Just in case there was any remaining doubt that Brian Leiter is a jerk...

I thought this part was especially amusing:

Mr. Non-Volokh, meanwhile, professes to be in the dark as to what could be deemed "insulting." Putting aside the misreadings designed to make the target look ridiculous, how about this line from Mr. Non-Volokh's second posting: "I doubt Leiter knows anything about the history of fascism. Intellectually, the progressive left has a lot more in common with it than the 'libertarian right' (the real liberals)." Was this claim about my ignorance, and allying me with fascism, intended as a compliment?

Putting aside the fact that these were not the words of Mr. Non-Volokh, but actually the words of the non-anonymous "VC reader Steven Hamori", I find this amazingly thin-skinned coming from a guy who is accusing everyone to the right of Cass Sunstein on the political spectrum (including Prof. Sunstein) of being fascists.

The good Dr Leiter has an oddly ambivalent notion - he aims to break Mr Non-Volokh's anonymity, but insists on keeping his sources anonymous.

That's cognitive dissonance worse than an augmented 9th chord.

Leiter's threat is petty and vindictive, albeit utterly predictable for someone who willingly admits to his contempt for civility (see here and here). (BTW, that's why Leiter is probably not going to care what anyone thinks is the "nicer thing to do.")

Mike Z---that's not actually what cognitive dissonance means.

Well, I don't suppose there's any harm in revealing that Juan Non-Volokh is in fact mild-mannered Daily Planet reporter---oops! Wrong note card.

I think Ryan is on target. I'm amazing how seemingly intelligent people can so often display such staggering lack of social grace. Neither Leiter nor JNV come off looking very good, in my opinion.

I'm pretty left of center, but I'm certainly no fan of Leiter (far from it). However, I do think hiding behind the cloak of anonymity (understanding there may be valid reasons for it)lends itself to taking cheap shots, so to speak. However you feel about Leiter, at least we have a greater picture of his perspective.

I've never read Mr. Leiter's work. And I really don't have to have read it. Why? Because knowing the "real" identity of Juan Non-Volokh is not necessary for the disagreement to be waged over the postings and their interpretations.

Mr Leiter says "whatever he posts about"
JNV says "he disagrees with what was posted - especially certain bits"
Mr. Leiter... instead of arguing the points now says JNV must be unmasked because this will vindicate his argument

How does identifying JNV lend any weight to Mr. Leiter's arguments? It doesn't make any sense. If Mr. Leiter doesn't like Juan... doesn't feel like arguing with an anonymous blogger - then he should just ignore him! It's really very simple.

The quest to unmask Juan Non-Volokh is an admission that Mr. Leiter can't figure out how to defend his own position. (that doesn't mean it can't be defended - just that he isn't able to think of a good defense himself) The perfect solution in that case is to switch the focus from the post to the poster. It's an old tactic in political discourse... we shouldn't be surprised it turns up in blogging too.

Anyone in the legal academy who either hasn't figured out who Juan is or has the slightest interest in making that public doesn't belong in the legal academy.

I admit that I am mostly familiar with Leiter from his debates with Stuart Buck, in which Leiter behaved abominably. But this furthers the notion that Leiter is an intellectual bully whose natural instinct, upon encountering disagreement, is to inflict harm on the person disagreeing rather than demonstrate the superiority of his own arguments. It is frightening to think that such persons should hold positions of authority in academia. I would advise anyone attending UT Law School to keep as wide a berth from Prof. Leiter as possible.

Brian Leiter is a jerk. But so is JNV. And on top of that, JNV is a coward for hiding behind a pseudonym. I, for one, see nothing wrong with trying to "out" JNV, and I hope he succeeds.

It's worth noting that in his spat with the "XOXOHTH" message board a few months back, Brian Leiter sent an email to this very blog using the anonymous handle "lawprof" to make it seem like multiple people were angry about the message board when it was, in fact, just him. Unlike Mr. Non-Volokh, who is entitled to use whatever moniker he chooses, Mr. Leiter actually used an anonymous name unethically by trying to trick other people into thinking he was someone else.

When XOXOHTH published a note that made him look bad (click here ) Mr. Leiter actually threatened on his blog to sue the moderators and even sue unnamed posters to the message board for unstated reasons. (Click here ) Needless to say, he did not follow up on this, because he had no real argument, and his entry reflected far more poorly on him than it did the message board.

