Thoughts on Steven M. Teles, "The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement":
I recently finished Steven M. Teles's new book, "The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement," and I thought the VC audience might be interested in hearing about it. The book is a work of political science that looks at the major institutions within the conservative legal movement and tries to explain what makes them successful — or, in some cases, why they are not as successful as planned. You can read the introduction here, and see the Table of Contents here.
The book's starting premise is that 30 years ago, when all of the major legal institutions were left/liberal, conservative and libertarian activists set about trying to create conservative/libertarian institutions to counter them. The book focuses heavily on what Teles sees as the leading institutions that have resulted, such as The Federalist Society, the Institute for Justice, the Center for Individual Rights, law school centers of law & economics (many funded by Olin), and George Mason University Law School. Teles' interest is in how these organizations got off the ground, what makes them successful, and what role they play. Much of the book is drawn from interviews with the founders and directors of these various institutions; Teles also draws a great deal from access he was given to their historical files.
I found several parts of the book quite interesting, but the most interesting to me were the parts on the Federalist Society (p135-180) and George Mason University Law School (p207-219). On the Federalist Society, Teles argues persuasively that the key to its influence is in hosting a "big tent" that is open to a wide range of conservative and libertarian ideas. As Teles tells it, the Federalist Society is influential because provides a way for dispersed conservative and libertarian law students and lawyers to identify each other, get to know each other, and to establish an intellectual identity apart from the left/liberal views that tend to dominate the law schools. Teles also argues that the key to the Society's role is that it hosts debates rather than takes positions; this enables a wide range of different views to feel at home, while also focusing attention on the long-term development of ideas.
The coverage of George Mason University Law School was fascinating in part because I knew little of the school's unusual history. Teles explains that the new George Mason University in Virginia had started a law school (in 1979) by picking up a low-ranked local law school in DC. In an effort to create a stronger law school, the University later hired law and economics scholar Henry Manne to be the new Dean of the school and gave him unusual powers to create the law school he wanted. As Teles tells it, the law school became Henry Manne's project to build a law school entirely around a libertarian vision based heavily on law and economics:
I don't expect this book to become a best-seller; it's a serious work of political science, not a pop history. And of course the arguments Teles makes are certainly open to debate -- I'd be particularly interested in hearing from my Mason-based co-bloggers on whether they thought the coverage of Mason was accurate and/or fair. But on the whole I think this is a pretty interesting read for those who either are a part of or are just generally interested in the particular institutions that Teles is describing.
The book's starting premise is that 30 years ago, when all of the major legal institutions were left/liberal, conservative and libertarian activists set about trying to create conservative/libertarian institutions to counter them. The book focuses heavily on what Teles sees as the leading institutions that have resulted, such as The Federalist Society, the Institute for Justice, the Center for Individual Rights, law school centers of law & economics (many funded by Olin), and George Mason University Law School. Teles' interest is in how these organizations got off the ground, what makes them successful, and what role they play. Much of the book is drawn from interviews with the founders and directors of these various institutions; Teles also draws a great deal from access he was given to their historical files.
I found several parts of the book quite interesting, but the most interesting to me were the parts on the Federalist Society (p135-180) and George Mason University Law School (p207-219). On the Federalist Society, Teles argues persuasively that the key to its influence is in hosting a "big tent" that is open to a wide range of conservative and libertarian ideas. As Teles tells it, the Federalist Society is influential because provides a way for dispersed conservative and libertarian law students and lawyers to identify each other, get to know each other, and to establish an intellectual identity apart from the left/liberal views that tend to dominate the law schools. Teles also argues that the key to the Society's role is that it hosts debates rather than takes positions; this enables a wide range of different views to feel at home, while also focusing attention on the long-term development of ideas.
The coverage of George Mason University Law School was fascinating in part because I knew little of the school's unusual history. Teles explains that the new George Mason University in Virginia had started a law school (in 1979) by picking up a low-ranked local law school in DC. In an effort to create a stronger law school, the University later hired law and economics scholar Henry Manne to be the new Dean of the school and gave him unusual powers to create the law school he wanted. As Teles tells it, the law school became Henry Manne's project to build a law school entirely around a libertarian vision based heavily on law and economics:
Henry Manne's project of building George Mason University law School (GMUSL) represented a very different approach to influencing the legal academy — building an alternative institution from the bottom up rather than influencing the legal academy from the top down. While the Olin programs [of law and economics at elite schools] represented a "Fabian" strategy of slowly burrowing into mainstream institutions, GMUSL followed a "Gramscian" approach of creating a parallel institution where more libertarian professors could hone their ideas without the compromises associated with elite institutions. [p.207]Teles contends that this experiment is moderately successful so far, although to some extent the jury is still out. On one hand, the law school has stayed largely true to its original vision, and it has made "impressive achievements" with its faculty and the U.S. News Rankings. On the the other hand, Teles contends that it's too early to say if Mason will establish itself fully as a counter to liberal institutions (and especially, more elite ones). I gather three of my co-bloggers will have some thoughts on that.
