Ewwwww…..

Incredibly, this did not happen in Florida!

Thank you Brent Newton – American Legal Education is Worthless

By Randazza and DeVoy

Brent Newton, an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown, wrote a law review article about how professors writing law review articles is a waste of time. The article, Preaching What They Don’t Practice: Why Law Faculties’ Preoccupation with Impractical Scholarship and Devaluation of Practical Competencies Obstruct Reform in the Legal Academy, is actually worth reading … which is rather unusual for a law review article.

my thesis is that it will not be possible to implement such proposed curricular and pedagogical reforms if law schools continue their trend of primarily hiring and promoting tenure-track faculty members whose primary mission is to produce theoretical, increasingly interdisciplinary scholarship for law reviews rather than prepare students to practice law. Such “impractical scholars,” because they have little or no experience in the legal profession and further because they have been hired primarily to write law review articles rather than primarily to teach, lack the skill set necessary to teach students how to become competent, ethical practitioners. (source)

That is a very polite and professional way of saying what I have been saying since the inception of this blog — law professors are a bunch of worthless gasbags running a ponzi scheme, and most (not all) should be dragged out into the street and have beehives shoved up their asses for the part they play in financially ruining thousands of kids a year — to say nothing for the destruction they help wreak upon the legal profession, which in turn leaves thousands of desperate lawyers who pull every manner of legal stunt to simply stay alive. Parasites breeding parasites. That is what most law professors are.

But back to Newton. His article is absolute blasphemy in the legal academy, and probably means that he will forever remain the sneered-at adjunct. I got that a lot when I was one — oh, you’re just an adjunct, not a professor.

Newton notes that adjuncts are the lowest of the low:

At the bottom of the order of law faculty are adjunct professors, who generally are treated like nobodies by the regular law faculty.

I am happy to report that this was not my experience when I was an adjunct at Barry. In fact, I was treated very well there by all my colleagues. But, once off that campus, especially when exchanging ideas with other “law professors” and particularly in the blawgosphere, that was the refuge they would run to during a vicious pwning.

Like the Indian caste system, a comparison Newton makes in his article, the academy delegates the “dirty work” to an immobile class of practitioners, adjuncts and other non-tenure track faculty.  Beyond schools’ Legal Research and Writing (LRW) curriculum, clinical programs remain the last bastion of useful hands-on experience in meeting deadlines, solving new problems and managing client expectations.

Despite providing some of the most value-added experiences most law students will have during their legal education, clinical professors lack the ability to attain tenure, or even full the same privileges and status of full tenure track faculty.  Even considering the value provided by clinical coursework, they remain optional at all but a few schools like Washington & Lee, which have adopted an intense practical curriculum.  This isn’t merely harmful for new lawyers, but potentially disastrous for their clients.

So let’s see what Newton shares some data with us about the experience levels of these “law professors” who sneer at adjuncts.

The amount of prior practical experience differed significantly by tier. For instance, for the schools in tier one, the median was 1 year and the mean was 1.92 years; 46.8% of the entry-level tenure-track professors hired by these schools since 2000 had no prior practical experience. Conversely, for the schools in tier four, the median was 6 years and the mean was 7.58 years; 85.8% of those professors had some amount of prior practical experience.

In other words, the higher ranked the school, the more worthless the professors — the less they actually know about the job they are teaching you to do. Next time someone makes fun of you for attending a TTT, maybe you should wipe the floor with them with the knowledge your TTT law professor gave you, while your top tier counterparts were learning from someone who was hired most likely on the basis of their skin color, gender, and how they managed to whine about both in law review articles.

Also contributing to this worthlessness is the over-academization of the legal academy.  A top J.D. isn’t enough anymore, and often needs to be supplemented with a Ph.D. – if not supplanted by one.

