The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Interview with Prof. Sapna Kumar on Her Decision to Seek Employment Outside of Texas
A former University of Houston law professor speaks out about the effects of policies weakening tenure
As many VC blog readers know, several state legislatures have passed or are considering passing legislation to restrict or abolish tenure for professors at public universities. Among them is Texas, which recently weakened tenure protections and is seeking to pass further restrictions on what professors can teach.
To give VC blog readers a more personal perspective on the impact of these policies, I interviewed patent law scholar Professor Sapna Kumar on her decision to leave the Texas public university system. Until recently, Professor Kumar held the John Mixon Chair in Law at the University of Houston Law Center. She is now the Henry J. Fletcher Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School.
What first drew you to Houston and to teaching at a public university there?
I grew up in the Houston area, and I have both family and close friends there. So I knew that Houston had a lot to offer in terms of culture, restaurants, and an affordable cost of living.
I also really liked the idea of working for a public university. I am not religious and was therefore reluctant to join a religiously-affiliated private university. I also view public law schools as being more financially stable compared to most private ones, given that state funding can allow a public school to weather downturns in the economy. Working for the University of Houston seemed like a smart choice.
What was your time at the University of Houston Law Center like?
UHLC was a great choice for me. They have a large intellectual property program with several professors in my field who provided mentoring. I had a lot of financial support to attend conferences and to conduct research abroad. I also appreciated the politically diverse faculty, with professors who have a range of viewpoints.
After Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick vowed to abolish tenure in Texas in 2022, the faculty started getting nervous about what the impact would be. Many of us were concerned that the state would interfere with the content of our classes and would limit what we could research and publish. I became aware of faculty both at UHLC and at other Texas public universities who were looking for jobs out of state. That's when I started considering leaving Texas.
Were there other political developments that influenced your university's ability to recruit or retain people?
Yes, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued the Dobbs decision, striking down Roe v. Wade, a number of restrictive abortion laws took effect in Texas. This immediately impacted our ability to hire younger professors. Friends at other Texas universities reported similar difficulties as well. Even though jobs were well compensated and tenure-track positions are hard to come by, positions in Texas law schools went unfilled.
What was your reaction when the law weakening tenure at Texas public institutions was passed?
The administrators for the University of Houston system, along with those at other Texas state universities, downplayed the impact that this would have on faculty, claiming that it didn't change anything. The reality is that the new law creates a number of vague grounds for firing professors, such as for "unprofessionalism."
The fact that it's the Board of Regents that gets to pass related policies--all of whose members are appointed by Governor Abbott--shows how much control Texas now has over its professors. The fear is that if a state university professor vocally opposes the state government, that the state will pressure the university to fire the professor.
Would you have actively been trying to leave but for the political climate in Texas and the changes to its tenure system in public universities?
No, I wouldn't have. Houston is an amazingly diverse city, with more than 145 languages spoken in the greater metropolitan area. I miss my friends and family, the warm weather that allowed for year-round running, as well as eating at all the fabulous restaurants.
So leaving Texas is a real loss for you?
Absolutely. While I love my new institution and am happy to be closer to my spouse's extended family, I really didn't think I was ever going to leave Texas unless professional reasons made it imperative.
Some people probably think that hardcore progressives are the only ones who should be really concerned about whether they could lose their academic jobs over their viewpoints in a state like Texas. Does that describe you?
No, definitely not. People of all political stripes are concerned about the state telling professors about what they can and cannot teach or research. This includes political moderates, such as myself.
What attracted you to take a position at the University of Minnesota Law School?
There is a much stronger commitment to academic freedom in Minnesota than in Texas. There are no state laws restricting what professors can teach, nor can the university fire professors based on their viewpoints or the topics that they choose to research. And I am happy to be a part of the amazing community of scholars and students at UMN.
If Texas changed its laws in the future and restored things to the way you found them when you arrived in 2009, would you consider moving back and teaching at a Texas public university again?
I would. I do hope that Texas dismantles these laws, though I fear that this won't happen in my lifetime.
Many thanks!
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
This is called voting with your feet. While I am sure that some of the usual suspects will post inane rants, this points to a very serious issue for states, like Texas and Florida, that are doing this.
