Law professors routinely thank lots of people in their thank-you notes (generally the introductory footnote that also mentions the author's affiliation, e-mail address, and the like). I've often heard the argument that authors try to use these thank-you's to impress readers, and especially law review editors: Citing lots of Big Guns in the thank you note, the theory goes, allows the author to shine in the Big Guns' reflected glory, on the theory that if the author thanks Akhil Amar, Charles Fried, and so on, he must be at least a Medium-Sized Gun himself.
I've always been skeptical of that theory, which strikes me as unduly cynical. I have nothing against cynicism if it's justified, but here I don't see much of a justification. A thank-you note doesn't show that the thanked people read the article, or even that they know the author well. If you go up to Amar or Fried or nearly any other scholar at a conference and ask them a brief question related to your research interests, they're likely to answer it: It's the polite thing to do, plus most scholars are genuinely interested in answering listeners' questions, and flattered to be asked for advice. And if the answer is helpful, then the author could (and even should) thank the answerer for the help.
So the thank-you note reflects nothing other than that the author has gotten some small help from the person being thanked. Readers know that, and authors know that readers know that, so there is little reason to think that authors are including the thank-you's to impress readers.
But there are of course two other reasons for the long thank-you's: First, thanking someone who has helped you, even slightly, is the right thing to do; and even if it's not clear that the help was more than de minimis, we are usually (and sensibly) taught to err on the side of thanking too many people than thanking too little.
Second, if you don't thank someone, you risk their being annoyed by the absence of thanks; and even if you think they didn't help you much, they may well remember the matter differently. Most people, especially the Big Guns, aren't going to care about whether they're thanked (except when they've contributed a great deal), and many aren't even going to remember that they talked to the author about the subject. But if there's even a small chance that failing to thank people will annoy them, it's again safer to err on the side of overthanking rather than underthanking.
So no need for cynicism here, I think: Though article authors will do lots of things to impress readers and law review editors, thanking others is so unlikely to be impressive that I doubt that it's being done (even partly) to impress. Good manners and fear are quite adequate to explain the presence of the practice.
But, as an empirical explanation concerning the motives of authors including the "Big Guns" in thank-you notes, I think Volokh's argument is lacking. I am sure that the argument is correct for those authors that think the same way as Volokh. His argument is sufficient to justify a liberal and inclusive thank-you note policy. But, I also think it is highly unlikely that every author thinks the same way about thank-you notes. There are probably authors out there who are trying to impress law review editors with this approach, perhaps thinking it is an effective strategy, even if, as Volokh argues, it is actually not. The problem with Volokh's argument is that he assumes that authors are (1) rational, (2) have perfect information concerning how law review editors will assess thank-you notes (i.e. know that editors are not going to be impressed by thank-you notes including "Big Guns"), and (3) have fully thought out their thank-you note strategy beyond "Thanking a 'Big Gun' might help me get published, so I will do it."
Those are all problematic assumptions to make. These assumptions are true for only a subset of authors.
Jake: I'm pretty sure that I didn't say anything different in my Academic Legal Writing book, but if I did, I'd love to hear it so I can correct things in the next edition.
Charles A. Sullivan, The Under-Theorized Asterisk Footnote, 93 Geo. L. J. 1093 (2005).
I like that the author calls it not an Article or an Essay but rather an "Aside."
"Georgetown seems a friendlier place than Harvard in another respect: student authors frequently *1109 thank their peers on the Law Journal.
Thus, any serious study of dedications in legal scholarship must look beyond Harvard; a preliminary survey suggests the field is rich, and untilled. For example, dedications to animals are not as uncommon as one might think. A surprising number of asterisk footnotes dedicate the article to the author's pets (sometimes posthumously--the pet, that is, not the author), [FN82] although I do not include in this count the occasional reference to toons like Bugs Bunny. [FN83] A quick and dirty empirical study suggests interesting possibilities in exploring dedications and acknowledgments of what might be described as nonacademic assistance. [FN84] The asterisk footnote often also thanks and acknowledges a wide variety of individuals whose support for the author is more generalized than reading drafts. For example, “God” is thanked 172 times, although “Allah” only twice. Relatives (by blood, marriage, civil union, domestic partnership) also *1110 appear frequently, [FN85] and a “Christmas uncle” appears once. [FN86] To what extent the asterisk footnote contributed to the gay rights movement by publicizing and legitimizing gay relationships is another area to be explored.