Bottom line: Mr. Leiter is very embarrassing and no one I have ever spoken to, student or professor, takes him seriously.

I agree with Cheburashka: it is not such a secret who JNV is. (Frankly, his writings under his own name are no different from his posts on VC, so I don't understand his need to use a pseudonym here. I would imagine that an affiliation with the VC would only benefit his academic reputation given the quality of the open-bloggers here.) The fact that Leiter cannot figure it out on his own is merely a poor reflection on Leiter.

I have emailed Mr. Leiter asking him to reconsider his attempt to out Mr. (Ms?) Non-Volokh. Without taking sides in their bickering, I feel strongly about the value of internet anonymity. I litigate, sporadicly and ineffectively, about this topic. Majors.blogspot.com. In the email, I copied a recent blog post (june 21, http://vark.blogspot.com) in which I solicit Leiter's mother's phone number, so we could call her and ask her to ask her son to behave himself. Similarly I welcome any such personal info on Leiter which ordinarily I would have no interest in. Perhaps this comment itself won't pass the standard for polite and civil comments here, and I won't be troubled if it is removed. I don't care if JNV and Leiter want to call each other names or otherwise disagree. I do care when a blogger takes the dispute out of the blogosphere and sets someone up to be hassled, maybe fired or otherwise, in the so called real world. In the Valerie Plame case, disclosure to the FEC resulted in people being killed. I think Leiter is seriously out of line. I have responded in kind, and lack objectivity as to whether my response is a reasonable or appropriate one.

I find it strange that at least two commenters have failed to see more than one way of reading Leiter's remarks about 1930s Germany, 1950s America, and our time and place. Leiter generalized that most academics fail to challenge practices of their regimes that, in historical hindsight, seem clearly unjust. He supported this generalization with the examples of 1930s Germany and 1950s America, and then concluded that the same is likely to be true today.

I see in that argument no claim that the injustices of our regime are as bad as the injustices of the McCarthy era or of Nazi Germany. The general claim is that whatever the injustices of the relevant regime might be, most academics fail to challenge them. The particular conclusion is that this is true today. The examples actually support this conclusion more strongly if the injustices of those times were more egregious than those of ours, because if academics were generally blind to greater injustices then, they (assuming a certain degree of continuity in the "they") are quite likely to be blind to lesser injustices now. The other comparison may also have been intended, but is not the most salient one to me (because unnecessary to the argument).

Mr. Leiter may be all the things people are calling him above, but the criticisms of him would be more credible if they did not appear to be based on a tendentious reading of his remarks.

I, for one, vote against outing Juan non-Volokh, whether or not he or she was uncivil to Leiter, because the name makes me chuckle.

1. I don't think that all anonymous bloggers are created equal.

If I blogged under my real name and took full responsibility for my words, and someone chose to debate with me under a pseudonym, I'd feel as though I were at an unfair disadvantage. Leiter posts his thoughts, and people know who he is, what he does, what he's said and written before, what he looks like, where he lives, etc.

As much as people like "Juan" may have legitimate reasons for remaining anonymous, they still deserve to be called out every now and then for claiming the protection of anonymity. Anonymous bloggers risk nothing when they post anonymously and deserve a "who the hell are you?" response when they attempt to engage with real people. Anonymous bloggers are entitled to anonymity, but they're not entitled to the same amount of respect as real people.

That said, if you're going to blog anonymously, "Juan" is probably the model of how to do it respectably. He explains his anonymity, gives a few details about who he actually is/what he actually does, gives a contact e-mail address, and uses the same pseudonym so that all of the opinions he expresses in the anonymous carveout of himself can be connected to the same source. I think that people who post anonymously in this manner are better than people who use anonymity just to vent.

2. Brian Leiter is an angry troll who takes everyone who disagrees with him and accused them of stupidity, illiteracy, residence in some remote country, or something else. He claims that he only uses harsh language when disagreement with him is "stupid or absurd, or, in short, intellectually and morally dishonest, and so not worth its time." I doubt that he believes that there is any other kind of disagreement with him.

He occasionally makes some good points, but on this particular issue, I don't think it's worth wading through the invective to figure out what his point is. If "Brian Leiter is pissed off at you" is your only reason for doing something (e.g. outing a co-blogger), it's probably not worth doing.

