. randyjet, I’m often amazed how folks don’t get the obvious and hilarious point in Chris Rock’s classic video. I’ve been on other blogs where some folks were clueless. Rock is from a blue collar, work 2 jobs, family w/ a strong father figure. His rants about how black people don’t take responsibility for their own behavior are classic and consistent w/ that video.

  145. Elaine M:

    I read about that case and felt that the reporting was so-so. At the heart of the situation is a dreaded figure, a pro se vexatious litigant and serial abuser of the courts. The court is using its contempt power to try to stop Shuler from publishing serial defamatory and facially false statements against someone he is having a feud with – a neighbor.

    So the problem becomes that the court is trying to stop speech that would be actionable before it happens – prior restraint as it is known in the US. That is unusual – normally vexatious litigants limit themselves to filing frivolous lawsuits (I have been on the wrong end of one, who also sued a few judges.) The usual solution is to require them to get a court’s permission before filing any law suits. This presents a stranger situation, a person who is devoted to defaming people by alleging that they have had sexual relations etc. and a court that is before the fact seeking to stop this conduct. It is a messy situation – but if you were his neighbor I think by now you would be “at your wits end.” I’m not sure we know all the facts here.

    I will say that all the court has to enforce certain types of ruling is the contempt power – including restraining orders against violent husband and boyfriends – which are also “prior restraints,” just not against speech. However, what gives me pause is that this is a case in Alabama, where Don Siegelman was sent to jail on transparently trumped up charges. Civil liberties seem to mean little in Bama.

  146. I’ll have to track down the Chris Rock video. I do think his overall body of work is a bit more complicated than calling for more personal responsibility. He also talks a lot about racism and disadvantage. I’m reminded of his skit where he talks about the fact that no white person in the building, including the janitorial staff, would trade places with him as a successful black man.

    But now we’ve really strayed.

  147. Nick, Nick, Nick, Your penchant for welcoming new posters (that share your views) and warning them about some element of the blawgs posters that have their own motives and agendas that the new poster needs to watch out for is so predictable. Passive aggressive. Welcome but watch out for the gang of azzz-holes that will gang up on you. You’re just a bit more subtle these days, having been called out on it so often, you’re not saying ‘I’ve got you’re back’ but the immediate wedge-driving is still there in all of its predictable glory. Please don’t whore out the memory of a deceased ex-blawger to explain yourself again, he would put a period behind the ‘welcome aboard’. Using him as cover is an insult to the dead, please have some decency.

  148. lottakatz,

    Nice article & concept presented by Mark.

    It reminds me of the old adage that if we look around the table & we don’t recognize who the fool is it probable is us.

    Regardless of why Mark posted this, I see all the signs elsewhere this issue of Americans being unable in many cases deal with sexual issues being rolled out again in public for political & other reasons.

    I like the band Rammstein using dark humor & satire poking fun at issues like this.

    Playing mind games is with us it seems.

    I’m still interested if OS gets back on the topic of how the FBI/LE use brainwashing tech to get innocent people to confess to crimes they didn’t commit.

    And with 80 Billion plus a year what has the govt here bought. This doesn’t count what other nations are spending.

    ** http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/18/opinion/put-the-spies-back-under-one-r

    Seventy percent of America’s intelligence budget now flows to private contractors. Going by this year’s estimated budget of about $80 billion, that makes private intelligence a $56 billion-a-year industry. **

  149. randyjet wrote: “I also read her article which I found to be astounding that it would be in any law review since it seems that it would be more appropriate in a review of American Lit. The judge who used a very small portion of it missed the main points, which is funny since he CONCURRED in the finding of the whole court affirming the judgment that the traffic stop WAS legal and justified.”

    Exactly right! To reference her three times too, surely it was a gratuitous gesture to help along a rising student.

  150. I love how David throws out allegations of a Judge giving special favors, with absolutely no supporting evidence.

    Wow.

  151. If a Governor would shut down a road for political reasons then what other abuses of govt authority would the polecats/bureaucracies use against the Gen Pop?