In the late 1980s, five percent of full-time law professors had Ph.D.s.  By the end of the twentieth century, 10.4 percent of new tenure-track hires had Ph.D’s (13.4% at “top 25 schools”). Just a decade later, by 2010, that percentage had grown significantly, particularly at the highly ranked schools. My own study of a representative sample of entry-level tenure-track professors hired between 2000-09 (excluding clinicians, LRW professors, and other “practical” faculty) revealed that 18.9 percent possessed Ph.D.’s in addition to or in lieu of a law degree. Professors with Ph.D.’s constituted 35.5 percent of such tenure-track faculty members hired since 2000 by the first ten schools in tier one of the USNWR rankings.

While a Ph.D. is an impressive investment of time – quality varies widely outside of the top programs in each field, and whether it’s worthwhile depends on individual levels of funding – it doesn’t help create better lawyers.  It doesn’t necessarily breed better faculty, either.  Just look who you get when you hire like that! (But, in all fairness, the best law professor I ever had didn’t have a JD at all — he had a Ph.D. only!)

For example, teaching law students about game theory is all well and good within the ivory tower, but it doesn’t help them, and may even hurt, if it’s done at the expense of skills like writing and critical thinking.  Those skills matter a hell of a lot more than being able to properly graph the probabilities frontier of settlement negotiations in a $35,000 case.  Try explaining that bill to your client.

Newton realizes that this characteristic, along with the homogeneity of the same ten schools producing most of the nation’s legal academy, creates a certain feedback loop.  Because only the top students from top schools are hired into the academy, judged by their experience in snagging elite clerkships and publishing in the highest ranked law reviews, there is scant room for practical experience.  Yet the system persists for a few reasons.  The first is economic: Fundamentally exclusive credentials, such as Court of Appeals or Supreme Court clerkships, are held by a vanishingly small group, and thus greatly valued by the academy.  The second is a matter of value justification, as faculty members who went to Harvard and published in the Harvard Law Review feel their escutcheon would be tarnished by hiring someone with lesser credentials, the legal academy’s equivalent to identifying with lepers as equals.

Even in the publishing of Newton’s article, which is forthcoming in the University of South Carolina Law Review, the class bias of legal academia is on display.  Like law schools, even law reviews are ranked.  Though the South Carolina Law Review outperforms the school’s US News ranking, it’s blasphemy for a piece as important as Newton’s not to be in the highest ranked publication it could have conceivably been in.  This is especially true as the traditional walk-of-the-penguins path from earning good grades in law school to being an associate at a well-heeled firm vanishes for many students, leaving them to rely on skills they never developed or had any idea they’d need.  But, surely, whatever critical theory shit about how federal land use law displaces quadriplegic Inuit lesbians from their native homes that took the place of Newton’s article in a more visible journal will be important – essential, really – in the history of legal thought.

We must thank Newton for making this point for all the reasons stated above.  Based on my experience in practice, where you go to school doesn’t mean much except what firms interviewed you at OCI.  While every school produces bad lawyers, the upper crust of legal education has no monopoly on creating good ones.

More importantly, the lack of vital skills afflicting new lawyers needs to be brought to all current and prospective students’ attention so they can take clinical coursework and ameliorate the gaps in their training.  Knowing that such deficiencies exist is the first battle in the war of legal education.  Too many law students assume that going to law school and passing the bar exam will be sufficient to practice, and the schools’ professors and administrators – themselves woefully inexperienced – do not do enough to correct this misconception.

Finally, this is an issue that affects all of us.  Tenured faculty live a life of symposia and leisurely thinking on the backs of the serfs, much like the Roman elites who drank wine all day and had orgies at night while the masses toiled and the empire crumbled.  Although individual students make the promise to pay $40,000 each year to subsidize this nonsense, and at 8.5% interest, we’re all paying for it now that student lending has become a government function — both for the principal and the inevitable default on junk loans taken out for nothing of value.

This should be the beginning of a slow clap for Brent Newton, and his gumption to write a piece that unites various threads that have been the zeitgeist of practitioners for years.  That the legal academy does not care to hear it is their own fault, and done at its peril.

