What is going on at Yale Law School? | Hacker News Reader

What is going on at Yale Law School?

newyorker.com

37 pointsmacbookaries17 comments

I got a mild headache just reading the article. This all seems so stupid. So much drama for the sake of drama. I feel like everyone involved should grow up.

How about just focusing on teaching? Also, the concept of TV-famous professors seems plain weird.

A kid doesn't like the professor, thinks something malevolent is going on, tries to get their "friend" to confess to something that didn't happen, then outed them publicly and without their consent.

Unbelievable what people think is their business sometimes.

I can't put it any better than...

Peter's Theory of Entrepreneurial Aggressiveness in Higher Education" as: "Competition in academia is so vicious because the stakes are so small." Another proverbial form is: "Academic politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre%27s_law

no, I think this describes only one part of a system. The fact is that in a competitive academic environment, people are pushed out constantly. Students are pushed out, teaching assistants are pushed out, adminstrators are pushed out.. there is some 'Lagrange point'-like spot where people get their tenure or settle in as administrators, but then the conflicts are immediately about budget, which are tiny unless they aren't!

The fierce bickering between entrenched colleagues is true, but why? there is more to it..

Law school is one of the least useful graduate schools—-and I wrote this as a practicing lawyer more than 10 years out. I was hoping this article might be talking about some kind of bold reform. Nope—-just more gossip about overpaid professors.

> Law school is one of the least useful graduate schools

How? I've always assumed it's a non-negotiable requirement for anyone considering a profession in law.

Each state has their own rules.

A legal secretary can sit for the Bar in certain cases.

Kardashian didn't go to any school, and took the Baby Bar. Failed it, and blamed her hubby.

(I feel , if a person can pass a hard test, like the CA Bar, they should be able to practice law. Hell--I wouldn't mind seeing most gated professions (even medicine) open to doing away with school, if the applicant can pass hard tests. Of course, they would need to still to do residencies, and make it clear they didn't go to school on any advertisements.)

It seems like the opposite is occurring. In order to be a licensed real estate broker in California, you have to have a major/minor in real estate (or relevant courses) AND 2 years of full time real estate experience as of 2013.

Previously it was anyone who could take the courses and had aa Bachelor’s Degree in any major OR 2 years of full-time experience could apply.

I think, like lawyers, it’s just a way to keep the supply of lawyers/brokers steady.

Least useful in terms of the actual curriculum. At most schools, even (or perhaps especially) top ranked ones like Yale, the classes trace the substantive development of law by reading appeals court opinions. That's a fun intellectual exercise, but you don't get much hands on experience working with real contracts or writing pleadings unless you do a clinic or an internship.

From my perspective as someone who has become familiar with Amy Chua only recently, what is going on is your typical college campus cancel culture story. Amy Chua authored Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother and is a political moderate wary of tribalism, and is now the target of ideologically progressive students, administrators, activists, and news media. The push against her is due to her affiliation with Brett Kavanaugh (speaking in support of him and sending law students to clerk for him), her support for stern/focused parenting that is (relatively more) common among Asian parents, and because she is not going along with the progressive monoculture on college campuses.

While those are the true motivations in my opinion, the attacks against her are built around a different set of issues, which are allegations against her husband of improper behavior that remain unproven (and never brought to a court of law to my knowledge), and are being used as a guilt by association to attack Chua. There are further allegations that Chua herself did the same to a lesser extent by hosting occasional dinner parties with students invited (which frankly seems normal among Professor-grad student relations), and those too remain unproven. It’s all one big ball of character assassination attempts with nothing concrete beyond repeated attention drawn to it by news articles like this.

For those not familiar with Chua, I recommend listening to her yourself on one of the many podcasts she’s appeared on. For example she’s been on podcasts from Vox, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Megyn Kelly, Coleman Hughes, and a Chris Hayes. I found her to be intelligent, articulate, and insightful. She represents a diverse voice that colleges desperately need today and I hope Yale doesn’t make the mistake of diminishing her role in the community based solely on flimsily allegations and social pressures.

> Amy Chua authored Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother and is a political moderate

She also authored World on Fire. "Political moderate"?

'World on Fire' is something more people should read, not for it's political leanings or bias of which there is aplenty, but because there's quite a lot of information in there regarding trends and ideas in 'other places' i.e. 'outside America', particularly in Asia which never seem to penetrate the fairly insular American bubble.

Almost all of the 'controversial' social issues in the US are fairly contextualized to the 'US experience' and this becomes a huge problem as these social ideals are exported.

Outside the US bubble almost everything is completely different ... requiring a completely different context to try to start to grasp why things might be viewed differently.

To the people on outside looking in, and especially to ex-pats/immigrants living in the US, all of these social issues are going to look very different in ways that are basically impossible to express without some form of contextualized understanding that just doesn't exist in most popular forums including the more intellectual spots i.e. New Yorker, The Atlantic etc. - and on campus.

A 'sensitive issue' from the other side of the spectrum -> 'gun rights' is kind of a good example of this. I've had so many discussions with very intelligent Americans about the issue who didn't seem to be able to grasp how safe and normal civil society could be without open gun access. (Edit: not blaming all Americans here obviously, it's just something I've come across) Forget arguments about 'what should be done' - all of that aside - it was like there was a total inability to contemplate a different context for crime guns etc.. That's a really, really odd position to be in, debating someone who delegitimizes your own lived experience in a different country because there's some kind of 'mental block' (bad term) and they can't fathom that it could even be real - when in fact it's the literal reality for most 'rich' nations outside the US.

Chua is not even close to 'radical'. She's a little populist surely, but nominally her arguments exist well within the bounds of reasonable civic discourse. I do believe that most of the OP's comments are effectively valid, in that with her 'hat in the populist ring' she becomes part of that circus and will therefore become a target / participant in the stupid, ugly, petty little feuds on campus - which it should be noted are going to be 'sided' often on the basis of 'perceived ideology' etc..

Edit: I should add, it's a little shameful that people even on HN have to resort to 'throwaway' accounts to have basic opinions on issues. To think this is actually a place where there's a lot of good discussion to be had and even this places gets petty ... is not a good sign. 'Use your words' is what we tell children, it would apply equally here and everywhere else. (i.e. not ad-hominem, casual remarks, gotcha statements, instinctive/arbitrary voting).

Re: throwaway accounts - No one has to resort to throwaway accounts. Using one is a choice made by the user for fear of being judged. The stakes are pretty low, but perhaps if you believe strongly in an position, you should stand by it. If you don't, then be careful about stating it in terms of absolutes and consider that you may end up engaging in a discussion that could change your mind. Engaging in discussion in good faith, giving others the benefit of the doubt, and being willing to apologize first should go a long way. To me it just seems like many are too willing to double down and die on nearly any hill.

We live in a society where expressing opinions or facts may cause retaliation that a reasonable person would consider unjust. For example, someone living in Hong Kong who wants to criticize the recent political developments there but not in a situation to insulate themselves from the recent illiberal policies will have to either shut up or put identifying information out. Similarly for an employee warning against an employer that they are not in a position to resign from.

So after reading through that very long profile Amy Chua drank with students and judges while making sexual comments despite not just being a professor, but a particularly influential professor, and was suspended after lying several times about the events that took place. Seems pretty straightforwards to me, most professors with far less authority pull less shit than that.

Then there is a bunch of non-drama drama. Pretty bad article overall.

https://outline.com/Tq2DWB

https://archive.md/Yz9L5

Reply on news.ycombinator.com