Patrick Gudridge is our Vice Dean and a really smart legal academic.
Several years ago I suggested we dress up the faculty in Halloween costumes, take a group photo, and publish it online with the caption “A Serious Faculty that Doesn’t Take Itself Too Seriously”. This met with no approval at all.
“Weird Al” Yankovic – Word Crimes:
Almost all great stuff. I disagree about the Oxford comma — I think it’s essential for legal writing. (I also have some other legal writing tips.) Catchy tune, though.
- Someone will show me what to do.
- I can make the rules work for me.
- I can get an exception to the rules.
- I can change the rules.
Sometimes I want to ask my students, “Which are you?” or “Which do you want to be?” But the one time I tried something of the kind, it didn’t go over all that well.
Even so, they’re probably good questions in many situations.
Apologies for sounding like Seth Godin.
Incidentally, there’s arguably a fifth level of empowerment — “I can destroy the system” — but that’s either a special case of #4, or out of scope for the law-abiding. And I suppose there’s a zeroth level too, something on the order of “I’ll sit here alone and starve,” which could be clinical depression. OK, that was less Godin-like.
Friend and fellow lawprof Dan Hunter passes on this call for papers aimed at law students:
CALL FOR PAPERS Special Edition for emerging socio-legal scholars
QUT Law Review invites articles for its forthcoming Special Edition, highlighting emerging issues in Law and socio-legal disciplines.
For this special issue, we are seeking submissions from students undertaking higher degrees by research and from other early career researchers. We aim to highlight a broad range of emerging issues and provide an overview of research currently in progress.
This Special Edition is designed to provide an introduction to academic publishing for higher degree by research students. Articles will be subject to rigorous blind peer review, but we encourage submissions that present projects still in progress and do not yet have firm conclusions or results. Peer reviewers will focus on the ability of the article to present a novel methodological or conceptual approach to an existing problem or to identify a new socio-legal issue that has not been extensively studied. Submitted manuscripts will also be evaluated for technical competency and standard English expression.
Lawprofs sue over ‘satanic’ raise. Yes, really.
The AAUP Chapter at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law has filed an unfair labor practice charge with the State of Ohio alleging that the law school retaliated against certain faculty in the award of merit raises in 2013 and 2014 because of their union activities. Faculty were placed in four merit raise bands — $5,000, $3,000, $666, and $0 — based on scholarship and scholarly influence (40%), teaching as measured by student evaluations (40%), and service (20%). The complaint alleges that eight AAUP organizers received raises of $0 or $666, despite “exemplary scholarship and teaching scores.” The complaint charges that the $666 raise in effect calls “AAUP’s organizers and AAUP Satan.” In a memo distributed to the central administration and copied to the entire faculty, one of the eight AAUP organizers alleges that:
[The $666 figure] is a universally understood symbol of the Antichrist or Devil — one of our culture’s most violent religious images. Implicitly, but unmistakably and obviously intentionally, [the Dean] used his powers to set faculty salaries as an occasion to brand his perceived opponents as the Antichrist.
The mind boggles. Although a $5000 merit band doesn’t sound bad at all in this economy.