The people that are wanted- that are great professors, that are respected in their field, that continue to publish? They are the ones that will leave. Because they can. On the other hand, the people that remain are those who, well, can't.
Surprisingly to some, both Florida and Texas had very good public university systems. It is unfortunate that, because of partisan short-sightedness, they will be hollowed out over the next few years.
But, hey, SEC, amirite! Who needs fancy book-learnin' when you can get a bigger locker room for the football team. Because that's what college is supposed to be about. 😉
IRL, the "votes" are going the other way. And if Texas and Florida trade law professors for carpenters and hedge fund managers, their economies (and maybe their moral character) will only improve. So I don't see the "serious issue."
Except, of course, that’s not the trade, is it? Putting aside your belief that hedge fund manager are highly moral, there is no “trade,” because this is only about the academic market. For the public universities.
Which means that the competition isn’t a trade of a professor for a hedge fund manager, it’s just a zero-sum competition between academic institutions for talent.
And if you understand that market (clearly you don’t) you know that the long and arduous sacrifices people make are … for the lure of tenure.
Once you’ve removed that as a possibility, you’ve ensured that your schools are at a massive disadvantage competing for talent. Which means that the schools will become worse. Which means that they will become less attractive to the people in-state who are able to go elsewhere and attend better institutions.
But sure. Maybe you’ve finally owned the lobs, or something. I’m sure that feels good!
Correct.
It's not as if when a professor leaves you get a carpenter in exchange. The two moves are independent.
Ah, not if they're being driven by the same political currents.
Carpenters and hedge fund managers aren't moving to places like Texas because they're driving DEI initiatives out of the public education system, eliminating tenure, or waging other culture-war battles. They're moving there because the cost of living is low, housing is cheap, and income tax burdens are non-existent.
That was true before the "war on woke," and it'll continue to be true as long as those types of benefits outweigh the costs of moving to places like Texas - which legislators and governors, for some reason, are increasing.
In terms of the broader population, nobody in Texas or Florida is going to care that law professors, or frankly most other classes of educated professionals, will be increasingly likely to stay away from their state. The more serious losses that will be felt more quickly will be doctors (particularly OB-GYNs) and teachers.
Why OB-GYNs? Do that many people become OB-GYNs because they are passionate about aborting babies?
People become OB-GYNs because they are passionate about babies, women's health, and ensuring healthy pregnancies.
And if something goes wrong with a pregnancy goes a they don't want to be in the position of having to force patients to carry through with a doomed pregnancy.
Fellow plaintiff Lauren Miller, 35, became pregnant with twins in 2022. She has a 19-month child as well. During a 12-week ultrasound appointment, Miller learned there were abnormalities with one of the twins who was later diagnosed with Trisomy 18 or Edward’s Syndrome. The vast majority of fetuses diagnosed with this condition do not survive to full-term.
Miller said that while doctors sought to counsel her on the options available for the twin diagnosed with Trisomy 18, whom she referred to as Baby B, they would have to stop speaking mid-sentence out of fear of bringing up abortion.
“After speaking with multiple doctors and genetic counselors, we kept arriving at the same points: Baby B will die, it’s just a matter of how soon, and every day that Baby B continued to develop he put his twin and myself at greater risk,” Miller said.
So not only is Texas trying to put women through the barbaric emotional trauma of carrying a doomed pregnancy to term, but in some cases it's actually risking the life of healthy fetuses. And a medical professional who assists too freely is at risk of a lawsuit or even felony.
So yeah, if I were an OB-GYN I'd stay as far away from Texas as possible.
OK, baby-killer
Half-educated right-wing bigots who base their public policy decisions on childish superstition just might be my favorite culture war roadkill.
Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit. Not a step beyond.
If it puts the mother at risk, that's considered a medically necessary abortion, an exception concept that has existed since Roe was decided and is by no means unique to Texas. This is just baseless paranoia.
Except the fetus being non-viable doesn't actually put the life of the mother at risk more than any other pregnancy.
It just means they need to wait until the fetus dies in the womb.
OB-GYN residents are actually required to receive training on clinical abortion, which they are unlikely to be able to obtain in Texas, and practicing OB-GYNs are at risk of being sued or having their licenses revoked if someone second-guesses whether an abortion they performed was actually necessary.
