Breaking Legal News & Current Law Headlines | Daily Legal Briefing
  • Home
  • Hot Topics
  • Breaking
  • Business
  • Big Law
  • Small Law
  • Law School
  • Legal Tech
No Result
View All Result
No Result
View All Result
Breaking Legal News & Current Law Headlines | Daily Legal Briefing
No Result
View All Result
Home Law School

An Extreme Example Of The Problem Of Law Review Fetishism

Daily Legal Briefing by Daily Legal Briefing
February 23, 2022
in Law School
0
An Extreme Example Of The Problem Of Law Review Fetishism
4
SHARES
32
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter


Ed. note: The following is satire.

I’m very excited to announce my article in the Harvard Law Review: “Consenting to Murder.” The article argues it is wealth-maximizing to allow people in poverty to consent to be hunted by rich people willing and able to pay for that activity.

The article, despite its law and econ underpinnings, is quite interdisciplinary. It draws on the psychology literature that suggests CEOs tend to be psychopaths.  However, CEOs also have high levels of disposable income. It is a natural extension of their psychopathy to want to hunt humans, not just wild animals.

Then, using economic theory, the article notes the great disparity in income levels. While economics doesn’t usually address distribution, it is possible to maximize wealth and address income distribution here using this unique solution.

Using insurance law, we can calculate the value of the hunt based upon the age of the consenting participant to determine a market price.

The article will address criticisms. One criticism will be that no rational person would consent to be murdered for the sake of their family. Here, I draw on behavioral economics and Gary Becker’s “rational addiction” article.

Some might say the purpose of legal academia is to make the world a BETTER place through discourse and policy prescriptions. I say to them: Where was the article placed? How often was it cited? How often was it downloaded?

This article placed in Harv. L. Rev. It is already a good article, by definition. And once my friends download it 1,000 times, there will be no question that my article arguing that rich people should be allowed to hunt and kill poor people adds value to the world.

The idea was inspired by the sound principles of conservation efforts. Recently, declines in hunters have threatened how we pay for conservation. It makes sense, then, to increase the number of hunters of humans to be able to better care for the population of deserving humans.

Questions:

  1. Does publication of such an article in a top law review make the article better than if it were published in a lower-ranked journal? Please do not fight the hypothetical here. If you think it is impossible for such an article to be in a top law review, maybe start by checking out this delightful, pro-eugenics defense of Buck v. Bell: J. Miller Kenyon, Sterilization of the Unfit, 1 VA. L. Rev. 458 (1914).
  2. Should the article be written at all? Should articles be written that do not make any contribution to society? Does this proposed article make a contribution to society?
  3. Suppose there is academic pushback on the article, but such pushback is placed in lower-ranked journals. Does that suggest that the piece carries greater merit? What about the fact it is cited more than the pushback pieces?
  4. Would you be more outraged about such a piece placing in a higher-ranked journal than in a lower-ranked journal? Why?
  5. Would any outrage about the piece be overblown because very few people read law review articles?
  6. Suppose the piece used eugenics as support for the proposition that poor people are inferior. Given the anti-intellectual nature of that foundation, would a law review be justified in pulling the piece if the editors accepted the piece before discovering that notion?

Academic freedom means that ideas may percolate that are contrary to popular opinion. Such ideas are important to advancing our understanding of the world.  But I can’t help but wonder how the anti-intellectual hierarchy that we see in the legal academy helps to stimulate demand for click-bait articles and thoughts, rather than ones that make the world a better place. And then the academy becomes outraged as we see more of this.

Afterthought: As I wrote this, a tweet from Al Jazeera came across my screen.  “The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.” — Malcolm X

I wonder if law review fetishism causes ideas to become true that aren’t and cause those that are untrue to ring true. I wonder what articles were written because they would sell and what articles were never to be because of the system.


LawProfBlawg is an anonymous professor at a top 100 law school. You can see more of his musings here. He is way funnier on social media, he claims. Please follow him on Twitter (@lawprofblawg). Email him at lawprofblawg@gmail.com.





Click to Read Original Article

Previous Post

Supreme Court will consider Biden’s bid to end remain-in-Mexico policy for asylum-seekers

Next Post

A Preview Of The 2023 U.S. News Law School Rankings

Daily Legal Briefing

Daily Legal Briefing

Related Posts

Bar Exam Prep Company Goes Down For The Day… Please Don’t Panic
Law School

Bar Exam Prep Company Goes Down For The Day… Please Don’t Panic

by Daily Legal Briefing
June 6, 2023
‘Do Your Research,’ ‘Stick It Out,’ And Other Things Law Schools Should Stop Telling Students About Clerkships
Law School

‘Do Your Research,’ ‘Stick It Out,’ And Other Things Law Schools Should Stop Telling Students About Clerkships

by Daily Legal Briefing
June 6, 2023
The 2023 U.S. News Law School Rankings Are Here
Law School

A New Law School Reigns Supreme In The U.S. News Law School Omnibus Specialty Rankings

by Daily Legal Briefing
June 6, 2023
Rating Jonathan Turley’s Wildest, Thirstiest, Most Embarrassing Bids For Attention In 2022
Law School

Jonathan Turley Rewrites Constitution To Include ‘Congressional Backsies’ Clause

by Daily Legal Briefing
June 3, 2023
Weird How Quiet The ‘Campus Free Speech Crisis’ Crowd Has Been About CUNY Law School
Law School

Weird How Quiet The ‘Campus Free Speech Crisis’ Crowd Has Been About CUNY Law School

by Daily Legal Briefing
June 3, 2023
Next Post
This Law School May Be Gone, But Not (Necessarily) Forgotten

A Preview Of The 2023 U.S. News Law School Rankings

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Premium Content

FedSoc Answers The Question: Trolling Or Obliviousness?

Biglaw Firm Tries New Strategy In Intense Associate Talent War

February 1, 2022
Why Are Men So Obsessed With Their LSAT Scores?

Why Are Men So Obsessed With Their LSAT Scores?

February 24, 2023
Law Librarians Play Central Role In Legal Tech Adoption And Use, AALL ‘State Of The Profession’ Report Shows

Law Librarians Play Central Role In Legal Tech Adoption And Use, AALL ‘State Of The Profession’ Report Shows

May 4, 2023

Browse by Category

  • Big Law
  • Breaking
  • Business
  • Hot Topics
  • Law School
  • Legal Tech
  • Small Law

About US

Breaking Legal News & Current Law Headlines | Daily Legal Briefing.
Online coverage of breaking legal news and current law headlines from around the US. Top stories, videos, insight, and in-depth analysis.

Categories

  • Big Law
  • Breaking
  • Business
  • Hot Topics
  • Law School
  • Legal Tech
  • Small Law

Recent Updates

  • Bar Exam Prep Company Goes Down For The Day… Please Don’t Panic
  • From The Bench To Biglaw: Judge Paul Watford Lands At Top 50 Am Law Firm
  • ‘Do Your Research,’ ‘Stick It Out,’ And Other Things Law Schools Should Stop Telling Students About Clerkships

© 2021 Daily Legal Briefing | Breaking Legal News & Current Law Headlines

No Result
View All Result
  • Contact Us
  • Home

© 2021 Daily Legal Briefing | Breaking Legal News & Current Law Headlines

Are you sure want to unlock this post?
Unlock left : 0
Are you sure want to cancel subscription?