March 16, 2008
Revisiting the Hart-Fuller Debate
Papers from the recent NYU conference are available on-line. (I haven't had a chance to read any of them yet, so can't offer guidance. Thoughts from readers who have read some of them are welcome.)
March 12, 2008
JD/PhD Programs in Philosophy (in the US): A Comment
March 7, 2008
Department of Scholarly Howlers...or How Seriously Do Teachers of Philosophy of Law Take Realism?
Jeremy Telman (Valparaiso) writes:
[N]o course on jurisprudence at a U.S. law school--even if taught by a philosopher of law persuaded by Hart's critique [of legal realism]--would ignore Realism (p. 8).
The footnote accompanying this sentence reads: "For example, despite his dismissal of Realism as having had no impact on Anglo-American jurisprudence in Rethinking Legal Realism, Brian Leiter's current syllabus [for jurisprudence] begins with three weeks on Legal Realism." Of course, I never dismissed Realism for its having had no impact on Anglophone jurisprudence--my essay is devoted to showing how unfortunate that dismissal is--and I would have thought (vanity of vanities, I know, but I would think someone making claims about my views might have read my work) that I had a modest reputation as a major critic of Hart's misinterpretation of legal realism. Indeed, someone who had read only Rethinking Legal Realism, and nothing else, would have learned as much about my views.
But putting the scholarly carelessness of Professor Telman's essay to one side, the interesting empirical question raised by his comments is this: how many teachers of "jurisprudence," who actually know something about philosophy, include American Legal Realism in their course? And how much do they include? Signed comments only; post only once (as I'm travelling a bit the next week, so comments may take awhile to appear).
UPDATE: For those of you coming here via Frank Snyder, a law professor at Texas Wesleyan University: I do not know why Mr. Snyder--who has sent me weirdly abusive e-mails in the past about other matters--has launched into an irrelevant ad hominem attack on me. As I wrote to him (he does not quote this):
The 'truth' about this matter isn't subtle or complex. Professor Telman, pretty obviously, didn't read my article. His misrepresentation is in an article he posted on SSRN, which is how I found it....[I]f you say Professor X holds the opposite of the view he holds, that's a "howler." Not a big deal, just what it is. You really must be a very sensitive fellow. I'm sorry if this upset you. In the future, though, please try to act like a professional.
Mr. Snyder, alas, is one of those delicate souls who has not spent much time around philosophers. So it goes.
I would still welcome feedback from those philosophers who teach jurisprudence about their coverage of Realism.