All of you are missing the real dynamic that is happening here. Juan Non-Volokh is in fact none other than Brian Leiter blogging in disguise. As it happens, Leiter has only been posing as an outspoken, left-of-Chomsky idealogue for all of these years because he figured that it would improve his tenure prospects. Having achieved his goal, he now finds himself stuck in the persona that he has created for himself.

Make no mistake about it, our friend in Austin is deep, deep in the closet. He is really a libertarian Southern Baptist with "God is a Republican" mudflaps any one of those ICTHUS-eating-Darwin's-fish insignias on his souped-up monster truck.

Brian be true to your inner self!!

Considering the bloggers like Dean Esmay who have recieved death threats, and like Kate at Electric Venom who had child protective services called on her, I'm very happy with my decision to remain anonymous.

I've looked at Juan's posts, and one would have to have very thin skin to call them insulting. Gentlemanly comes to mind.

Yours,
Wince

I'd like to hear from UT Law students or anyone else who has met Professor Leiter in person: in the real world, face-to-face, does he act like the same person who makes the postings on his blog?

hes nice in person in my experience

Crank,
Unless I'm totally misunderstanding your argument, it seems kind of funny to use "argument from authority" as a pejorative when dealing with lawyers.

"His rhetorical style can be overheated at times ..." Another Anon Prof

Still, the primary subject is outting someone who has chosen, like yourself, to remain anonymous within certain, not all, forums.

Re, the subsidiary subject, your response to that is an understatement of enormous proportions, regardless of any other, contrasting merits.

Re, the perceived need for non-tenured professors to either seek anonymity or otherwise carefully craft their responses in various fora perhaps reflects an all too real concern about ideological/political bias in all too many academic settings? Could Leiter's own heat in this area, even conceivably in your opinion, be cause for such a perception?

One might look forward to your reply, and if anonymity continues to be opted for, most would respect that choice.

This is neither here nor there (well, now it's here), but there's a spoof blogger who recently took square aim at Leiter's blogging habits:

The ORIGINAL Leiter Reports
I forgot to point out a funny thing(memory) about Brian Leiter of the incommensible Leiter Reports . I already mentioned how we went to highschool together but I didnt' say the best part. I don't knwo why this didn't occur to me earlier but its rather ironic that he would of ended up found his way into doing Leiter Reports when, afterall. He was did the exact same stuff when were in highschool together! In a way it is SO like him :):):)

Let me explain alittle about waht I mean. At my high school there were these things we use to call cleeks. There was cool kids. Not so cool kids. Band geeks. Drama weirdos. Jocks. Others. Within these cleeks(and without) there was also lots of Hierarchys. (This is where some better then other's- some on the rise some on the fall- some pretty some not-ect)

Brian (he use to sit in fron of me in US history AP) was fascainated by all these differing's rankings. (See where Im' headed). He use to like to analyze the different social structure's of the highschool (a VERY mathematical/anaytical mind). And I would hear about it from him a lot before class. "Last year Tamika was more popular then Sharon but this year I think Sharon has passed her by". "Kim lost her boyfriend and ever since- popularity down the tube's". "Two year's ago I'd of never thought Russell would be popular but ever since he went out for water polo". Et cetera. I even got the ranking's of my self(not going to say what they were-Privacy issue's).

Unfortunately. The popular kids didn't relly like Brian be so observeant like this. (I think they just self conscious). He use to get put in garbage cans. Once duct taped to a pole(the flagpole no less-add insult to injury). There was the time he was tied up(tape over mouth/hands behind back/legs) and put in the girls lockerrom shower. It was something bad(I use to fell sorry for him- thats why I would listen to his ranking's). But he used his BRAIN to overcome because this is why he joined the football team. He explained to me that by his calculation's it was the most optimal way to improve his Popularity.

But so Brian perservered. "This is information people need" he use to say. He would half the time tell me his new rankings(at some point it became alittle newsletter he started typing/distribute from his Mac himself at own cost-because school newspaper wouldn't allow) and spend the other half the time tell me why his rankings so important/useful for people to have. I kind of admire him for this. he RELLY took it seriously.

So you see? Looking back (in retroscept) I now realize that these were the very ORIGINAL Leiter Reports. (He didn't call it this. He called it something liek "Brian's Picks - Whose Hot whose not".