Why would anyone choose to practice medicine in a state where you could be criminalized for a judgment call you do as part of your job?
This is called overreacting. For one thing, she researches, teaches, and writes about intellectual property and patents. I find it extremely hard to believe that any political hack administrator even cares about the subject.
Her concern is that the lack of tenure protections *could* cause people (including her?) to unjustifiably lose their job. So, naturally, her solution is to find a different job. What?
And frankly, the idea that abortion restrictions are a meaningful factor in someone's decision to relocate to a different state is laughable, especially for professionals who can afford, at worst, to travel out of state for an abortion. Anyone that cares that deeply about political controversies that have a negligible effect on his or her daily life would have found a reason to leave Texas sooner or later anyway.
She's going to leave an area she's made strong connections to (and her spouse has as well) and relocate to an entirely different state because of things that might conceivably happen and would impose no costs (finding a new job) beyond what she is doing right now? No, most normal people do not act this way.
The Western District of Texas receives 22% of patent cases in the US.
This is both a fiscally beneficial arrangement for that district and a problematic legal scenario a patent professor might want to talk about in a lecture.
Is it so hard to imagine a representative for that district might decide that the criticism of a certain professor is imperiling the arrangement, and start working to get them fired?
Patent law is precisely one of the more esoteric topics where political interference can slide under the radar.
Wow, 22%? That's almost 800 cases and...a whopping $321,000 in complaint filing fees. That's a real windfall for a state of...30 million people and $2.4 trillion in GDP. With those sums, I'm sure it's ripe for corruption and close monitoring by GOP hacks who will silence criticism by employed public university professors and have absolutely no power over, you know, the rest of the country who has talked about this: https://www2.law.temple.edu/10q/how-the-west-became-the-east-the-patent-litigation-explosion-in-the-western-district-of-texas/
Well, we just saw Texas A&M have an issue with someone having a stray remark about opioid treatment, because of political pressure.
So ... yeah. It's not like this is a new subject. If you let politicians meddle, as this does, they will. Hardly a new concept.
Wow, 22%? That’s almost 800 cases and…a whopping $321,000 in complaint filing fees.
And the bills for the hotels, restaurants, and bars that all the attorneys use.
I'm betting that's a lot bigger number than $300k.
public university professors and have absolutely no power over, you know, the rest of the country who has talked about this
Regardless of whether or not that would stop people from retaliating (of course it wouldn't). Those kind of arrangements typically happen because locals turn a blind eye to the issue. A Law Professor in the same state with relevant expertise is preciously the sort of person who could make it harder for people to keep pretending a problem doesn't exist.
loki, I say good riddance.
Let's see ...
Progressive paradises, specifically California, New York and Illinois in that order, are losing population at record rates. I'm sure she can find a nice position in any of those states. And they don't seem to give a damn what or how you choose to teach.
Probably won't be able to afford food, the property and income taxes, but hey, a job's a job.
An endowed chair law prof is a pretty good get. She will be fine.
I'm sure she'll enjoy the amenities like people spitting in your face and threatening to rape you or dancing around the human feces.
Enjoy the upcoming winter!
Welcome to the real world.
If you don't like your job, quit and get a different one.
Just remember, nobody likes a whiner.
Long,
So, you are a full-throated supporter of her, yes? I mean; she is not whining at all here. She has made observations about conditions in Texas she does not like. And, she is willing to put her money where her mouth is, and act on her beliefs. We all encourage that and admire it, when someone does that, I assume. (Even people who don't share an ideology or political persuasion.)
She is fortunate--more than probably 99% of the working population--in that she can move from one prestigious and high-paying job in State X to a similar job in State Y, whereas most of us would not be able to do that at all...moving would require a major sacrifice in terms of income or job satisfaction.
Long, if you live in (let's say) California, and you announce you're gonna move to Mississippi, where you can live not surrounded by liberals, and where you can proudly own guns, ban abortions rights, etc etc . . . I might or might not like your views on those issues. But I'll respect you for the fact that you had the guts to actually take action.
Education is an area of our lives that tends to be on the leading edge of the change curve. It certainly was in my school days with strong anti-war and anti-segregation feelings. Because of this it is often attacked but those invested in and comfortable with stasis. This is really true at all levels. Here we see it in attempts to control professors by making them more vulnerable to the prevailing politics.
