exactly. substantively this is a house built on stilts. if law professors rely on their collegial relationships to be the primary determination of integrity, you're going to get the rug pulled from underneath you over and over, and you simply can't afford that.
You mean if they act like some of the members of the Supreme Court?
Now hold that thought and consider why law professors for the most part weren't loudly warning of all the likely and foreseeable consequences of Roe and Casey being overturned prior to it happening.
maybe you talk to different law professors than I do but I gotta say that was not my experience (laudatory)
Maybe so. But I don't really recall it being a serious widespread concern when I was in law school or after graduation which was right around the time Trump came down the escalator. When SCOTUS took the case, yeah, it was talked about and maybe it was before then. But if so I didn't see it.
I recall approximately one article.
it also seems to me that there are actual categories of argument that on their face fail the test of "acting with integrity." if i had a colleague who wanted to argue for the genetic inferiority of black people, i think i should be able to dismiss that without consideration.
Penn I think has tried to fire/marginalize the woman who kept saying this IIRC. Seems fair to argue those arguing for the repeal of Wong Kim Ark deserve the same.
She is suspended with half pay
Correct. The ability to reach a state where you can dismiss certain claims out of hand is called "learning," people should try it sometime
Integrity in that case would be a really bad thing!
Ok but what if that colleague was otherwise very cordial towards you? That changes it, right?
I’m just a small town lawyer who took con law at a public university, but I don’t recall any debate on the validity of birthright citizenship whatsoever. It’s not an area of the law with good faith arguments over what it means. It’s just federalist society types stretching for the outcome they want
They would contend that that is a -kind- of integrity…
Liberal legal scholars are too ensconced in their little world of ideas to understand the stakes or even that there are stakes. Conservative legal scholars are under no such delusions
exactly. i know a lot of nice racists! colleagues making small talk in the cafeteria does not mean they have intellectual or academic integrity.
Also federalists are fine with finality when it comes to executing a literally innocent person but the plain text of the 14th needs to be constantly revisited to do racism.
Moreover, I don't see how someone can argue "we must resist this framing" in the same breath as "we must not take entire ideas off the table" which is it?
bullseye
This is even worse though. It's not like this is being discussed in an academic setting, it's an attempt to make it law. We're well outside the space of being academically permissive to explore an idea, it's literally apologetics to destroy people's lives and identity.
At the very least, even if you disagree with the example, in practice you need a way to cheaply reject bad arguments in academia.
But Jamelle, they have a whole body of literature! They have calipers! High quality stainless steel calipers!
I think you should be able to punch him in the dick.
Just in case you’re unaware, Alan is *also* a big fan of transphobia and Jesse Singal in particular, so it’s not exactly surprising to me he doesn’t give a shit about people coming for other minority groups either.