The format was something different(he had many many different categories- Best Dressed Girl, Buffest Guy, Biggest Party Hardier ect) but its amazing to see how all the basic ingredients were there. Who would know that he would grow up to do the same type of thing for a living. Its helarious/charming in a way(Like end of Animal house where you see what they do when they grow up). It makes total sense the more you thing about it.

Professor Leiter is an embittered, left-wing geek, who now poses as an academic bully, while running his daily "gossip" column on which professor, gets which job, blah, blah, blah. Pure inside baseball, that no sane man would ever care about.

The irony, though, is that he may well be a good professor at Texas -- but he is hostile and petty on the internet, particularly to academic types who cross his path, espousing differing viewpoints.

I do not think piling on Professor Leiter is what Eugene had in mind when he opened comments.

Yours,
Wince

Wince and Nod is right. The issue here is blogging etiquette and norms, not what you think about the personality of a particular blogger.

That's the thing that strikes me as odd. From the comments on his blog (not the ego-stroking e-mails he posts), from his bio on the UT website, and from various other snippets of information, it seems like he's generous with his students and the type of mentor that any student would be lucky to have. From his scholarship, he seems like a model scholar... (though I don't know enough about Dworkin to know whether this is a cogent critique or a rant dressed up as scholarship)....

... yet on his blog he comes across as the nastiest person alive who holds down a stable intellectual job. It's beyond merely "sardonic." People who disagree with him are not just wrong, overly simplistic, or have differing priorities... they're illiterate, dishonest, criminals, or worse.

on what Prof. Volokh had in mind, "I will let you folks be the judges of whether this is good behavior on Prof. Leiter's part" is probably as much of an invitation to pile on as I'd seen.

The theme of etiquette and decorous manners in various fora certainly has the potential to be a fruitful one, it could certainly open up some penetrating depths, not all of which and perhaps not many of which, would be to the liking of someone like Leiter.

Based on some recent posts, which avoid answering recent germane and probative questions, I'll nominate Leiter for warm and fuzzy person of the decade. Let us allow Leiter the undiminsihed due of his high office and his cloistered sanctum; let us allow him to seek to out any one he cares - regardless of the petty and trite motives involved - while using any means he cares to utilize - hypocritically or otherwise; let us regard his pious vocation in a manner that accords with his and others profession of the same and not in accordance with his sundry demonstrations to the contrary. We should all be humbled and thankful, while invoking vows of mortification of our wayward tendencies, to be graced by such an eminence, regardless of the evidence we needs must turn a blind eye to. Let us, with acts of humble contrition and renewed convictions to further blot this sinly stain from our hearts and minds, proceed to honor this eminence in a manner that is, clearly, his due.

Of civility, decorous manners and behavior and etiquette and hard-won tolerance more broadly conceived, let it be taught by Leiter by example and demonstration.

Leiter has never threatened to destroy anyone's career, as far as I know -- and I have followed the Pejman, Ciolli, Van Dyke, and Non-Volokh affairs fairly closely.

He has attacked stupid arguments, to be sure; but always on their merits. And he has criticized writers for their obtuseness, laziness, or argumentative dishonesty. I find his honesty refreshing. I particularly like his way of ridiculing the blogosphere's tendency to applaud the "interesting perspective."

Is it really fair to ask Leiter, an academic with an acute intellect and a well-earned scholarly reputation, to abstain from expressing his opinions about dishonest or stupid arguments because his expression of his opinion could harm the careers of people who make such stupid or dishonest arguments?

If Leiter is taken so seriously in academia that his views could harm people's careers, isn't that an indication that other academics regard his views as having merit? And if other academics regard his views as having merit, what is the point of encouraging Leiter to withhold or tone down his criticisms?

If his attacks are really so baseless as Leiter's detractors seem to think, it would seem that the scholarly community could be trusted to arrive at this conclusion collectively, and thus discount his attacks on Van Dyke, Non-Volokh, etc.

someone who knows Leiter,

Your reverence, in the spirit of asking for but one more bowl of soup, may I, kindly sir, humble articulator that I am, beseech your revered and rightly esteemed attention concerning your recent estimable declaration:

Absolutely hilarious! What a studied, impenetrable, self-regarding articulation of the very self-serving pieties, in part, I was mocking. You've certainly plumbed the shallows of solipsistic arrogations, reflections and refractions. Absolutely perfect. "Perfect" because, seemingly, you're not even aware of it.

Adieu.

