Wednesday, March 14, 2007

More controversy

Various assorted things re: law review writeon controversy. Again, no funnies until next time.

1. My hit counter exploded today. So many people were visiting that statcounter stopped registering hits.

2. In less than 24 hours, I have become the #4 google search for "UCLA Law Review writeon."

3. Despite the large number of visitors, I got very few comments. I know that this is not due to the inability to comment, as all one needs is a google account to do so. The real reason was not the lack of opinion but that no one wants to publicly register their name to an opinion, as this is the law review writeon, i.e. the big leagues.

4. I did however, have several conversations via email with readers, including one anonymous back and forth with a member of law review (I presume) who defended law review.

5. One theory that was offered today by some for the law review version of judicial activism: this year's law review, including the people who manage the writeon, and more so than in previous years, includes a large contingent of people whose ideological persuasions will never make them law clerks to Scalia. This contingent is also very vocal in expressing its beliefs for their causes, and the additional essay is viewed of as a product of their beliefs. I don't know any law review members personally, so I will refrain from comment or opinion on this point.

6. As much as I am against the new essay, I would hope that law review keeps the proposed changes and not cater to any pressure or discontent over the process. They've made their bed and they should now sleep in it. The law review has made the decision after (hopefully) much careful analysis and planning, and one of the key skills of a lawyer is the ability and willingness to take an unpopular stand and defend it, despite whatever ramifications that may come. According to its website, it is wholly independent: "The Law Review is a completely student-run organization and all management, editorial, and publication control is vested in its members," and if it is to live up to its name, no degree of outside pressure from other students, faculty, alumni, judges, or even Dean Schill himself should have any bearing on it reconsidering its decision. To re-examine or roll back the new process after it has already been announced will only weaken their position and the law review as a whole.

7. The following flyer was distributed in the law school today by unknown 1Ls (presumably). Again, I'm simply posting what I received to add to the discussion.


Post a Comment

<< Home