The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Prof. Jeannie Suk Gersen (Harvard Law) on "the Importance of Due Process"
A very interesting interview with Yascha Mounk (The Good Fight). An excerpt:
Mounk: Have you felt a change during your time teaching in law school, in terms of how ready students are to volunteer their opinions on sensitive issues?
Suk Gersen: Unquestionably, that is the case. I began teaching in 2007. In the 14 or 15 years that I've been at it, there's been an enormous change in the willingness of students [to speak on sensitive issues]—and I'm not talking about conservative students who have, I think, always felt slightly like they are in the minority. I'm talking about really liberal students, liberal Democrats, who fear that their classmates may essentially turn on them if they express viewpoints that might be liberal, but also maybe not quite conforming enough to a certain kind of sensibility or ideology.
I hear this behind closed doors all the time, that students don't feel this is the kind of environment where that kind of discussion can happen. I do think that it's something that many teachers understand very well. But it's also now an environment where even to say, "Oh, yes, there's been a chilling effect"—even that is considered edgy or controversial, or the kind of thing you'd be scared to say. And so it's often said sotto voce and behind closed doors. I think it's unquestionable that the chill has occurred, it is continuing, and we have to see the ways we can deal with it….
Gersen also has more to say about other topics, such as SB 8, Title IX, and more.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Of course she won’t give examples so we don’t know what she’s talking about.
I also have no idea what she’s talking about when she praises the Socratic method. I’ve never seen it used in a helpful way. Maybe if someone had a transcript of an actual class discussion.
Please explain how you give an example of something that's not said?
“I hear this behind closed doors all the time,“
The rest of us understand quite well what she's talking about.
Of course she won’t give examples so we don’t know what she’s talking about.
Did you just awake from a multi-decade coma?
Zero tolerance for woke. The slightest woke remark should result in the shutting down of the treasonous school.
I found the Socratic method quite helpful in law school, and certainly a far superior system than just lecturing. What did you find uniformly unhelpful about it?
I am loath to approve of any element of traditional law school pedagogy, but I am forced to agree. Using the Socratic method to test hypotheticals and break a case down to its important parts are good ways to teach that whole "thinking like a lawyer" bit I still use, even in an area where no case law really exists and where most of the difficult questions I face are metaphysical mysteries.
Plus, thinking back to my straight lecturers in law school - I learned the least in those classes.
That said, I certainly encountered Socratic methods that were, shall we say, less than edifying. It shouldn't be about quizzing on the reading, or for the professor's own amusement. It should be about having a discussion.
By "thinking like a lawyer" you really mean "clear thinking". It's important in any profession.
Unfortunately much of the law we have to learn in law school is not the product of clear thinking Socratic method just confuses the students, unless the professor carefully guides his questions in the direction of the (often irrational) holding, in which case the students aren't learning any valuable thought process at all. It might just as well be the "burn the witch" dialog between Arthur and Bedevere from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail".
I'd still like to see examples, like a transcript.
Listen to the interview. She explains why she likes the Socratic method- specifically, she thinks randomly calling on people brings them out of their shell and helps them learn, whereas if you just lecture it's a conversation between the professor and the gunners.
While I do agree with the argument that the Socratic method is helpful (if done right) and that randomly calling on people is helpful, those are two different things. One can do the latter without the former and vice versa.
"The entire team has been 'strongly advised' not to speak to the media and the second swimmer has been granted anonymity. "
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10298137/SECOND-UPenn-swimmer-speaks-against-trans-Lia-Thomas-competing-womens-team-crowd-silent.html
Chilling speech is a feature not a bug. Imagine if the women on the swim team were allowed to speak freely.
Imagine.
Imagine what?
It sounds like they'd be quite critical of the rule requiring them to compete against men.
So are lots of people in sports.
Social pressure to police one's speech is not good. But neither is it anything new.
I do believe it's at a higher level than usual right now, but declaring it an intentional plot by the left helps no one except right wing paranoiacs.
"Social pressure to police one's speech is not good..."
The pressure at issue here strike me as a little more than social pressure, it's pressure coming from the university.
"but declaring it an intentional plot by the left helps no one except right wing paranoiacs."
The left has a whole body of work about suppressing speech, see discursive violence, microaggressions, etc.
I make no comment on trans eligibility issues other than to say it's a really difficult issue and is more difficult the higher up you go on the totem pole of elite athletics.