"someone who knows Leiter," I cannot understand how you can say both that you are familiar with the VanDyke incident and that Leiter never threatened anyone:

The author of this incompetent book note, according to this site, is one Lawrence VanDyke, a student editor of the Review. Mr. VanDyke may yet have a fine career as a lawyer, but I trust he has no intention of entering law teaching: scholarly fraud is, I fear, an inauspicious beginning for an aspiring law teacher. And let none of the many law professors who are readers of this site be mistaken: Mr. VanDyke has perpetrated (intentionally or otherwise) a scholarly fraud, one that may have political and pedagogical consequences.

However let's put VanDyke aside for now. You say that Leiter "has attacked stupid arguments, to be sure; but always on their merit." You also claim to be familiar with the Ciolli incident. How, pray tell, did Leiter attack Ciolli's note on its merits? Leiter never addressed the note's content, except briefly in the middle of his defamatory rant where he acknowledged (in passing) that Ciolli's work was better than his own. Instead of addressing the merits of Ciolli's research, Leiter anonymously emailed Eugene Volokh (funny in retrospect given his attack on Juan Non-Volokh's anonymity) the day the note was supposed to be released and attempted to have him bring down Ciolli for him. When this failed, Leiter attacked Ciolli's character, implied that he is a racist, and then threatened him with a lawsuit and disciplinary action. Once again, how exactly was this an attack on the merits?

It's one thing for Leiter to throw a temper tantrum over one individual. While his reaction to VanDyke was highly inappropriate given the power differential between them, one such incident can be overlooked. However, it was not an isolated incident, but a string of abuse against multiple individuals who did nothing to provoke him. Cherniss. Bernstein. Pejman. Heck. Reynolds. Sachs. Buck. Drezner. VanDyke. Ciolli. Non-Volokh. These are not "obtuse," "lazy," or "argumentatively dishonest" individuals, but victims of an internet bully who, for whatever reason, prefers threats and junior high insults to civil discourse.

Anonymous:

I fail to see, in your quote from Leiter's post, how he threatened Van Dyke. How can Leiter's characterization of Van Dyke's work as "scholarly fraud" be deemed a threat? Is merely registering an opinion a threat, in your view? Furthermore, how is a "power differential," between Leiter and someone with whom he is arguing, relevant to this discussion at all? May he only argue with holders of named chairs at elite law schools? May he only argue with tenured professors? Or may he, in your view, condescend to argue with untenured, but tenure-stream, professors (or would that constitute abuse of the "power differential"?)?

Commenters:

I don't understand the obsession you have with Leiter's supposed lack of civility. You accuse him of "temper tantrums," "slim[ing]," "trash[ing]," "cheap and empty rhetoric," "character assassination," etc. -- but you haven't given a single example of these sins. Rather, all the incidents to which you point, are disputes over ideas of great consequence. Leiter, more than just about anyone in the blogosphere, treats ideas with the seriousness they deserve -- he points out, almost daily, how intellectual dishonesty translates into carnage abroad. He holds people accountable when they treat dangerous ideas as simply "interesting perspectives."

And as much as you may hate his ideas, at the very least you should be thanking him for not writing under a pseudonym, so you have someone real and identifiable to attack. Just curious: does the fact that he maintains such high professional standing, when you find him so obviously loathsome, vicious and reprehensible, cause you to question the truth of your assessment of him?

Someone who knows Leiter:

Not even Leiter agrees with your assessment that he doesn't trash opponents. Leiter himself acknowledges it and has tries to defend his practice. If Leiter's own concession isn't good enough for you, then please visit his blog and count up the number of "imbeciles" and "morons," etc. he slings when he disagrees.

In answer to your last question, my answer is "assumes facts not in evidence." Leiter's not loathesome; he's a provocateur who, for whatever reason, relishes being the object of attention and anger. It's an odd psychology, but "to each his own," I guess.

Of course, his approach to public discussion yields far, far more heat than light and, obviously, has left many people angry and even bitter. Now you please tell me, what good is being a learned philosopher is that is your your behavior?

You accuse him of "temper tantrums," "slim[ing]," "trash[ing]," "cheap and empty rhetoric," "character assassination," etc. -- but you haven't given a single example of these sins.

Okay, Someone Who Knows Leiter, where to start? This site has a great set of links to all of Leiter's various personal attacks. The one I remember in particular was his ridiculous dismissal of Dan Drezner.