Conservative professors in texas don't need to worry about their speech being restricted at public universities because their ideas are not likely to be on the banned list. So, tenure will still probably really mean something for them.
If some professor is naturally inclined to self-impose rules/limits that are within the actually imposed limits, I guess that such professor still has some kind of academic freedom, in a practical sense.
But conservatives that are inclined to stray across those lines should probably keep their cv/resume polished.
I wouldn't have guessed that 2023 would be the year that academic freedom would be restricted at the university level, where only adults are students.
Conservative professors in texas don’t need to worry about their speech being restricted at public universities
That will be great news for the three conservative professors in Texas.
How many would there be without affirmative action for right-wingers?
I wouldn’t have guessed that 2023 would be the year that academic freedom would be restricted at the university level, where only adults are students.
Doug - do you really thing college campuses are bastians of academic freedom in 2023 ?
Maybe decades ago, but no longer.
2023 is the year that academic freedom is restricted?!! That is an out and out lie. Ask Erika Christakis or Amy Wax. Why do you assume that the rest of us are so stupid that we don't know the basic facts about American universities?
She wants guaranteed lifetime job security at taxpayer expense. Who wouldn't? Particularly in a cozy sinecure.
College professors are, generally, overpaid, underworked, and, given the current dismal state of higher education, not particularly any good at the task they are ostensibly charged with performing.
I doubt stories like this will garner much sympathy from those forced to toil in the real world, not the fantasy world of the faculty lounge.
Exactly! The interview is awesome, as it offers yet another insight into the thinking of the rent-seeking personnel within the academy. It does not garner sympathy; rather, it reveals childishness.
A comment above merits repeating: "Her concern is that the lack of tenure protections *could* cause people (including her?) to 'unjustifiably' lose their job. So, naturally, her solution is to find a different job. What? [...] No, most normal people do not act this way."
Why don’t you think responding to a perceived loss of job security by looking for a more secure job is something a normal person does?
The real world. Is that like real America?
Gatekeeping what is real wont save you if all the unreal stuff moves away.
I forget you're The Boy in the Progressive Bubble.
The real world is the one subject to economic forces, where no one has guaranteed job security, and where it is necessary to produce results if one wishes to keep receiving his paycheck.
At will employment is the only real jobs, according to you. This is gatekeeping.
His paycheck…this real world tied up in some weird manliness thing?
Prof. Volokh must enjoy watching his fans root for an end to tenure, which is the only thing that keeps Prof. Volokh employed by UCLA.
In 1996 when I retired from the USAF with job offers in Massachusetts, Washington DC, Texas, and Colorado, we used our military-funded final move to relocate from Virginia to Colorado, in our preferred West.
On my second retirement in 2017 (from the leadership team of IBM’s Information Security & Privacy consulting practice) and with no more kids at home, we decided to sell the big Colorado house, downsize, simplify, and move to a walkable neighborhood within a day's drive to our Idaho families (no more than 8 hours, versus the 14 hours from Colorado).
Through a foot-voting process similar to Prof. Kumar's, Mrs. Purple and I first pared a list down to two acceptable choices:
1) Emmitt, Idaho, in the Payette River valley 45 minutes NW of Boise (nearest family, a small farming town like where we’d grown up. Cheaper home, walkable to its nice little downtown).
2) South Puget Sound, Washington, in a politically and ethnically diverse working-class neighborhood a couple blocks from a small college (1980’s Air Force assignment there had been our favorite).
Both houses met our checklist requirements. The Idaho house was a much better value. But we chose Washington because we’d been watching our home state’s already reddest-of-the-red political environment grow, like that of Texas, progressively more extreme, and its government progressively more intrusive, controlling, and authoritarian. (When the Mormon Church releases a public statement saying, essentially, Hey guys, maybe y’all ought to cool it with the theocratic authoritarianism for awhile…you might have a problem).
Living all over the country, we had come to realize—much like Prof. Kumar's realization—that the far less intrusive state governments of Colorado and Washington (a common good approach to things like public infrastructure and the environment; rational, pragmatic laws on private personal behavior, women’s reproductive health, and end-of-life care; and full default Vote-at-Home mail-in voting) were what we’d rather support…and live in.