    Chemical Warfare Against The American Public

  152. annieofwi –

    have you read the article and the citations. I would think both are pre-requisites to any intelligent objections to David’s thesis. I’d start with the article, but it is so embarrassingly bad as to be hard to explain its citation.

  153. Well Zipser, I admit I have a difficult time taking David’s hypotheses seriously. He has a hypothesis that Fox News is a reliable source and Rush Limbaugh is the cats meow. It may possibly be a weakness of mine not to take someone’s word for it. The fact that there are other law schools who seem to be looking at Leong seriously tells me she isn’t the cretin you want to make her out to be and makes me question your agenda.

    No offense meant David, I simply don’t trust your judgment.

  154. Dr. No JD, Rock is a TRUE comedian. He says the things that folks think. He calls out black folks, white folk, Puerto Ricans, etc. The “How not to get your ass kicked by the Police” is easily found on YouTube.

  155. Lottakatz, Idealist and I became friends. I conversed w/ him via email. I will invoke my friend’s name whenever I care to w/o your approval. He could have used more love here while he was living. He mostly got condescension and derision. Carry on.

  156. Good looking, thin people have distinct advantages in our culture. Both men and woman reap the benefits of those God given attributes. If you’re fat and ugly, you better be REAL good @ what you do. Good looking and slim, you can turn adequate skills into quick advancement, I repeat, this applies to BOTH SEXES. Hopefully this is not a revelation to anyone.

  157. @Nick ” He could have used more love here while he was living.”

    I am pretty sure he was one of the very first people to respond to me here. I appreciated it. He told some interesting stories.

    I am not religious. But I like to think of him, somewhere, sharing more of his adventures.

  158. BFM, Thanks. When I came here I ran into a shit storm. Idealist welcomed me and mentored me on the players and the program. I thanked him when he was alive on this blog and personally. I have invoked his name MANY times w/o anyone casting aspersions. I have said my efforts are an homage to him. I really appreciate your kind words about my “paisan” as I called him, and he loved. You have no idea how much effort it took to make a measured response to that lecture.

  159. There are any number of groups of people who have advantages in our culture in addition to those who are thin and attractive: rich people, those who are politically connected, those who attended the “right schools” and/or know the “right people.” I didn’t include all the groups that come to mind. Sometimes having an advantage over others depends on the circumstances.

  160. annieofwi –

    I don’t want to characterise David, but you know, a stopped clock is right twice a day.

    Read Leong’s paper – sorry, struggle through Leong’s paper.

    Consider another point – by current standards your daughter is utterly unqualified to be a law professor – just because she went to the wrong law schools – and every year she practices law, every success she has in legal practice, will make her less qualified. Ask her.

    Leong’s primary qualification was a Yale JD. Anything she added beyond a court clerkship made it harder to be a professor, bar silly publications. Substantive publications would actually hurt, experience beyond 1-3 years would hurt. This is a crazy world.

  161. Zipser, I move the court mark Exhibits 1, 2 and 3. It’s always a pleasure when someone else makes your case for you.

  162. Zipser:

    I read about 10 pages and am laughing so I saved it to the desk top and will finish when I am in need of channeling Jack K and a good laugh.

    Was this a serious article? Are you sure it wasnt a parody? Its brilliant if its parody but if this is a serious article, I wonder why she is even teaching.

    That is just my opinion and I only read 10 pages so maybe I am jumping to conclusions. But I did think it was funny.

  163. Zipser:

    A stopped watch isnt right twice a day, it is broken or needs winding. It cannot be right. If you were on a deset island, the watch would do you no good.

    Just a pet peave of mine, sorry. :)

  164. anniofwi:

    As a fat, greying, schlub – hey I might be resentful too. My online photos make me look thinner, wiser, sexier than the sad sagging reality.

    All we have for Leong is some attractively posed photos. For all I know, below the neck she could be 400 pounds with six limbs. So who knows (and by the way Dybbuk, why would you expect most women to use a photo in which they did not look as hot as possible – all you had to support your sexist comments were the zit-free photos Leong picked.)

