The Volokh Conspiracy

Is the problem pointed out by Tamanaha and acknowledged by Adler a consequence, in part, of increasing diversity? I.e., when just about everybody in the relevant academic community was white and male and ranged from moderately liberal to moderately conservative (say, the law schools before about 1970), maybe harsh critical comments were more likely to be accepted as doctrinal and not personal criticism. Now, it's harder to know what might be taken personally. That is not, btw, meant as an argument against increased diversity in the legal academy or anywhere else. Undoubtedly there were plenty of other pressures toward self-censorship in the less diverse past. But increased blandness of the sort lamented by Tamanaha is (maybe) a cost of diversity.

It seems to me that among academics who wish to follow the "If you can't saying anything nice..." maxim there should be a different standard for review books/articles that are poorly written versus books/articles that express a view with which the academic disagrees. If an article is poorly written, then I can see an academic not wanting to publicly embarrass the author and instead sending a private note with his concerns. But if the article merely expresses an idea the academic disagrees with, then I see no reason why a relationship would be harmed by critiquing the idea in a respectful/professional manner.

"Academic integrity" is the end that the protections of "academic freedom" are supposed to serve. If academia is less than whole-heartedly committed to "academic integrity," then the case for "academic freedom" is correspondingly weaker. That said, declining to write a negative review of a colleague's book because of a personal relationship, what is often referred to as "backscratching," as in "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours," is surely a venial academic sin against "academic integrity." Much greater ones go on protected by "academic freedom, some of them rising to the academic equivalent of mortal sin.

Richard Riley sees "blandness" as a possible cost of "increasing diversity," though he doesn't elaborate how the latter might bring about the former. Might academic environments that are today more politicized than in the past account for decreasing diversity of the sort that is most important to "academic integrity", that is intellectual diversity, with both bland and very not bland consequences? The coercive pressures in those environments are of more concern than the timeless social ones Tamanaha admits to buckling under.

What is so exceptional about someone not wanting to criticize a friend publicly about something that has litle direct impact, except to the friend? IIf he had said that he was a prosecutor who could not bring himself to prosecute a felon with whom he was on good terms, this would be a different story.)

That this is considered a subject worth discussing says more about the current academic environment than about Prof. Tamanaha.

Again, I don't get it. While I feel many of the same urges, it is possible to write a book review that is very respectful in tone and yet makes some trenchant criticisms in substance. I have done this (and had it done to me) with absolutely zero negative consequence for the friendship.

Is the more cautious, respectful tone any violation of academic integrity? I don't see that.

A couple of thoughts.

I think the concern about grade inflation is sometimes justified, sometimes not. But we should be careful not to create artificial hierarchies based on too much subjective evaluation either. (As someone who has benefitted from academic hierarchies, this goes against my own self-interest, by the way.)

As a liberal, if I am forced to grade on a curve and give someone bad grades based on subjective judgment, who do you think I will be tempted to give bad grades too? People I want to be in positions of influence (i.e. liberals) or people I do not (i.e. conservatives or libertarians)?

It is kind of funny that conservatives and libertarians are such strong advocates of policies that put people like me in a position of putting people like them at a disadvantage due to differences in subjective perspective. And believe me, when it comes to writing, there is the objectively good, bad, and ugly. But the things in between, well, the lines are not always so clear.

What is a conservative to do? Write what they really think and potentially damage their grade and future job prospects, or shut up and thus lower the quality of academic discourse. It seems to me, that even conservatives with principled tendencies may very well choose their own futures and job prospects over a chance to have (at this stage in their life) a very minor impact on academic discourse.

Are conservatives and libertarians so devoted to hierarchies, that they seek to institute them even when artificial and even when it goes agains their own interests? Even if such forced and artificial hiearchies mean they end up somewhere at the bottom? Or perhaps it is only elite conservatives and libertarians who take this view, as this problem has no chance of impacting them, since they have already "made it" if you will.

In my view, I think we should be a little wary of these hierarchies that are the product of such criticism. Adler correctly notes that withholding criticism for reasons of collegiality is superficial and making deep criticisms is, well, deep. But, one should not forget that much of the reputation damage that one suffers later and over time from deep criticisms may be superficial, but nonetheless burdensome.

It would be nice to live in a world where criticism presented more of an opportunity to improve, and less a matter of cementing one's position in a hierarchy. If the consequences of criticism (and bad grades) were less, then perhaps we would not have to be as circumspect in giving people that sort of feedback. Alas, it is not only the hurt feelings of the person criticized that we must concern ourselves with, but the reputational damage and stigma that they endure and which may be much longer lasting and beyond our own control. All things considered, the costs of such reputational damage and stigma may outweigh the value of otherwise valid criticism.