CNN: Most young christians are actually massive hypocrites

By J. DeVoy

CNN has a story about the hollowness of youth spirituality that is not terribly surprising, but affirming in some aspects.

The Pros: CNN notes that most young Christians are callow and spineless, claiming to believe in their religion while doing all the drugs, partaking in the materialism, and having all the premarital sex and children that their professed faith forbids. [Ed.'s note -- we're very much in favor of all of these things at the Legal Satyricon, but we're also not running a cult bent on limiting its followers' personal freedom.]  By latching onto the “we’re all sinners” meme, young Christians use God and fellow fallible believers as a rationalization tool for their choices; additionally, the strength in numbers of many Christians using God as an excuse for their behavior has an “esteemsters” effect, allowing individuals to justify the cognitive dissonance between their beliefs and their actions because everybody else is doing it, boosting individual and group self esteem.

The Cons: The article’s subject believes that the way to overcome this is by inspiring deeper, more passionate faith in young people.  If only they took their faith more seriously, they wouldn’t sin as they do.

Well, .500 is pretty good in baseball.

To wit: The last name of the girl pictured in the CNN piece is “Havard.” Prestigious?

Fellow Moto Guzzi Enthusiasts

Billy Joel’s favorite ride? Taking his Moto Guzzi around Gloucester, MA. (source)

H/T: Mom

The “cami secret” pwned

H/T: Lake

W00t W00t! Return of Blog L00t!

W00t! W00t! It's the Hayes Blog L00t!

BLOG LOOT IS BACK (& Better than Ever)
By Christopher Hayes

Blog Loot, as some of you may remember, is a shout out to all of our fellow bloggers fighting the good fight and providing you both useful and useless information on a daily schedule. The following “Loot” is for those who enjoy a little bit of everything.

The “Miller Test Strikes Again”

Marty Klein at Sexual Intelligence highlights the ridiculousness of the “Miller Test”, which we all know is the legal test for determining the obscenity of sexual material. Our lovely tax dollars, during the biggest recession since 1929, were used to prosecute a case against a guy who merely made some DVD’s for adults to enjoy. (Thank you Bush Administration). Klein points out the contradictory nature of a law where the mere depiction of a legal activity can be illegal. In his own words: “sex is so special, that we’re not allowed to see or hear about things that we’re allowed to do.” The Satyricon also wrote about the dismissal of the US v. Stagliano on July 16th, but Klein goes deeper by highlighting the problem of censorship, where someone can be sent to prison for making a videotape of something that is technically legal. Makes you wonder about that First Amendment doesn’t it? Although I’m still conflicted about “2 girls, 1 cup.” Were those girls doing it for drugs or what?

Check it out over at “America Wins, Government Loses Huge Obscenity Trial” with props to Dr. Marty Klein @ Sexual Intelligence for his thought provoking analysis.

Once a Marine, Always a Marine?

Our next Case brings us into trademark law, a favorite topic in these here parts. John Welch, over at the “TTABlog” comments on the case In re Eagle Crest, Inc. The case in question hinged over Eagle Crest’s (a clothing company) attempts to register the trademark “Once a Marine, Always a Marine” for their manufactured clothing items. Interestingly, other common Marine expressions like “Hooah” and “Gung Ho” are also owned trademarks. Welch points out the difficultly in drawing the line between unregistrable common phrases and registrable ones. Why should “Once a Marine, Always a Marine” be in the public domain and unregistrable, but “Hooah” can be bought and sold? (source)

Shiny Happy People Love Twitter

Venkat, at SPAM NOTES, highlights the differences between the types of people who tweet, and those who blog. Venkat argues that Twitter posts are overwhelmingly positive in nature because negative remarks lead to fewer followers (according to research.). On the other hand, Venkat points out that in blogging, particularly in the political blogosphere, many of the better blog posts involve “skewering someone.”