    Still there is a totally different thread on lookism that could be started. There are so many studies that show the conventionally good looking to have huge advantages – which has always made me wonder about Rush Limbaugh – fat, balding, comb-over, viagra and pill chomping visitor to countries noted for supplying under-age prostitutes that he is.

  165. annio I think a reasonable person would at least read the articles in question before commenting in defense or attacking those who have.
    Zipsse, I wonder what your take on a law professor such as Bernadine Dohrn not only having no experience practicing law, but being unable to get a law license at all because she is a criminal. The only way that came about is that she is well connected along with her husband Ayers who are the epitome of spoiled brats knowing they are above the law for the most part.

  166. Elaine,

    I’m sorry Buddha isn’t here …. About 7 posters are still here when I started… Except for a few isolated incidents for a very short while…. There was no professional shit dispenser…. Apparently this ones rudeness keeps darking the blog.

    The are a number of good and well thought of folks that no longer post here because of the readily rudeness…..

    It’s just a matter of time before the prof gets involved…. We will see…. Sometimes it takes extra effort to right size the ship even in calm waters……

  167. AY,

    “The are a number of good and well thought of folks that no longer post here because of the readily rudeness…..”

    Fortunately, there is another venue where I can converse with those “well thought of” folks who decided to leave because of the individual of which you speak.

  168. Bron It is unusual for us to agree on much, but I agree with you on these two miscreants. I am on the far left, and was back then, and the joke about the Weathermen was that you had to drive at least a Mercedes to belong to them. A Rolls or a Jag was better, a BMW maybe. I was driving a VW beetle, so I could not apply, plus I had to earn a living besides being in school and being in the anti-Vietnam war movement. They remind me of the pirates in Gilbert and Sullivan’s The Pirates of Penzance, who are forgiven because they after all love their Queen and are all well born.

  169. randyjet:

    We agree on more than you might think, I am all for your ends [a better life for all], we just disagree on the means.

    One thing I have learned is that a good many Marxists were the sons and daughters of the wealthy. In fact Marx himself came from a well to do family so it isnt surprising his work would speak to people like Bill Ayers.

    I really wonder why working people buy into Marxism since they are typically pawns for people of priviledge on both sides of the fence.

    You would think they would be libertarians and say to hell with Marx, to hell with management.

    apologies for going off topic.

  170. AY,

    I see no reason to return to past disagreements. This thread has largely been civil. For the large size of this blog, we have had relatively few serious incidents. I understand if, as EM says, there are other sites that may appeal to commenters. However, this site tries to walk a straight line between free speech and civility. Rather than discuss personalities of posters, I suggest returning to the subject of Mark’s very fine posting.

    Jonathan Turley

  171. Well professor…. As much as I agree with you up thread or in this matter up stream….. you will see why I made the comment that I did…. And please note I did not disparage anyone nor warn them of other posters penchants…. Except for the ready rudeness…. Which is ready apparent in the comments above…. Thank you for noting this…..

  172. on 1, January 12, 2014 at 5:22 pmBron
    Zipser:

    A stopped watch isnt right twice a day, it is broken or needs winding. It cannot be right. If you were on a deset island, the watch would do you no good.

    Just a pet peave of mine, sorry. :)
    =========================================================

    know what you mean. i get that way with the word “sheeple”.

  173. A small out of place sign in a lawyer’s office years, (Decades), back that had a worn out couch in the waiting room.

    ( I guess I was the 1st to be so bold to say anything about the crap furniture as the next time I showed up the was a nice couch. LOL)

    Please don’t read too much into this! The furnishings are fine here & disputes there will likely always be. But we can be civil, disagree on a issue & all move in a positive manner in most cases.

    The sign: ” This too shall pass”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_too_shall_pass

    **on 1, January 12, 2014 at 8:17 pm jonathanturley **

    ** on 1, January 12, 2014 at 8:35 pm Anonymously Yours **

  174. Zipser, I saw my daughter, the attorney, at a family function this afternoon and ran it past her. Guess how she answered?

    ” I don’t know enough about it and I can’t make a call on it, and that’s what makes me a good lawyer.”

