Radicalism and Subversion In American (and Canadian) Law Schools
Erik Trammel
The academic deterioration and leftist political
debauchery in American (and by extension) Canadian
law schools are very graphically described in an new book, "Beyond
All Reason: The Radical Assault in American Law",
by Daniel A. Faber and Suzanna Sherry ( Oxford, 192 pp., $25)
The authors, very critical of the sad state of many
American law schools, are both law professors themselves
at the University of Minnesota. Their provocative book is
reviewed in National Revies magazine by Mark Miller, a law student at
Georgetown University. Mr. Miller has titled his review "Professor, Tell
Us a Story".
This legal radicalism apparently was started in the 1930s and '40s
(during
the leftist Roosevelt New Deal era) by advocates of "legal realism"
which
argued that there were no objective principles constraining judges'
decisions. A few decades later, in the 1970s, theorists of "critical
legal studies used this whatever-the-judge-had-for-breakfast argument--
they called it "indeterminacy"--to critique such classical liberal
concepts
as individual rights. "Now in the 1990s, a group of legal scholars (an
obvious
oxymoron) whom the book refers to as 'radical multiculturalists' is
using
the same indeterminacy thesis to show that the very foundation of
Western
rationality are evil to the core".
"Everywhere else the Left is intellectually exhausted [Intellectually
perhaps; however, the Left is still a very sinister
threat in our society], but in the
law schools radical multiculturalism is in the ascendant". And also,
we have to add, our law schools, like our education schools, are
dumbing-down
their graduates.
"The radical multiculturalists have picked up from legal realism the
habit
of thinking that law is all about social engineering and from Foucualt
the
idea that it's all about power." This explains the explosion in recent
decades of judicial activism which has been decried recently by Judge
Bork in
the U.S. in his recent book "Slouching Toward Gomorra", and by Kenneth
MacDonald in Canada in his book on Pierre Trudeau's Constitution and
Charter:
"His Pride, Our Fall--Recovering From the Trudeau Revolution".
Farber and Sherry argue persuasively in "Beyond All Reason" that
radical
multiculturalism is Orwellian and can only lead to totalitarianism. The
entire
structure of the Left's integrated world brooks no dissent. And the
radicals'
attack on individual merit as the criterion for success entails
anti-Semitic
and anti-Asian bias that calls into question the sincerity of their
views
about oppression and equality.
The real issue for these multicultural radicals is power. And already
the authors point out we have witnessed "applied radical
multiculturalism" in real-life litigation
across the country. For example, "During the O.J. Simpson trial we saw
what happens when media-savvy criminal defence lawyers invoke radical
solidarity in front of
juries". Radical multicultural pandering has been quite common also in
product-liability and other civil cases.
The radical law school lawyers in rejecting all the values and
standards
of our society, believing that "truth" is an artificial construct
entirely
contingent on "who is doing the talking" have developed their own kind
of
legal writing--which they call, remarkably, "storytelling".
"The key to 'storytelling' is authenticity of group identity, and with
enough of it a writer need not feel constrained by facts, logic or even
actual experience".
This view of law and our society explains why in recent years there have
been so many wacky, non-sensical rulings and interpretations by
activists
judges and justices all the way up to the Supreme Court. (Americans are
much better off than Canadians in that at least some of their judges are
elected and all Supreme Court appointees have to be ratified by the U.S.
Senate).
Needless to say Canada is in dire need of a Triple-E Senate which could
be a healthy corrective to the Leftist Supreme Court. But presently
it is only the conservative Reform Party that is pressing this issue.
Long before the publication of "Beyond All Reason" many of us have
suspected
that this sort of perversion and contamination was
infecting law schools. Further, we have often suspected
that Leftist lawyers have had a hidden agenda of subversion of our
democratic-capitalist society. So why should the public respect judges
who don't believe there is any valid truth, who are moral relativists
and
even nihilists? We should treat them with contempt as we often do
politicians.
Graduates of such law schools are really no more qualified to make
legal judgments than the man in the street--who often displays more
common sense.
All judges should be made
accountable for their decisions. The present system
is not working.
Having them elected would help. That
way we could get rid of most of the
radical leftist extremists and subversives.
And if what Farber and Sherry have written is correct, what reason is
there in have
law schools that do not subscribe to any objective truth and
engage in "story telling". It is worrisome when
so many law professors believe that "law is all about
social engineering". Obviously these charlatans have no respect for our
laws.
David Deilley
Erik Trammel wrote:
>
> The academic deterioration and leftist political
> debauchery in American (and by extension) Canadian
> law schools
If you actually passed university, it must have been with a series of
cream puff courses - because nobody who resorts to this kind of
intellectual dishonesty could have passed through a series of rigorous
courses.
If you tried this kind of sloppy reasoning in a course taught by Milton
Friedman, he would kick your ass out of the course, the building, the
university, and probably out of the state of Illinois.
Thanks for a bit of Sunday morning humour - once again THE WHOLE WORLD'S
LAUGHING at your flawed logic.
T.Asquith
David Deilley wrote in message <349D6DD8...@coastnet.com>...