....
Is the asterisk footnote and its ever expanding list of acknowledgements and conference presentations a response to this cold, hard reality? Clearly, more asteriskian work needs to be done in this area."
Don't laugh--that's what actually happens. Such a "thank you" is entirely rational in getting selected for publication.
Former Law Review Editor: Really? You thought that (1) Larry Tribe had to have read the article to be thanked for his help, and (2) Tribe's willingness to read the article was a proxy for its quality? Can you tell us a little more about why you thought this?
i think it makes sense; i wouldn't 'thank' someone if you just asked someone at a conference regarding an idea, but if someone has actually read your work, it is appropriate to thank them.
also, arguments (or counterarguments) to an article may be drawn from those who have commented on that article. i have added 20 pages to an article that i'm working on now solely in response to those who have commented on my draft -- I think it's appropriate to comment on the source of the arguments I address.
additionally, if you slam another author's argument, I think it's good to let that author comment on your piece; shows that the article is interested in good-spirited academic debate.
Let's argue this the Eugene Volokh way:
The fact that people think authors thank Big Guns in order to impress law review editors strongly implies that those same people or people like them think there is something about mentioning a Big Gun that might impress a law review editor.
If some of those people are in fact law review editors, then at least some law review editors will be impressed by a thank you to a Big Gun. I'm not saying that every law review editor will, but the experience of Former Law Review Editor (above) proves that at least some law review editors are impressed. Accordingly, it makes sense that at least some authors, aware that at least some editors will be impressed by Big Guns, will be tempted to make an acknowledgment to a BG even if the BG's contribution was virtually nonexistent. Therefore, it is likely that the cynical view of BG thank yous is justified in at least some circumstances.
To me, acknowledging a one-minute conversation about an article at a conference smacks of obsequiousness. I don't think myself stingy with acknowledging help but there is some minimum level of substantive input that must be reached. The question I would put to an author who thanks a BG under those circumstances is whether he or she has mentioned every other individual with whom he had a similar interaction. If not, the BG mention is suspect.
I myself thought this. Indeed, until reading this post, it never occurred to me that thank-you footnotes were meant to include anyone who had spoken to the author for a brief moment at a conference. I assumed that authors wouldn't thank anyone unless that person had read the article thoroughly and provided extensive comments. Eugene -- one of the reasons I thought this, ironically, is because about 5 years ago, I read one of your drafts and made two or three written comments; but wasn't thanked in the footnote, nor did I expect to be. I figured that the people you thanked had done something more substantial. But if the footnote is supposed to thank anyone and everyone, including people who didn't even read the article at all -- whoa, what gives? :)
Anyway, if the typical 2L assumes that anyone who is thanked took the time to read the article and provide extensive comments, then it's rational to assume that if Larry Tribe or Dick Posner are thanked, it must be because they thought the article was worth their time (which is otherwise in high demand). Hence, the article must be worth something.
Stuart and FLRE hit upon the essential point: EV's knowledge regarding thank-you notes is not equivalent to very bright 2L's knowledge regarding thank-you notes, and thus not very relevant to the issue at hand. Indeed, even EV-as-2L's knowledge is only marginally relevant, since it represents only a single data point.
Is the average 2L like Stuart Buck or like EV? Who knows? We can say that all you need is one naive 2L in the right place -- and that there are/were at least 3 out there* -- and you've secured a competitive advantage for yourself.
*I certainly had no idea regarding this point as a 2L and, although it certainly doesn't surprise me today, I didn't even think about the matter until EV posted.
"Law professors routinely thank lots of people in their thank-you notes (generally the introductory footnote that also mentions the author's affiliation, e-mail address, and the like). I've often heard the argument that authors try to use these thank-you's to impress readers, and especially law review editors: Citing lots of Big Guns in the thank you note, the theory goes, allows the author to shine in the Big Guns' reflected glory, on the theory that if the author thanks Akhil Amar, Charles Fried, and so on, he must be at least a Medium-Sized Gun himself.
"I've always been skeptical of that theory, which strikes me as unduly cynical. I have nothing against cynicism if it's justified, but here I don't see much of a justification."
</blockquote>
Why do well-educated people conflate cynicism with egotism? There's no connection between the two.