  175. Mona Lisa Smile, Beethoven,Skrik, Willie Nelson, Santana, Queen, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, etc…

    Of course everyone has their own ear & eyes & then there is Rammstein:

  176. Arguments over private motives are typically fruitless. However, I have observed over the years that people who attack feminism or women’s studies share characteristics common among those who attack ethnic or African-American studies, one of which is a refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of those areas as subjects for serious scholarship. Those attitudes are typified by many of the comments that have infected this thread.

  177. Oro Lee wrote: “If an examination of any law review article by Prof. Leong is warranted, perhaps it is the one published by Harvard and which is the subject of the seminar in Hawaii…”

    Thanks for the link, Oro. I was at first a bit skeptical when she started off with a quote from Playboy Magazine, and then when she mentioned Native Americans being used as slaves but ignored the fact that there also were whites who were slaves. Nevertheless, overall, this article from Leong was fresh and engaging. I didn’t like the first sentence or the last sentence, but the overall thesis was well presented and forceful. This article is certainly a legitimate scholarly study worthy of publication. It convinced me that Leong is a very intelligent and original thinker who knows full well the diversity issues involved in her recent actions against dybbuk. She understands how racial diversity and gender diversity have become commodities of trade by universities and corporations alike. This article certainly helps explain why she focused upon her ethnic background as well as gender in her complaint to the Bar. It draws attention to her worth and value to the university based upon her race and gender.

  178. It is a bit controversial, but some argue that social mobility has been greatly reduced in the past few decades.

    If true, the most reliable way to become a millionaire is to be good looking and have millionaire parents.

    The rest of you guys can line up to apply for a job at McDonald’s. So far at least, there is no way to outsource McDonald’s personnel to India.

  179. ** on 1, January 13, 2014 at 2:21 am Mike Appleton

    Arguments over private motives are typically fruitless. However, I have observed over the years that people who attack feminism or women’s studies share characteristics common among those who attack ethnic or African-American studies, one of which is a refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of those areas as subjects for serious scholarship. Those attitudes are typified by many of the comments that have infected this thread. **

    Mike,

    If you don’t know how to use the search feature on your PC just ask & someone will likely hep you.

    Other wise keep buying decks of cards in which every card is another victim card.

    And I’m so sick of the “Oh poor me, I’m so sensitive” crap I might soon start telling Pollock jokes I’ve had off limits for something like 40 years.

    What, you want to breed a world full of pansy azz wimps that cry upon a shift in wind direction?

    Get you some big boy panties on it’s the real world out here beyond that PC of yours.

  180. Oro, Thanks. My morning paper isn’t here[Our carrier has issues!] and this piece by Ms. Leong is a big jump from previous work.

  181. “and this piece by Ms. Leong is a big jump from previous work.”

    Nick — out of curiosity, how many of her other papers have you read? It looks like she’s written quite a bit and I saw some folks on other blogs talking up some of her work on constitutional rights. I don’t have time to read all of it — especially on Monday morning — (or frankly, more than one) but I glanced at the piece called “Making Rights” and thought it was solid. Now to get down to work . . .

  182. They’ve no doubt read only the one in question and then I question even that. I’ve read both now and I think she is a serious scholar, worthy of any law school. I plan on reading yet more, perhaps her writings on the constitution might be next, Makng Rights.

  183. Oky1:

    “And I’m so sick of the “Oh poor me, I’m so sensitive” crap I might soon start telling Pollock jokes I’ve had off limits for something like 40 years.”

    Why do want to tell jokes about a fish and an artist?

  184. Oky,

    “And I’m so sick of the “Oh poor me, I’m so sensitive” crap I might soon start telling Pollock jokes I’ve had off limits for something like 40 years.

    “What, you want to breed a world full of pansy azz wimps that cry upon a shift in wind direction?”

    *****

    Maybe you’d agree with Brit Hume’s reasoning for why chris Chistie is perceived as a bully?