For what it's worth, Leiter's critique of Ciolli was spot-on.

About their actual study, he had this to say:

I'm not sure I follow the relevance of Mr. Sanderson's reference to Mr. Ciolli's "law school study"--which I take it means the item referenced in his post on Volokh's site on Friday. I have only glanced at this lengthy document, but it appears to be not only more "thorough" than anything I've done, it looks more "thorough" than anything I've ever seen on this topic. Without having studied the methodology carefully, I can say that it strikes me as an especially useful feature of this survey that it breaks down job placement success at elite firms by region of the country, which may ultimately be far more useful information for prospective law students than "national" placement per se. So kudos to Mr. Ciolli for his hard work on this project, which will no doubt be appreciated by many law school applicants.

Quote is here. This isn't character assassination at all, nor is it the slanderous tirade in response to a competing study that Ciolli et al try to paint it as here.


About their board, he rightly calls Ciolli et al out for providing a forum for the worst aspects of what used to be on the Princeton Review site. Some of the stuff on there is truly disgusting, which Leiter says reflects badly on the webmasters, and which Leiter says is cause for them to moderate their site. As swkL seems to have suggested, the loudest of Leiter's detractors seem to be the targets of his skewering. If there wasn't a nugget of truth in his skewerings, maybe they wouldn't provoke the response they do...?

I commend JNV for enabling comments as a step to mitigating the drawbacks to blogging anonymously. Not having a mechanism to respond is one of the shortcomings. I do not believe searching thru "about" pages to find an e-mail is the same. The communication flow becomes private at that point.

I believe it is bad taste to out someone against their wishes. If there are truly outrageous or threatening statements, perhaps, but certainly not for disagreements.

That being said, you should not be deluded into thinking you have any privacy. It has been shown many times that discovering someone's identity is not that hard. It's a good guidline to never post anything you would be embarassed to have attributed to you.

Would anyone care to offer odds on whether "someone who knows Leiter" is actually Brian Leiter himself, posting under a pseudonym?

Nick

My guess is that every one of us thinks that there are some moral and political views the acceptance or defense of which shows the author to be vicious. I doubt that Leiter should be faulted on that score.

Do you realize that this isn't primarily why people dislike Leiter's online persona? People dislike Leiter because he is often simply very rude and dismissive. Other people can seriously disagree about major issues and yet carry on an amicable discussion. Leiter seems far less capable of this, at least online.

"My guess is that every one of us thinks that there are some moral and political views the acceptance or defense of which shows the author to be vicious." Anon

"And as much as you may hate his ideas ..." someone who knows leiter

Having read most of the comments I noticed none that would fall within this category. Where do these statements come from? In fact these insinuations (which is what they are, as they misdirect and usurp rather than illuminate anything that is actually being discussed) reveal something of the presumption of the commenters, not the subject matter per se.

Too, it's interesting how so many choose to remain Anonymous, one of the focal points of the discussion, without at all addressing that subject vis-a-vis Leiter himself. Revealing, but not at all in the manner intended.

http://www.autoadmit.com/leiter.html

Has there been any clarification on how much of that is accurate and how much is not?

While both sides could have dialed it down a notch, for me it goes back to JNOV's statement that Leiter "did not equate" the Bush Administration to Nazi Germany, but he "certainly suggests an equivalence" between the opponents of the two. This is a rhetorical trick where one denies saying the very thing they are saying - along the same lines as "I'm not saying X is a traitor, but he certainly seems to be on the other side."

What does it mean to "certainly suggest an equivalence" between two things? I have no idea, unless it means "to use both of them in the same sentence." What the original proponents of Godwin's Law failed to account for is that not only does comparing someone to the Nazis automatically end reasoned debate, but claiming that someone has made a comparison to the Nazis automatically ends reasoned debate as well, regardless of whether the claim is true or false.

The implication is clear. We must either decree that no one may ever mention the Nazis in a sentence again, or we must make a ruling that anyone who falsely claims that a comparison to the Nazis has been made violates Godwin's Law himself and has lost the argument. Because it becomes quite boring watching every single argument degenerate in the exact same way.

I'm surprised to see men, and particularly men who have been educated as lawyers, involved in such petty bickering and cat-fighting. I've not seen this kind of nonsense since I was a teenage girl trying to survive nasty backbiting "clique girls." This is embarrassing.