But it's totally understandable why they tell people not to speak. I say this as a lawyer. The university and the sanctioning bodies have made a difficult decision in an area where there is a lot of legal uncertainty. Saying the wrong thing can get someone sued. So you don't say anything.
"I make no comment on trans eligibility issues other than to say it's a really difficult issue..."
No it's not. How someone self-identifies and whether or not they may have a particular dysphoria has nothing to do with what category of sport they should play in.
"But it's totally understandable why they tell people not to speak. I say this as a lawyer."
If a public intuition is reducing its exposure to liability by silencing people based on a seeming threat to lose a public benefit, then somebody in the justice system is fucking up.
Indeed. The trans movement started with "biological sex and gender identity are different." We can debate that, but there are some ways in which it seems to be a reasonable statement.
But in recent years it has gone far beyond that to say, in effect, "…and biological sex doesn't really exist at all." Because that's the only way to make sense of the idea that a man should be allowed to compete in a women's division just because his (her) gender identity is female. Because if we admit that sex exists, then the response to that is, "We acknowledge that you identify as female, but the entire point of women's sports is biology, not identity."
And the fact that you believe it's a really difficult issue highlights the whole problem with Trans theory.
If a man wants to see himself as a woman, that's fine. But there are many good reasons why others might not see him as a woman. This is just one of many.
Saying don't talk to the press about something that has national attention doesn't strike me as partisan.
I'm not even sure it's bad policy, as Dilan notes.
Of course it can be partisan, if the issue they are silencing people over is partisan.
And if a public institution silencing people is good policy, we need to change the policy.
A general policy when it happens to be applied to a partisan issue does not become a partisan policy.
Imagine there's no repression, it's easy if you try. No bigots behind us: ahead, only a guy.
Imagine all the women, speaking for today!
Imagine there's no censors, it isn't hard to do. Nothing to "punch the fash" for, and no blacklisting too.
Artie Ray Lee Wayne Jim-Bob Kirkland would have commented, but he has been banished by the Volokh Conspiracy Board Of Censors.
I am permitted to comment, but must refrain from using certain words proscribed by the Volokh Conspiracy Board Of Censors, so perhaps the best course in this context is to abstain for fear of provoking another round of censorship.
I hope it would be OK to pass along a simple 'hey, y'all' or a 'bless your heart, professor' from Artie Ray, but I can't be sure, so I will not.
(That one is from the first album I purchased. My first 45 was 25 or 6 to 4, featuring fretmaster Terry Kath. I had to hide both from my parents, which inclined me to buy singles until I reached a college campus. I still have several thousand vinyl albums but currently have no turntable plugged in. Just bought a receiver, though, so resuming spinning will be a holiday project.)
You could do far worse than finding a good condition Technics SL-J2. It's one of the best linear tracking turntables produced in the 80's. Incredibly accurace direct drive mechanism with an infrared track detector that is operated with controls very similar to a CD Player so you never take a risk by manually lowering the needle to the record.
The stuff produced today is generally junk. People go out and buy these ones with a USB port to make digital copies and end up trashing good vinyl due to poor quality styluses, horrible belt driven tracking speed, and lousy overly heavy pressure on the tone arm that wears away on the record groves.
Several decades ago The Smithsonian released a box set of half masters of some of the early jazz pioneers. I wouldn't play it on anything else. It's irreplaceable.
I have a Yamaha turntable (YP-something, direct drive with strobe calibration of some sort and a counterbalanced something or other), 30-40 years old, that was considered a good device when "We Are The World" was a bestseller. The cartridge is at least 25 years old and was sold by a reputable purveyor for $250 or so. If that works I likely will stick with it.
Many of my vinyl albums were played once -- I would transfer the music to cassette, then shelve the vinyl. Some, though, from a radio station at which I worked, were heavily used (and include the old 'suggestions' and 'not to be sold' labels from the promoters).
Thank you.
Yeah, I've got stacks of old radio station 45's. Not even sure where they came from now.
If you really want to capture vinyl in high quality your best bet is to get a decent preamp with good old RCA out, a decent capture device, and a hard drive or better yet a NAS with a substantial amount of free space to use as a Media Server. Capture everything to FLAC, so there is no loss. That way you preserve what makes vinyl so warm in perfect fidelity instead of in crappy compressed Mp3.
We've got 12TB of space on a NAS running Windows Storage Server 2016 that is fed through our home theater where we've dumped all of our music and ripped our Blu-Ray's to.
I just bought what seems to be a handy Denon receiver. 7.2 channels at 75 watts per channel. My Sony DE545 had been overheating a bit at high volume so I figured the Denon would be an inexpensive insurance policy against a house fire.