I don't expect this book to become a best-seller; it's a serious work of political science, not a pop history. And of course the arguments Teles makes are certainly open to debate -- I'd be particularly interested in hearing from my Mason-based co-bloggers on whether they thought the coverage of Mason was accurate and/or fair. But on the whole I think this is a pretty interesting read for those who either are a part of or are just generally interested in the particular institutions that Teles is describing.
Related Posts (on one page):
- The Biggest Weakness of Conservative and Libertarian Public Interest Law:
- Interview with Institute for Justice President Chip Mellor:
- Steve Teles Responds:
- Conservative and Libertarian Public Interest Law:
- The Rise of Libertarian and Conservative Public Interest Law:
- Steven Teles' The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement:
- The Influence of the Olin Programs in Law and Economics at Yale Law School and Otherwise:
- Teles's The Rise of The Conservative Legal Movement:
- Thoughts on Steven M. Teles, "The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement":
The book was just published two weeks ago; I'll e-mail you the contact to request a review copy.
The pop history is interesting to read; and the serious work is written by either:
1. A jr faculty or post grad student who writes dry as hell and is carefully throwing props to anyone in the field who could affect the career while at the same time pimping those same profs theories and staying well the heck away from whatever might piss off the [black or hispanic or womyn's] studies department; or
2. A sr faculty who writes dry as hell and is carefully defending his career long theories and staying well the heck away from whatever might piss off the [black or hispanic or womyn's] studies department.
If you only turned down acceptance at only two higher ranking schools, you probably really aren't that competitive. That you find your experience at GMU law to be subjectively challenging or that you think your peers are smart probably does not say much. It doesn't seem to me that you are very much out of their league.
Exactly what are the two higher ranked law schools that you turned down? Were either of them even top 20?
Statements like this cause me to have flash-backs to Rashomon.
Since the student in question is an Evening Student, is it really that hard to figure out what the other 2 schools are? In fact, it seems blindingly obvious.
Get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?
Maybe; but he's saying something.
As a Northern Virginia resident, the relevant schools on my list were, in order, Gtown, GW and GMU, and I'm strongly libertarian. Reputation of the school and my intended area of study outweighed every concern other than geography, including cost. Heck, I would have gone to the Domino's U. or Fallwell U. law school if it was in DC and top 20 and happily pretended to agree with the wingnut ideology stuff.
Here's a page with the stats on the law schools inside the D.C. Beltway:
http://members.aol.com/alicebeard/thoughts/stats.html
Steve interviewed me in connection with the book and I gave him comments on a couple of the chapters. One thing I can say for sure is that this is NOT a dry book! The sections I have read are quite well-written and insightful.
My point was only that it is fairly typical for law students to matriculate at the highest ranked school (or 'best name') at which they are accepted--as Aultimer illustrates. It seems to me unique that there are at least some GMU students who do not do that.
But there a many other factors. I've known many students who have selected Wake Forest over Duke and Oklahoma City over University of Oklahoma because of better trial practice programs, and I've known many students who have selected Mercer over Emory because of the better writing program.
While selecting the Hecht Company* (George Mason) because of law and economics may be special for the student, and yes, all students are special, the fact that a student or many students chose a lower ranked school for its approach is not very special.
* At age 15, my driver's training classes were in the employee breakroom of the Hecht Company, which was later converted, escalator and all, into George Mason School of Law.
"Chuck Robb is one example that comes to mind as well as some of the sub par writing faculty . . . "
Heh. One of the legal research and writing profs at Mason was the only faculty member who ever responded negatively to learning where I worked at the time. (I'm not going to say where that was, but it's an organization that tends to be popular with conservatives and libertarians.) For a moment it looked like she might faint. It was priceless.
So what's all the yakking about law school rankings? Either you've got it or you don't. As MIT proves over and over, a soaring IQ does not necesarily translate into career success. What counts is the ability to write, the ability to communicate, and a decent sense of how to relate to people. (Proof: When I was at the Federal Reserve, the top staff economist, Chuck Partee, did not have a doctorate.)
On the other hand, I did use Covington &Burling heavily on a very important legislative campaign, and C&B's contribution was decisive.
Yes. But three out of four sides are the wrong side. The only correct side is against a wall.
I am incredibly unlucky.
I am not saying that is the way it should be. But, its true.
How exactly does MIT prove that soaring IQs may not lead to successful careers? At least, why does MIT prove it better than any other school (or gas station!) that has blindingly smart people who've achieved little career success???