>Erik Trammel wrote:
>> The academic deterioration and leftist political
>> debauchery in American (and by extension) Canadian
>> law schools
>
>If you actually passed university, it must have been with a series of
>cream puff courses - because nobody who resorts to this kind of
>intellectual dishonesty could have passed through a series of rigorous
>courses.
>
>If you tried this kind of sloppy reasoning in a course taught by Milton
>Friedman, he would kick your ass out of the course, the building, the
>university, and probably out of the state of Illinois.
Have pity on Eric.
He never made it to law school so he couldn't possibly
see that there are both left- and right-wing factions
present in most of the faculties across Canada.
Moreover, note that once again he is comparing apples (US)
and oranges (Canada)--not to mention he does so without
justifying his assumptions. And heck, he can't make a simple
post to one of Canada's newsgroups without crossposting.
Don't bother insulting Eric. Just feel sorry for him.
Cheers,
Tom Asquith
David Deilley
>
> >> The academic deterioration and leftist political
> >> debauchery in American (and by extension) Canadian
> >> law schools
> >
> >cream puff courses - because nobody who resorts to this kind of
> >intellectual dishonesty could have passed through a series of rigorous
> >courses.
> >
> >If you tried this kind of sloppy reasoning in a course taught by Milton
> >Friedman, he would kick your ass out of the course, the building, the
> >university, and probably out of the state of Illinois.
>
> Have pity on Eric.
>
> He never made it to law school
The laughter when the Admissions Office saw his LSATs is stil ringing in
his ears - the bitterness still rings in his every obsessive post to the
USENET.
> so he couldn't possibly
> see that there are both left- and right-wing factions
> present in most of the faculties across Canada.
>
>
>
> Don't bother insulting Eric. Just feel sorry for him.
Perhaps I should be more compassionate - but I believe that laughing at
him is actually the most appropriate response. He's trolling for
something - it can't be respect (if it was, he would be much more
careful about his research, his logic and his consistency).
Perhaps he's just a lonely guy looking for attention, perhaps he thrives
on abuse. Fine - I'll pay attention and I'll heap abuse. We've all go
to do our bit to make the world go around, eh?
Phil Ronzone
In article <349D6DD8...@coastnet.com> David Deilley <blo...@coastnet.com> writes:
>Erik Trammel wrote:
>
>>The academic deterioration and leftist political debauchery
>>in American (and by extension) Canadian law schools
>>
>series of cream puff courses - because nobody who resorts to
>this kind of intellectual dishonesty could have passed
>through a series of rigorous courses.
>
>If you tried this kind of sloppy reasoning in a course taught
>by Milton Friedman, he would kick your ass out of the course,
>the building, the university, and probably out of the state
>of Illinois.
>
>WHOLE WORLD'S LAUGHING at your flawed logic.
Uh, one of the reason that Friedman STOPPED teaching (has he started
teaching again?) is because of the above mentioned "leftist political
debauchery", although Milton put it in far more gentle words ...
--
"I didn't do it, nobody saw me, and you can't prove it!" - B. Simpson
These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Erik Trammel
But my post is based on the book "Beyond All Reason". In other
words, you stupid dolt Reilley, the charges made against law-
school leftist radicalism and judicial activism are being
made by the two lawyer authors, Farber and Sherry. I have
just been repeating what they and the reviewer in National Review,
Mark Miller (a law student) have said.
Why is it that every time you respond to one of my posts you
make a fool of yourself, you little NDP leftist shill?
David Deilley
Ross John Lambourn wrote:
>
> But my post is based on the book "Beyond All Reason". In other
> words, you stupid dolt Reilley, the charges made against law-
> school leftist radicalism and judicial activism are being
> made by the two lawyer authors, Farber and Sherry. I have
> just been repeating what they and the reviewer in National Review,
> Mark Miller (a law student) have said.
And in your response took a leapo of logic that still has 'em rolling in
the aisles.
You have an article about AMERICAN law schools written by two AMERICAN
lawyers, published in the UNITED STATES and reviewed by an AMERICAN law
student in an AMERICAN magazine. The points in the book and in the
review may be valid - I don't know, and neither do you. Where things
get humourous, though, is when you jump in with the unfounded,
unsubstantiated comment:
> The academic deterioration and leftist political
> debauchery in American (and by extension) Canadian
> law schools
"(and by extension) Canadian"??? You have no basis for saying this.
You latch, like a parasite, on someone elses book (and all the hard work
it representws), and then say - without lifting a finger or spending a
minute make a case - that thjis applies equally to canadian law
schools. The book is about ANOTHER COUNTRY. You have no isdea whether
it applies to canadfioan law schools. Have you ever attended a law
school in canada. Taught at one. Conducted interviews with significant
numbers of Canadian lawyers, law students and professors?
What basis do you have for saying this book applys "by extension" to
Canadian law schools - other than yiour natural tendency to be a
blowhard "instant expert" on every subject under the sun.
> Why is it that every time you respond to one of my posts you
> make a fool of yourself,
Who's the fool now, blowhard-boy?
> you little NDP leftist shill?
This is what you call every person who has ever disagreed with you in
these newsgrpoups - from Peter Lougheed to right-wing Karl Pollack. It
just makes you look even sillier to say this.
J.C.
>Why is it that every time you respond to one of my posts you
>make a fool of yourself, you little NDP leftist shill?
Redundant.