And then a couple years later, Ammon Bundy and a bunch of his MAGA/militia-crazy friends moved to Emmitt. I was going to say we dodged a bullet but…that joke isn’t funny anymore.
Six years later, it’s working out well and we feel at home in the Pacific Northwest. A pity that’s no longer true of the state of our birth.
You think Colorado is a bastion of conservatives? Apparently you’ve never left the Colorado Springs area and visited a place called Denver where the people are.
Ummm...what? You might want to read what I wrote:
"...the far less intrusive state governments of Colorado and Washington (a common good approach to things like public infrastructure and the environment; rational, pragmatic laws on private personal behavior, women’s reproductive health, and end-of-life care; and full default Vote-at-Home mail-in voting) were what we’d rather support…and live in."
"...our home state" refers to Idaho, which I'd just mentioned as where we'd grown up.
So this professor left a job she said she loved with one of the main reasons being because the state she lived in passed laws limiting her ability to kill her child? Wow! When that is your stated reason for leaving a job then you have serious moral issues. Why didn’t she leave earlier when the law was only that you couldn’t kill your child a few weeks before or even after it was born? Surely, that outraged her as well!
And she wanted guaranteed employment supplemented by taxpayers something that we peons seldom get in our careers.
Are you a moron? Did you read the OP?
The only reference to Texas' abortion laws is that they are making it harder to hire new faculty.
Most of it is about potential political interference with teaching or research, and with tenure decisions which is obviously a genuine threat.
Governors like Abbott and DeSantis are doing their states a giant disservice.
DeSantis believes life begins at 5 weeks and 6 days and up until that time you are free to abort the clump of cells.
Cindy, round trip airfare and a night in a decent (not five star) hotel couldn't cost more than $1000. She could have used a weekend to fly to Chicago, Boston, any number of cities with decent hospitals that love to perform abortions, and had as many abortions as she wished. And a law professor can't afford $1000?
Are you and Cindy having a stupidity contest?
Tough break for extremely privileged professors.
We can all remember how such people acted towards the rest of us during the pandemic and offer the same sympathy and consideration to them in return now.
Open wider, clinger.
Headline: Entitled underworked professor complains they might have to do something to justify their salary.
Well... Bye!
I am confident some good law schools will appreciate the opportunity to unload some right-wing faculty members if tenure stops protecting objectionable wingnuts.
"good law schools," ha!
Maybe Yale will take her.
"Even though jobs were well compensated and tenure-track positions are hard to come by, positions in Texas law schools went unfilled. "
BULLSHYTE!!!!
They may not have found anyone able to pass their political litmus test. but they could have filled these jobs had they wanted to.
If it were up to me, I'd simply shut down all public colleges & universities. (Not a proper function of government.) But, as long as such entities exist, the taxpayers, through their elected leaders, should be able to decide how they are run, including who gets to teach there and what they get to teach.
Strangely, most of the self-proclaimed libertarians here at the Conspiracy consider employment by the government to be the summum bonum of professional existence, and insist that they receive tax dollars without public accountability.
It's going to be wonderfully ironic when she gets canceled at her new gig for accidentally 'misgendering' somebody...
How can I tell whether someone is switching universities because of state policies, or because of school rankings? I don't think people typically say "I am moving because I want to work at a higher ranked school."
Um, what? I can’t speak to all professions, but this is exactly what they do for law schools.
There is a reason that good law professors are at good law schools, while This Guy (who posts here) … isn’t.
Right. I'm waiting to see a professor leaving a higher-ranked school for a lower-ranked school because of the "political climate" in the state with the higher-ranked school. When a professor leaves a lower-ranked school for a higher-ranked school, it's hard to believe that it is only about the "political climate."
....you know that this is just an interview, right?
Google is your friend. It is always shocking when people respond to economic incentives, isn't it? Oh, wait, what's the opposite of shocking?
Not shocking at all.
I think you're missing the point: people, both law professors and law firm partners, rarely say that they are switching jobs purely for money or prestige. They talk about greater professional opportunities, or (if they move in woke circles where such talk is status-enhancing) the political situation. But IRL, money and prestige predict professional moves better than "professional opportunities," and Minnesota is considerably more prestigious Houston (which I've actually never heard of).