    Fox’s Brit Hume shocks female panelist: ‘Feminized atmosphere’ made Christie a ‘bully’
    By David Edwards
    Sunday, January 12, 2014
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/12/foxs-brit-hume-shocks-female-panelist-feminized-atmosphere-made-christie-a-bully/

    Excerpt:
    Fox News analyst Brit Hume on Sunday said that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) had only gotten a reputation for being a bully because men could not be “masculine and muscular” in the “feminized atmosphere” created by the media.

    During a panel discussion on the Fox News show Media Buzz, host Howard Kurtz asked if Christie’s “bully image” was hurting him after his administration was accused for closing part of the busiest bridge in the world to hurt his political opponents.

    “I have to say that in this sort of feminized atmosphere in which we exist today, guys who are masculine and muscular like that in their private conduct and are kind of old-fashioned tough guys run some risks,” Hume opined.

    “Feminized!” Fox News contributor Lauren Ashburn gasped.

    “Atmosphere,” Hume nodded. “By which I mean that men today have learned the lesson the hard way that if you act like kind of an old-fashioned guy’s guy, you’re in constant danger of slipping out and saying something that’s going to get you in trouble and make you look like a sexist or make you look like you seem thuggish or whatever. That’s the atmosphere in which we operate.”

    “This guy is very much an old-fashioned masculine, muscular guy,” he added. “And there are political risks associated with that. Maybe it shouldn’t be, but that’s how it is.”

  185. Elaine, hahahaha!

    “Why do you think she’s a witch?”
    “Because she looks like one!”
    “They dressed me up to look like this.”

  186. Elaine,
    I saw that Christie article and to be honest, nothing surprises me with Brit Hume anymore. Also, I didn’t think obesity is a synonym for muscular.

  187. on 1, January 13, 2014 at 12:35 pm Elaine M.

    Oky,

    “And I’m so sick of the “Oh poor me, I’m so sensitive” crap I might soon start telling Pollock jokes I’ve had off limits for something like 40 years.

    “What, you want to breed a world full of pansy azz wimps that cry upon a shift in wind direction?”

    *****
    **

    “I have to say that in this sort of feminized atmosphere in which we exist today, guys who are masculine and muscular like that in their private conduct and are kind of old-fashioned tough guys run some risks,” Hume opined.

    “Feminized!” Fox News contributor Lauren Ashburn gasped.

    “Atmosphere,” Hume nodded. “By which I mean that men today have learned the lesson the hard way that if you act like kind of an old-fashioned guy’s guy, you’re in constant danger of slipping out and saying something that’s going to get you in trouble and make you look like a sexist or make you look like you seem thuggish or whatever. That’s the atmosphere in which we operate.”

    “This guy is very much an old-fashioned masculine, muscular guy,” he added. “And there are political risks associated with that. Maybe it shouldn’t be, but that’s how it is.” **

    Elaine,

    I seen a show last week about the tragic cases of women getting raped in the military & the military leaders covering up the cases.

    It feels to me that some believe since the very small percentage of males that are rapist that that makes all men rapists. That’s false & so I think I’m correct being resentful of their painting everyone with sure a broad brush.+

    The military & now it seems LE trains controlled violent killers/fighters, a small percentage of them go out of control.

    I wish those women could depend on receiving justices from the system, but I’d strongly prefer that those women had been able to defend themselves by every means available.

    OS recently wrote an article about a Nurse he knew that did successfully defend herself against an attack.

    What I’m saying is women are not asking to be attacked, they don’t deserve to be attacked, but maybe instead of being a feminist they should be a bit more of a Tomboy & beat the he’ll out of the attacker if they are able.

    Yes, I understand not every case is where the victim is in a position to defend themselves, but I don’t think we should promote learned helplessness either.

    Along the same lines I noticed that show didn’t even mention male on male rapes in the Military/LE yet we know that there are cases of such acts.

    And yes, I am a Redneck because if I see someone beating up, robbing, attempting to rape/kill lil kids, women, the sick or the elderly I’ll be intervening to kick the attacker’s azz to stop the attack & hold them til the police show up.

    So everyone can call me an old-fashioned masculine, muscular guy, Redneck all they wish, it doesn’t hurt my feelings one bit.