I’ve never caught onto this whole twitter thing – I mean what critical thinking goes into “I’m hanging out at the mall” or “ I just masturbated”. Why do I care, and how long would that keep my attention? 3 seconds? Randazza is a notorious twitter hater (source). Apparently it runs in his family.

A blog post may not keep my mental consciousness much longer, but it just might if it’s making fun of someone or something. Basically I’m a sucker for anyone bashing anyone, particularly if it’s an issue I care about. That’s the nature of being human – someone dissecting someone and destroying him or her is always going to be infinitely more interesting than someone kissing someone’s ass. Probably because people are doing too much ass kissing in their own life, that they don’t want to read about it. Never fear though, there’s plenty of drama on Twitter — as we reported here, here, and some fool tried to start up here, getting Randazzapwned in the process.

Check Venkat’s article here.

Bad Haircuts Can Cause You to Get Punched In the Face

Popehat tells us about a kid who likes to wear a stupid looking, some might say hideous, haircut. However, the local middle school in a Texas town says this kid isn’t allowed to wear a hideous haircut because “that might bring attention to them” and a bully may punch them in the face for looking retarded.

I’m disappointed that there is no photo of the kid, but I guess since the kid is 12 we are SOL. Apparently even Justin Bieber or Anton Chigurh (no idea who that is) would not wear this haircut. On a side note: I hate Justin Bieber, so that is part of what attracted me to this blog post. Anyways, Ken, at Popehat, rightly points out that no matter how conformist you look, a bully is going to pick you out of the crowd – particularly if you are the type of person who was planning on wearing a hideous haircut to school in order to look different. The deeper question is whether a public school district should be enforcing conformity… Popehat wonders if this is really a ploy to limit other “non conformist ideas” from disseminating in a place of learning. I wouldn’t be surprised, it is TEXAS after all. So much for bucking broncos, cowboys, and rugged individuality – at least at Godley Middle School. (source)

Departures Magazine – You may blow me now

By Marc J. Randazza

I have a pretty awesome American Express card limit. If I decided to go on the lam, I could probably just buy a plane and worry about it later. I carry no balance on it, but it’s nice to know that if I gotta grab a car in a hurry, I can buy it.

I’m not bragging. Any twit with a decent paying job who pays his bills can get that kind of credit. You just start early, never fuck them over, and agree to pay a somewhat outrageous membership fee. But, you see, I love the little privileges that come from getting “status” with companies. For the most part, it just allows me to cut in the front of a lot of lines. It may not seem like a lot, but flashing a card and getting escorted to the front of a line is just about the closest thing to super-powers that a human can have.

Its also nice to check into hotels, and have them say “here’s a suite instead, and you can check out at 4 pm if you like, Mr. Randazza.” When the regular customers are dragging their shit downstairs asking where luggage check is, I’m eating eggs benedict in bed, watching hotel porn.

I like it even better when I get on a plane and the stewardess has actually been studying a sheet so that she knows my name, knows what I want to drink, and knows about how often I want another one. She comes by ALL the time, and she smiles. She smiles the whole flight. She doesn’t wank at you. And she takes your coat and hangs it up for you before takeoff. Coach and Southwest suck.

Status is not cheap, but it’s not really that expensive. I love it. And I’m a little wicked frigging spoiled and used to it.

So I get this email from American Express. The subject? Exclusive Invitation from DEPARTURES. Departures is the magazine they send you, which I always used to just throw in the trash, still in the plastic wrapper. My assistant at my last firm asked if she could have them for the office, so the staff could all look at cool places they wished they could go… and then she’d take a vacation that even I couldn’t afford. So go figure.

Back to the email. Who knows what it could be. Why, it was so majestic, that I won’t just quote it … I’ll reproduce it below.

Holy fucking shitballs...
Steven L. FUCKING DeLuca himself signed this shit!!!!!!! THE STEVESTER!!!!!!