I'm curious about the commenters who suggest that it's always possible to write a respectful review of a book while retaining one's honesty/integrity. I think it happens fairly often that a book is poorly put together, shows a poor understanding of the debate the author seeks to enter, that very little positive can be said, and that the reviewer has no honest choice but to write a fairly scathing review.

For example, suppose someone wants to write a book saying that there must have been life on Mars. If that person shows a grasp of the scientific evidence out there, pulls it together in a coherent way, talks about what yet-to-be found evidence may be discovered in the near future to substantiate his claim, then I can imagine someone who--though utterly unconvinced--could write a respectful review along the lines of "people arguing for life on Mars have an uphill climb, but X has made the most convincing case yet. Though it is not likely to change anyone's mind, it is a must-read for anyone who is interested in the questions. Here is why I remain unconvinced, though....."

Suppose, on the other hand, that someone tries to make the same argument, but does so based on only a superficial understanding of the science, is demonstrably wrong on many of the facts he asserts, and doesn't seem to have understood many of the sources on which he relies. What could someone in Tamanaha's shoes write with any honesty?

I appreciate Tamanaha's post, for all of the reasons Prof. Adler gives. It's stuff like this that makes me think that Brian Leiter gets a bad rap with the bloggers. Civility is generally a virtue, but not an unconditional one, and as Tamanaha points out, it can sometimes conflict with one's "duty" as an academic. I'm a bit curious as to why some commenters seem to deny the conflict.

Viscus makes an interesting point about the relationship of criticism and hierarchies. Academic politics certainly adds a dimension to this. But I would note that Professor Tamanaha is tenured, and I think that the pressure he might feel w/r/t the "hierarchy" is at least somewhat separate from the point he raised in his Balkinization post. I don't think he's saying that he goes easy on his colleagues because he's afraid that it might cost him a professional opportunity down the road. His own career doesn't seem to enter into his calculus at all. Rather, he seems to feel that there's some sort of "harshness" line that academics ought not cross w/r/t each other's work, and he's become rather gun-shy about it.

On the "Federal Dog" thing, well, it's best to ignore comments you think so little of. If one thinks that the schools are all "echo chambers" churning out scholarship only to appease the sources of their funding, then there's no point in talking about this subject at all.

anonVCfan writes:

Professor Tamanaha is tenured, and I think that the pressure he might feel w/r/t the "hierarchy" is at least somewhat separate from the point he raised in his Balkinization post.

Yes, but for precisely this reason, he may be concerned about the reputational effects his criticism will have on a colleague. The point is, it would be nice to be able to criticize someone without thinking that you might be harming their careers. I am sure that is pure fantasy, but it would be nice.

Viscus, Does it occur to you that in attacking me for lack of evidence, you are more than a little irony-impaired? All your have offered here is an opposing view -- completely unsupported by evidence.

You are free to disagree with me, but after twenty-four years in the academy, I stand by my words. And I am obviously not alone.

Since the substantive discussion on this thread seems to have died, I'll respond to comments.

1. "VC" stands for "Volokh Conspiracy," not "Viscus." It's a stupid name, but I've left enough comments here that anyone who reads this thread regularly has probably figured this out.

2. By "same advice" I mean that it's probably best to ignore comments that you think are out of line rather than debating them on things like grammar.

3. By my comments on "Princeton" I meant that I didn't read Viscus as implying that he/she/it went to Princeton. Here's another shot at "plainspeak."

This is the statement. "As someone who supposedly went to Princeton, I find you intellectually lacking." I think the "someone" could either refer to the "I" in the sentence or the "you." In context, I think it refers to the "you." If that's not plain enough, I give up, because the point's not really worth debating.

4. Federal Dog, the statement that "I stand by my words" rings hollow when you don't give your name. To "stand by" one's words, to me, implies attaching your name and/or your reputation to them. To say that "Federal Dog" stands by its words is just silly. I appreciate the irony implicit in me remaining anonymous, but then I haven't said that I "stand by" anything.

I'm well aware of what a dangling participle is. I assumed, based on your question, that you weren't.

I'm aware that Federal Dog wasn't talking to me.

I'm not familiar enough with Princeton's admissions policies to state confidently that only males and females have ever attended Princeton. We have a Federal Dog and a disembodied heart commenting on this thread.