  188. Oky,

    “It feels to me that some believe since the very small percentage of males that are rapist that that makes all men rapists. That’s false & so I think I’m correct being resentful of their painting everyone with sure a broad brush.+

    “The military & now it seems LE trains controlled violent killers/fighters, a small percentage of them go out of control.

    “I wish those women could depend on receiving justices from the system, but I’d strongly prefer that those women had been able to defend themselves by every means available.

    “OS recently wrote an article about a Nurse he knew that did successfully defend herself against an attack.

    “What I’m saying is women are not asking to be attacked, they don’t deserve to be attacked, but maybe instead of being a feminist they should be a bit more of a Tomboy & beat the he’ll out of the attacker if they are able.”

    *****

    I believe you are wrong about women thinking that all men are rapists. What has being a feminist got to do with being raped? Do you think only feminists are the victims of rape? BTW, there have been many men who have been sexually assaulted while serving in the military. Do you suppose they are feminists?

  189. Oky1 @”So everyone can call me an old-fashioned masculine, muscular guy, Redneck all they wish, it doesn’t hurt my feelings one bit.”

    OK, I get it that you are masculine and muscular. If the chips are ever down for me I hope I have you at my back.

    But one of the questions is: has all this feminist stuff turned you into a bully? Would modern feminism lead you to use your strength for illegal or unethical acts? Some how I think not. But that is for you to consider and answer if you choose.

  190. One of the first things that my oldest daughter, the one in the Navy, was told when she landed in Afgahnistan by the male Marines and Corpsmen she worked with was, to never go to the anywhere by herself after dark, always to go in twos. The danger wasn’t from the Taliban, it was from fellow military members. That’s pretty shameful, but has nothing to do with the females being feminists or not.

  191. **on 1, January 13, 2014 at 3:59 pm annieofwi

    So only rednecks would defend children, women and the elderly?**

    Of course not Annie, et al:

    In the animal kingdom animals natural defend their group from predators.

    Humans are naturally built to do the same, defend their group from predators.

    But on the other side is joking around & many being over sensitive.

    For example we can tell all the caveman/Redneck jokes we want, but don’t make a joke about blacks unless you’re black, etc…

    Some tell jokes that are mean spirited & hateful & I think that’s wrong, then with some the don’t know the difference.

    Then another over sensitized issue is of human sexuality. Humans have to reproduce or human pop dies out. So there are always going to be those awkward moments in life, at the office, school, in public when someone express interest in another person.

    Some people get offend by the others approach, normally if the person isn’t tone deaf they soon realize the other person is not interested & moves on.

    There’s a lot of messy business in life with humans, were not robots so we just have to muddle through the mess often, without being overly sensitive all the time

    **So in other words, you don’t make fun of my Man Boobs & I won’t make fun of your boobs. :) (Now that’s an attempt at humor for you tone deafs out there. lol) **

  192. anniofwi

    ” never go to the anywhere by herself after dark, always to go in twos”

    – I heard that about a few prairie air force bases, seriously.

    As for your daughter’s answer;

    ” I don’t know enough about it and I can’t make a call on it, and that’s what makes me a good lawyer”

    Smart lady. Like so many situations, this is so much more messy and complex than it first appears, and not something that can be summarised in a few sentences.

  193. **on 1, January 13, 2014 at 4:05 pm Elaine M.

    Harry Enfield v **

    Elaine,

    Excellent of the right kind of humor about an awkward problem some men have. :)

    And yes, my wife tells me my inner pigman/redneck is showing a bit much at times & to reel it back in. lol

    There’s nothing as ugly as when what was meant as humor isn’t & when we are telling it we don’t know it isn’t.

  194. @Elaine M.: The women I hang with, lawyers and not, are still laughing at this video as am I. Those who fail to miss the satire need their brain oil changed. The only mistake I saw was his dismissal of sexual relations at the end of the clip. Some of the redneck men I know will tolerate one hellava bunch more than her hilarious put-downs for sex. Come to think of it, so would I when I was young.

Comments are closed.