Well, this looks AWESOME. The Departures ADVISORY BOARD? Okay, sure, I figure… I’m not rich enough that this is like “come stay in free resorts every day.” But, maybe I get a free night at a resort once a year? Or, maybe a free yacht rental or something. I’m a guy who they trust with about $1,000,000 in credit on four different cards. If I ever want to murder someone, I bet I can get away with it, because I could buy a plane, fuel, and still have money to bribe the guys in the Seychelles to let me stay. I use those cards so much that I earn enough points all year that I can’t remember what it feels like to fly in coach, but I pay the same amount for my plane tickets that you do — SUCKERS. You would think that being on the Advisory Board would get you something… right? Some perk?

DOUCHEBAGS!

They charge me thousands of dollars a year in membership fees. I get a special telephone number where I NEVER have to talk to some jagoff from the Republic of Nagheenanajar who can’t do anything but read “I am sorry that you are feeling badly about the service….” They just GIVE me first class plane tickets, which come with free booze, free pillows, and stewardesses who wouldn’t think of acting like the raging unionized fucking assholes on power-trips that you get back there in coach. I am a good boy, I pay my bills, and I could hire a live in maid for the cost of my membership fees alone. I could probably hire an English Butler who would politely dab my balls dry while telling me the latest financial news, if … well, okay, you’d have to be Jennifer Lopez rich for that, and so that’s a bit of a side track… because I’m not in THAT income tax bracket.

But anyhow, look, I’m special. American Express tells me that ALL the time. The two people I can count on being there for me no matter what I do, are my mother and Amex.

And being THIS special, they invited me to Join the Luxury Advisory Board!

“The Luxury Advisory Board provides DEPARTURES with key insights and information on style, real estate, culture, dining, travel and much more. Share with us what you are doing now and planning for the future.”

And so the LUXURY ADVISORY BOARD is just a bunch of schmucks who signed up to get junkmail? Jesus christ.

Maybe I am madder about this than I should be. Maybe its not such a big deal in the grand scheme of disappointments that life can dole out. But it pissed me off.

Now this is a judge who knows how to pound a gavel

heh heh… heh…

So he had porn on his work computer. Big fucking deal.

Still, gave me the opportunity to use that joke in the headline, so Judge Gibbons, tyft.

There’s good reason for why all of my friends are Trekkies…

(granted some of them just don’t know it yet, since they may not have watched enough)

Welcome to Georgia, USA

By Tatiana von Tauber

I found this opinion piece in the local paper today. It was a letter to the editor and it reads:

“Don’t vote from list writer says”

Editor:

I have Democrat friends both black and white. What they tell me is appalling. I have been told by the black friends that when it comes to elections that they go to the NAACP or the Democratic headquarters and get a list of people to vote for. The white friends say they go to the Democrat headquarters and get the list.

It is a very sad day in America when a person cannot go to vote for whom they think is the best person for the job. They have to be given a list of who to vote for.

Thank god I am not a Democrat. That is why this country is messed up.”

Bryan County News opinion piece Aug. 26, 2010

News Flash: L.A. Times Prints Whiney Panic Piece

by Jason Fischer

Okay.  So it’s not really a news flash – it’s kinda the bread and butter of the L.A. Times to print whiney panic pieces.  However, this story hit upon our sweet spot.  Reporter David G. Savage writes to warn us all about the dangers of criticizing others on teh interwebs.  The advice to bloggers and emailers: “think twice before sending a message.”

With all due respect to the attorneys quoted in the piece, the story is a load of shit.  It paints the picture that you can and will be sued for posting anything negative about anyone or anything.  We understand that there is only so much space available for a story, but this one was so halfway done, that we question the article’s intent.  Newspapers are losing their grip on the dissemination of information, as blogs and citizen journalists deliver information to the masses.  It almost seems like the L.A. Times was trying to scare us all from encroaching on their turf – and that it must have consciously failed to complete the story.