I played on stages for 40 years without earplugs. As a younger spectator at bars and small venues, I would occasionally stick my head into 16-inch speaker cones during shows. I doubt my ears need the best equipment these days.
That said, I will ask my son to consider your points as I develop a new system for everything from home theater and transferring vinyl recordings to generating enough volume for playing along with Marshall and Fender stacks. Thank you.
OK, Boomer gasbag. There has never been any censorship since at Reason magazine.
That is demonstrably untrue, as I believe Prof. Volokh would state, unless he wishes to contest the accuracy of certain emails.
I might even recall that he acknowledged some of the Reason-era censorship and declared he had no regrets.
If Prof. Volokh wishes to assert he has not imposed censorship on me for using certain terms to describe conservatives -- while waving the matador's towel at comments from conservatives indicating liberals should be gassed; placed face-down in landfills; sent to Zyklon showers; shot in the face upon opening doors, etc. -- he is welcome to do so. I doubt he will, though, for several reasons, some of which reasons are to his credit (I doubt he would lie, for example) and other are decidedly not to his credit.
When was the last time you heard from this Board of Censors?
Maybe you stopped saying offensive things, so they stopped censoring you?
It was about two years ago, I believe.
I stopped using some of the terms Prof. Volokh forbids me to use describe conservatives. His playground, his rules. But that is just continuing partisan, viewpoint-driven censorship. nothing to this blog's credit and nothing to support any point you are attempting to advance.
I sounds like the blog managers have stopped trying to "bail out the ocean with a teaspoon," and have decided to let you pour forth a flood of invective, while allowing other commenters to use the mute button on you, which I probably should but you are hard to look away from, like a car wreck.
If that is your take on the point that "c_p s_ccor" and "sl@ck-j@w" are censored by Prof. Volokh (at least, when used by liberals and libertarians to describe conservatives), while conservatives are welcomed to expressly call for liberals to be gassed, shots, exterminated, and placed in landfills, you are welcome to that level of insight.
Wild guess: You believe fairy tales are true, too!
As always, I am confident Prof. Volokh welcomes your sycophantic, slobbering, purely partisan support.
I am so tired of this perpetual dishonesty from university professors. University administrators, and a large number of the professors, support suppression of speech and punishment (not by social shunning, but by university discipline) of unpopular opinions. Then the professors hypocritically turn around and blame the students, piously professing their own commitment to free expression and bemoaning their supposed powerlessness. Who is so stupid as to believe them?
I don't know that she's specifically blaming the students. In the interview she goes on to at least imply that by the time they get to law school they've already been conditioned by environments fostered by the college administrations where they came from.
This is just anecdotally but I don't find it as much within professors writ large, maybe limited to certain fields. It's definitely a stronger thing with administrators and students.
Professors are, again outside of certain fields, by and large still proponents of academic freedom and from that stems many similar views on free speech norms.
Administrators seem almost inherently hostile to it and I don't think it's always an ideological thing as much as it is a fear of the unknown which cuts against their notions of how the university should be run.
I don't believe that for a second. People generally get the government they deserve, and faculty members absolutely get the administration they want and deserve. Let's give Prof. Gersen (and the Conspirators, FWIW) a test: let's have each of them write letters to every professional board on which Dean Cosgrove sits, demanding that she be removed because of her abuse of power, mistreatment of students, and trampling of free expression. You know and I know, no law professor has that kind of courage or commitment.
" faculty members absolutely get the administration they want and deserve "
Is that comment applicable to nonsense-teaching, censorship-shackled, dogma-enforcing, fourth-tier, conservative-controlled campuses . . . or, in particular, to the bottom-scraping diploma mills such as South Texas College Of Law Houston?
Being a woke-emulator surrounded by wokesters, I can speak to this chilling effect. I don't even have any "controversial" opinions! There's just a lot I don't say, because I know that it's just slightly outside the narrow band of acceptable opinion in my circles.
I was going to offer some examples, but I'm even terrified of saying anything too specific, for fear that it could be traced back to me somehow.
Woke-norms like "mansplaining" awareness, pronoun regulation, even a lot of accepted opinion on COVID restrictions - these are being used to create a new form of power. You either abide by the rules and have power, or you don't and are ejected.
I don't mean, in the sense of, "Government is using these things to control our lives." I mean more in the sense of, "the unproductive busybodies with no sense of proportion or value are using these norms to shut those of us with actual things to do down."
+1