The University of Houston Law School is a second tier (not as bad as that sounds) currently ranked 60th in the nation. That's not shabby at all.
More importantly, it has one of the best IP programs in the nation. Top 10. Minnesota, on the other hand, has a mediocre IP program.
Minnesota poached a great IP scholar and professor from one of the top programs in the nation, thereby strengthening their programs and weakening UHouston's.
The fact that you hadn't heard of these things before might, in fact, mean that you might want to understand things a little more before commenting dismissively.
Again, none of this is surprising- it's Econ 101. This is the market functioning. Moreover, I think that people don't understand how tenure works in the academic market in terms of carrot.
But you know, maybe I'm wrong and the reports we're already seeing are wrong and economic theory is wrong. Could be! Life is complicated like that. Not my circus, not my monkeys.
What is bizarre to me, reading this, is that people who normally believe in the free market ... suddenly think it doesn't apply in this case (or don't care, because they are "owning the woke libs," or something).
Imagine this was the NBA. Then two teams play in a state where a law is passed (again, let's assume legality, etc.) where those teams are no longer allowed to offer guaranteed contracts. The rest of the teams are. Do you think those teams would be at a competitive disadvantage, or not?
This is Econ 101. Professors (and the academic world) highly values tenure. It's ... the whole point. So when public universities no longer offer the same protections, they will no longer be able to attract and retain the best people. Because the labor market is sticky (housing, family, preferences) it won't occur all at once; but generally the best in class will have much better mobility and options; moreover, most college professors have had a history of moving between states, so it won't be as big of a deal for them- and the best in class will have lots of options.
"So what," you might say. Who cares if UF and UT and the other schools don't attract the best talent? Well, that trickles down to the students. Not just teaching- but mentoring, opportunities for research, connections, and so on. Not to mention that the decline in the institution will eventually cause the best students in the state to become more amenable to looking elsewhere- and a good portion of those students will not come back with their newly-acquired talents.
Florida and Texas have benefitted immensely from the rise of their schools. Deliberately handicapping them in the market for labor will make them less competitive. Again, this doesn't require a partisan analysis, only the application of basic economics to the issue at hand.
This is, quite literally, the dumbest comment I have seen. The status quo was that people would leave for higher ranked universities (all things being equal). But things are no longer equal, are they?
Again, how is it that people can ignore basic economics when it comes to their own partisan preferences?
There have already been multiple reports of professors leaving Florida. And this is the first year. Go ahead- look around. Look online. There's articles about it. I know, it's shocking when people actually respond to economic incentives!
The sainted (although not religiously) Prof. Kumar: "There is a much stronger commitment to academic freedom in Minnesota than in Texas. There are no state laws restricting what professors can teach, nor can the university fire professors based on their viewpoints or the topics that they choose to research." This is horseshit. From UMinn hiring announcement for any professor of tenure track: Required Qualifications of All Applicants -- "Evidence of a commitment to promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion through research, teaching, and/or service/outreach." So basically they openly and notoriously discriminate based on viewpoint to a greater degree than Texas could ever dream of. But it just happens to be in a way that Prof Kumar likes. Can we see your diversity statement professor? What about your oh so precious academic freedom? Can someone be hired if they don't show a "commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion?" Where is the academic freedom in that? The sanctimony of this interview is quite simply breathtaking.
How do you say you know nothing about the topic at hand without saying you know nothing about the topic at hand?
Hint- there is a difference between an applicant, and a person with tenure. Of course, since you don't know what you're talking about, I am sure that this will be lost on you.
For academic freedom to mean anything, it would need to apply to both applicants and people with tenure. Otherwise, it simply selects out people based on their viewpoint which is the opposite of academic freedom. But, I'm sure you and the good prof would be just fine if Texas schools required a statement of how the applicant would make America great again, and refused to hire anyone who doesn't show a "commitment to promoting making America great again." But according to you, this would not affect academic freedom at all, even though no one who isn't a hard core Trumpist (or at least pretends to be) can get hired. Gotcha. And I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about.
If you actually stopped and tried to figure things out before typing, it might become a little more apparent.
But, alas, you can't cure stupid.