The article quotes our friend Professor Eric Goldman, of Santa Clara University, as saying that someone can be sued for saying “My dentist stinks.”  Conveniently, this is the end of the quote – convenient because it supports the message behind the piece, i.e., don’t be mean to people and hurt their feelings by writing unkind things about them.  We’re sure that, if the entirety of Professor Goldman’s input were published, he would have gone on to state, unequivocally, that “My dentist stinks” would never carry the day in court.  In fact, in California, bringing such a frivolous suit would leave the plaintiff paying everyone’s attorneys’ fees, after getting hit with a special motion to strike pursuant to the state’s anti-SLAPP statute.  We’ve never seen Goldman shill for the “fraidy cat” contingent, and we bet our entire publication’s credibility that he didn’t do so this time.

Let’s break it down LS style, in case someone out there is now afraid to complain about how much her dentist stinks on yelp after reading the article.  There are two ways the statement “My dentist stinks” can be interpreted:

Support the Iowa Supreme Court

Back in April, the Iowa Supreme Court issued an inspiring ruling, which struck down Iowa’s ban on same sex marriage. (earlier post). Whether you give a shit if gays get married or not, the court’s decision was well-reasoned and upheld the principle that “equal” means “equal.”

In response, Bob Vander Plaats, a Republican candidate for Iowa Governor called for an “executive order” overturning the decision. We mocked him in this post.

Now Vander Plaats is at it again – trying to organize a campaign to remove the justices from the Iowa Supreme Court in their next retention election. (source) Of course, this is part of the democratic process, and he has a right to campaign to remove the justices from the court.

But, if justices are removed from a state supreme court for supporting civil rights for one minority group, that will be one of the ugliest days in American history.

He is well funded, apparently enough that he has six full time employees working on his little witch hunt. I don’t know of any organized resistance to Vander Plaats’ efforts. If anyone out there knows of one, please put their info in the comments.

The Passion of the Chris

By J. DeVoy

In a recent GChat session about his recent video game post (reprinted with permission), Christopher Harbin – who endorsed Obama just two years ago – saw the light:

Christopher: and the whole thing is solved by the market
Christopher: let them price the used market into the beginning [price]
Christopher: now it’s 90 bucks

Jay: and people will be like “lol i’m not buying that shit”
Jay: so every game will be awesome to justify the price
Jay: nothing short of a ‘Halo’ would be released.

Christopher: [...] when did I go all libertarian and conservative
Christopher: I’m having ridiculous voter’s remorse

Jay: everyone is
Jay: I’ll be kind and let you off with a “I was right”
Jay: not that McCain and Palin wouldn’t be awful
Jay: but they’d be predictably awful
Jay: and it would be possible to plan for the future without being [sexually abused] in the name of fairness.

Christopher: hahahahaha
Christopher: dude, we gotta get a third party guy going
Christopher: why isn’t Bloomberg viable?

[...]

Christopher: I’m not an economist, but there is no doubt that destroying incentives for innovation
Christopher: is bad

Sri Lanka Government – “Only imported porn, please”

Sri Lanka blocked access to 100 porn sites that feature Sri Lankan actors. (source) I suppose that’s not such a terrible thing. They can take the textile manufacturing jobs, and we’ll keep the porn jobs here in the USA!

The Academic Feminist Witch Hunt

An audition for a blogging spot at Feminist Law Professors

By Marc J. Randazza

“Feminist Law Professors,” is a blog that throws cyber-tantrums at the notion of anonymous speech on the internet. (more and more) Their comment policy prefers that the authors name themselves, of course.

But, when they decide to start an academic lynch mob, these rules go out the window, and on go the masks. They bring us this anonymous criticism of Adam Cohen, a Yale Law professor who published a Time magazine article criticizing Judge Judith Raub Eiler. The author elected to remain anonymous, so lets do two things… lets call the Irony Police, and lets call her “Professor Useless Twat,” because that is about as fair as her criticism of Professor Cohen.

