Monday, June 14, 2010
Media and Message
I'm a little freaked out by the fact that my recent piece over at the Huffington Post now has attracted over 450 comments, and I would imagine a readership of many multiples of those who have commented. The subject of the piece was fairly complex, and could sustain a full-fledged law review article.
As I have mentioned before, I am troubled by the fact that a blog piece has a readership so much larger than law reviews, while most of us are still trying to create change by publishing in law reviews. Is it worth it? Can change be created that way? The academic market puts great stock in law reviews: At many schools, the value of a teacher is measured principally by the placement of her articles in various law reviews.
Let me put it this way: If career advancement and thorough discussion is served one way (by publishing law review articles), while reaching an audience and possibly creating change is primarily created in another way (with internet postings or litigation), which should a principled legal academic pursue?
The answer, I have to think, is both-- that we have an obligation both to present our views in authoritative, well-substantiated and substantial law review pieces, and from the views expressed in those articles then go out and try to make the world better through more immediate and widely-read media.
Comments:
<< Home
I think it has to be both. You have to do the legal scholarship as that is traditionally what law schools require and look for in its professors. This is part of what you sign off on when you agree to be a professor at most universites, and it helps in becomming an "expert" in a certain area.
I'm not so sure effecftuating change is a job requirement for a professor, although I would assume most universities would welcome a nationally renowned expert with a media profile, as long as that profile isn't "celebrity lawyer" or involve repeated appearances on Nancy Grace. If effectuating change is a personal goal, then treat it as such. I'm not sure it should or can be an "academic" goal, or what it means to be a "principled academic".
I'm not so sure effecftuating change is a job requirement for a professor, although I would assume most universities would welcome a nationally renowned expert with a media profile, as long as that profile isn't "celebrity lawyer" or involve repeated appearances on Nancy Grace. If effectuating change is a personal goal, then treat it as such. I'm not sure it should or can be an "academic" goal, or what it means to be a "principled academic".
It would be great if writing for reputable sources were given the same credibility as law review publication, but until that's true legal scholarship doesn't provide the incentives for publication in mainstream avenues.
You're absolutely right that the format you're using is much more effective at creating change. But, until the legal community incentivizes their brain trust to communicate through better avenues, we will lose much of the potential effect of scholarly advocacy.
You're absolutely right that the format you're using is much more effective at creating change. But, until the legal community incentivizes their brain trust to communicate through better avenues, we will lose much of the potential effect of scholarly advocacy.
This dialogue about change caused me to remember an interesting book I read in college entitled The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?, by Gerald N. Rosenberg, 1991. You might find it interesting.
Post a Comment
<< Home
