The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
A Different View of the "Public Intellectual Arc"
It's a choice, not a pattern.
I have a different take, after reading the recent post of my friend and colleague Josh Blackman, about the Arc of the Public Intellectual. It seems to me that the real dynamic is about tradeoffs. Upon getting tenure, professors who write in law and related subjects are fortunate to encounter a "choose your own adventure novel" situation. You can continue to focus on scholarship above all else. Or you can focus on any number of other things, ranging from gaining experience in academic administration (for those who want to be Deans someday) to building a social media brand. It all depends on the goals you set for your career.
Tradeoffs are inevitable, however, as all of these options tend to be time-consuming. The more you focus on one thing, the less you focus on another. So I don't see the public intellectual role as an "arc," or some kind of inherent pattern, as much as a continuing choice for how professors want their career to run. In my own case, for what it's worth, I have tended to do less media over time. I concluded that, unless a news story happened to be directly about my area or academic expertise, media appearances weren't likely to make a difference and were largely a waste of my time. But different people will answer that differently, and the answers can vary over time.
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
Making a fool of onesself in public is a choice. And it's a choice Prof. Blackman stands ready to make.
I can understand wanting to pursue scholarship and learning, and I can understand wanting to pursue public recognition through social and conventional media, but what sort of twisted upbringing or massive head trauma must one have suffered to set "academic administration" as one's life goal?
Maybe a sincere desire to improve their academic institution (whether you or anyone else agrees with what they consider to be improvements, to anticipate a round of academia bashing)?
It seems to me that it's just the legal version of a common trade - which happens in plenty of fields - that of accumulating reputational capital in your (relative) youth and cashing it in as you get wrinkly.
Many's the business guy who competently scrambles his way up to the top of a large corporation, who retires and then cashes in his reputation by joining the Board of some decidedly dodgy company, so as to lend a veneer of respectibility to the operation. It's a straightforward trade of (earned) reputation for retirement cash.
The advertising industry is built on retired sports stars selling you financial products, about which they know nothing, and care less.
But what about Josh's epicycles?
In my own case, for what it's worth, I have tended to do less media over time. I concluded that, unless a news story happened to be directly about my area or academic expertise, media appearances weren't likely to make a difference and were largely a waste of my time.
This makes all the difference. I am glad you stuck with what you liked, Professor Kerr.
Before I started following this blog I had heard of Orin Kerr but not Josh Blackman.
Blackman must have a reputation in media circles as an easily accessible and loquacious conservative legal commentator, if you want a statement from the enemy point of view (as judged by a typical liberal newsroom).