The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Letter to the Editor
Last week, I submitted this letter to the Editor of the New York Times. It was not selected, so I will publish it here:
Re: Why The Times Is Expanding Its Supreme Court Coverage (Feb. 2) and Federal Courts Undercut Trump's Mass Deportation Campaign (Feb. 1):
Twice in the span of twenty-four hours, the Times felt compelled to refer to me as a "conservative" law professor. And this routinely happens in other media outlets. I would admit the label is accurate, but why is it necessary? To be sure, describing a professor's politics puts the reader on notice about potential biases, but this rule does not seem to be applied uniformly. Based on my searches of the Times's archives, law professors on the political left are routinely introduced without any label, while conservative law professors--in the rare instances when they are quoted--are more likely to be introduced as conservatives. I found one article that introduces a conservative law professor and a liberal law professor in the same sentence, but only the former is so described. I am grateful that the Times looks to balance out its journalism, but reporters should let a scholar's view speak for itself, without red or blue flags.
Josh Blackman
Houston, Texas
I have a detailed list of these articles, which I may publish another time.
In related news, the Washington Post published several letters to the editor in response to the op-ed I wrote with Ilya Shapiro on the Dean situation in Arkansas. I think our piece made a bigger splash in higher education circles than in legal circles.
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
Josh, is this really the most important thing that you have to worry about?
You should be grateful. "Conservative law professor" is a more polite way of saying "Conservative partisan hack law professor." The latter would be more accurate.
"Reactionary law professor". Because Josh's views aren't particularly conservative in the sense that people have traditionally used that word.
The obvious solution is to stop quoting him.
They want their NPCs to ignore what you say, obviously.
Ffs take this shit back to 4chan.
Your explanation/model for the disparate treatment is??
Performance. The NYT is showing that it will include "conservative" voices so it declares them in a performative way. Whether they are choosing voices like Blackman because they are looking to tar all conservatives as fringe to their audience or because they think Blackman represents the new rightward mainstream perspectives of today's MAGA conservatives is an exercise I leave to you.
Your opinion that Blackman requires a platform or else nothing is fair is dumb but otherwise inoffensive.
I'm pissed at the 'NPC' thing.
It's the dumbest shit.
Letter to the Editor, New York Times
NYT - please publish anything Prof. Blackman sends to you.
It's not fair that only Volokh Conspiracy readers have to put up with his drivel.
Mucho beaucoup.
apedad
Do you write letters to the editor just for yourself to release steam too?
The irony is that he doesn't read the comments on his own posts.
You think someone as vain and bootlickery as Josh doesn't read his comments, hoping to see one from Trump or Bondi or something?
He definitely reads the comments. It's been proven. He never responds directly, but sometimes he makes a post that refers to something someone said in a comment.
Ok, I see the problem. You confusing an advocacy arm of the Democratic Party with an actual newspaper.
What's a good example of an actual newspaper?
Der Sturmer? Volkischer Beobachter?
Conservative culture warrior who makes every about liberals vs. conservatives is mad at being called conservative. Truly a weird guy.
NY Times readers can assume that a quoted law professor is a liberal, unless described otherwise.
The paper could describe you has a conservative Jew pro-Trump law professor.
Blackman doesn't seem to have been conserving very much lately. "MAGA law professor" or "pro-Trump law professor" are more accurate. But Blackman's point about why should any adjectives at all be used is not an entirely crazy point.
Because otherwise the Times readers would have no idea who he is. He has no meaningful credentials aside from "dissenting voice".
They are leftists, they are way too intolerant to be considered liberal.
Poor Poor Pitiful Me.
"Snowflake law professor" would be more accurate.
I agree with Josh. Calling him a "conservative" professor is inappropriate. The most instructive descriptor would be "MAGA," though "anti-anti" and "fifth-tier law school" would do as well.
The same way criminals are only described by race if they're white.
The establishment hates white, conservative men.
You identify as a conservative law professor, Josh. It's your whole schtick. Liberal law professors don't generally identify themselves as liberal law professors.
Think of it like your preferred pronoun. If there were a liberal law professor going around shouting "Listen to me, I'm a liberal law professor!" I'm sure the NYT would quote them as liberal law professor so-and-so.