Here’s some of Cohen’s criticism of Judge Eiler.

When a defendant showed up on a traffic charge, Judge Judy delivered a zinger: “If you drive like an idiot ’cause you’re late for work, you’re gonna have to pay for it.” Then she piled on: “You can see your picture on the headlines of the Seattle Times, stupid young man who shouldn’t be driving.”

Another defendant recalled that the tart-tongue jurist humiliated and bullied her until she broke down in tears. “She frequently interrupted answers with insults,” the woman recalled.

This bullying Judge Judy was not Judge Judith Sheindlin, the tough-talking former New York City Family Court judge who has the top-rated judge show on syndicated television. It was Judge Judith Raub Eiler, her real-life doppelgänger, who sits at a county court in Seattle. Instead of high ratings and rich syndication fees, this Judge Judy’s aggressive demeanor earned her a five-day suspension without pay courtesy of the Washington State Supreme Court. (source)

Cohen criticized Eiler for being demeaning to litigants, especially pro-se litigants. Cohen applauded the fact that Eiler suffered discipline for her behavior, and said it should have been stronger medicine. He wasn’t basing his position on the reading of entrails from dead animals — the Washington Supreme Court backs up Cohen’s position.

But since Judge Eiler has a vagina, here comes Professor Useless Twat, accusing Cohen of gender bias, akin to calling a black person a “nigger.” (Well, using an illustration from a gender discrimination case in which the judge made that analogy).

What? Really?

Yes, Professor Useless Twat played the “nigger card.” Mind you, its not that she used the word, as I said last week, but what a card to play in this round of poker! Professor Useless Twat’s point was to accuse Cohen of criticizing Judge Eiler for not being “feminine” enough — as if civility in the courtroom is a “feminine” characteristic. (And somehow the “nigger card” made sense to play there).

Well dress me up in drag and call me Sally, because as caustic as I am on this blog, I know how to use my “courtroom voice” when I am in the sacred space. Courtrooms are places where you should exercise civility — even when dealing with idiots, assholes, and useless twats. Courtrooms are what we have instead of dueling fields. The lawyers and the parties are expected to be nice to each other, or at least civil. If that makes me “feminine” when I’m in court, well, fine… gimme my skirt.

When a judge refuses to show civility – especially to pro se litigants, who might not exactly know all the rules, then she deserves to be called out for it. She deserves to be criticized for it. She deserves to be disciplined for it — whether she has a vagina or not. And that was Cohen’s point. Gender wasn’t an overt subject, nor even a subtext, in his article.

There may be intelligent arguments against Professor Cohen’s article. If there are any, calling him a “sexist” sure isn’t one of them, and playing the “nigger card” is just plain retarded. Doing it from behind a mask is unforgivable.

Professor Useless Twat’s critique is bad enough in a vacuum, but lets remember the habitat in which law professors must survive. The politically correct police run the show. You must fall over yourself demonstrating sensitivity to race, gender, and whether a guy wears panties under his suit. “Racist” or “sexist” are labels that end careers in academia, and when one law prof throws them at another, the intent is abundantly clear — this bitch is pissed off about something and wants to fuck over Mr. Cohen. No, what Mr. Cohen did is not the equivalent of calling the judge a “nigger.” But, if useless twat wants a nice analogy, her piece is like going back to 1950 and calling Cohen a “Communist,” or a “faggot.” Either one could end his career, if anyone took it seriously, and she damn well knew it.

And in academia, if he dared to defend himself, Cohen would run the risk of just pushing the barb in deeper. I don’t know Cohen. I might actually hate him if I met him (or I might think he’s the greatest guy ever). I don’t care. I feel compelled to defend him, because it is obvious what Professor Useless Twat is trying to do. I don’t know what her real issue is with Cohen, but there isn’t a shred of honesty in her accusations that his work is gender biased.