Thursday, November 21, 2013

Ego and Exploitation: A response to Law Prof. Nancy Leong's post entitled "Identity and Ideas."

In a comment on a JD Underground (JDU) thread last year, I referred to a law professor conference at a seaside resort in Hawaii, where Sturm Law Prof. Nancy Leong was one of the speakers, as "a gravy train, or shall I say, a luau train." "Gravy train" was a reference to the free vacations masquerading as scholarly conferences that law professors routinely hold for themselves, vacations ultimately paid for by their massively indebted students. "Luau train" was my reference to the fact that this particular law professor conference was held at a Waikiki beach resort. Where, you know, they stage luaus for resort guests. Leong described my joke about "luau train" as an effort to disparage her Native Hawaiian ancestry, something I had no idea she possessed. I can hardly believe her ludicrous interpretation, and suspect that she does not believe it either.

Leong suggests that the scamblogs do not provide substantive criticism of her scholarship, just attacks on her identity. This is false. It is telling that Leong, in her blog post at Feminist Law Professors ("Identity and Ideas," part one), declines to identify the actual JDU threads and OTLSS posts in question, which are chock-full of substantive criticism of her work and qualifications. Furthermore, Leong does not once refer to her own article, "The Open Road and Traffic Stop: Narratives and Counternarratives of the American Dream," 64 Fla. L.Rev. 305 (2012), which is the target of most of the scamblogger criticism, and my own satirical post:

http://outsidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-law-school-scam-is-like-highway-to_25.html

In this law review article, Leong complains that caselaw analyzing the constitutionality of traffic stops is "dry," "mundane," and "focused on minutiae," as compared to Hollywood road movies, and uses the word "narrative" 164 times, which must be some kind of record. Her article is a prime example of puffed-up and sophomoric cultural criticism pretending to be legal scholarship. A prime example of irony too, in that Leong has asserted that legal scholarship is immensely valuable to students and practitioners. I wonder if any medical school professor has ever published an article in a professional journal complaining that diagnostic manuals are dry, mundane, and focused on minutiae as compared to the exciting doctor narratives presented in fictional TV shows.

Leong is on stronger ground in criticizing some wisecracks or offensive comments about her pulchritude (only one of the comments she cites is by me). But it is an unsayable truth that attractive persons, of both genders, are sometimes rewarded in ways they do not necessarily deserve. I believe social scientists call this "sexual capital." 

You know, some 18th century French aristocrats probably complained that they were the subject of unkind remarks by the peasants they exploited. The law professoriate may not generally see itself as a citadel of privilege and exploitation-- indeed, some lawprofs make a big show of their allegedly progressive politics. But why are they paid so much for such meager workloads? Why do they enjoy perks like free vacations-- excuse me, conferences--in Hawaii and the Breakers in Florida, and five-figure summer research stipends to top off their six-figure salaries? Why is their scholarship so roundly ignored by bench and bar? Why do so many, including Leong, have such meager experience as legal practitioners? Why do their students typically graduate with no idea how to represent a client on any matter, even after three years of expensive professional education? Most importantly, what, if anything, are the moral responsibilities of lawprofs now that it is clear beyond a residual doubt that law school is a debt trap and that the profession is beyond saturated, i.e. that they are getting rich off the likely future misery of young people who trust them?

These are the issues that all law professors ought to engage, including Leong, in light of their enormous privilege and the harrowing post-graduation fate that awaits most of their students. Of course, it is probably easier on the inflated, if fragile, lawprof ego to avoid addressing these issues altogether, in favor of collecting stray outrageous comments in order to portray oneself as a victim. 

As to "harassment," a recurring word in Leong's post, I want to note how Leong reacted to my satiric post about her law review article, which was published on October 25th. On October 28th, Leong telephoned me at work. (I did not take her call). She did so in spite of the fact that my scamblogging is entirely pseudonymous. (Law professors have six figure salaries and tenure or tenure-track jobs, and scambloggers have pseudonyms. Any of them wanna trade?) On October 30th, Leong emailed me, demanding that I discuss what she deemed my racism and sexism, after which she would decide "whether or with whom I should share this information about your identity." Leong insisted that the discussion be conducted by telephone. She even imposed a deadline. ("If I do not hear from you by 5pm CT on Friday, November 1, I will assume that you are unwilling to engage in a discussion with me"). Naturally, I did not call her or reply to her disgraceful email, and will not. 

Leong imagines that law school critics are trying to exclude her from online discourse  due to her native Hawaiian ancestry and her gender. However, when Leong left two brief and condescending comments on a JDU thread, the JDU posters indicated that, far from seeking to silence her, they were eager to hold a dialogue. But Leong declined. (See below). In my view, law professors need to hear the criticism and the hurt expressed by recent grads (and many not-so-recent grads), whose misplaced trust and enormous student debts made those same law professors rich.

As noted, Leong's post contains screenshots of several wisecracks or offensive comments harvested mostly from scamblog threads (again, only one by me), and her own exegesis of each. So I will conclude this post, for those still interested, by pasting screenshots of several recent comments from the JDU thread, including the two Leong posted, the one that I posted in reply, and  several other thoughtful responses from the same thread from persons who have been victimized by the law school scam that has rewarded Leong and her colleagues so munificently. No exegesis though, readers can judge for themselves whether the authors of these comments are motivated by bigotry, or whether they refuse to challenge Leong's work on the merits. 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------



















 
 
 





108 comments:

  1. http://outsidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2013/09/butthurt-lawprofs.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. An excellent post, dybbuk.

    I shall also note that despite her taking extraordinary offense at some of the comments on this site, she has never once contacted me at the email address clearly posted at the top of the page to inform me of her displeasure, or to request that the comments be deleted.

    I can only conclude that she is offended sufficiently to use the posts as material for blog posts on a site that, despite having hundreds of contributors, can barely muster one post per week, but not so offended that she actually wants anything done to stop such posts being displayed.

    (Comment deleted and reposted to correct a spelling error. I have a feeling that Nancy's screen capture button will be working overtime, so I didn't want to be quoted with typos.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why should the target of insults have to contact you? Why don't you just remove the off-topic insults when they appear? Take the high road.

      Delete
    2. 1. Because most of the insults are interwoven with posts making good points.

      2. Because I do not censor anything here.

      3. Because if it's important enough to write articles about, surely it's important enough to contact me about? I'm not here to protect the feelings of professors.

      Delete
    3. Let's make a deal with the profs.

      We don't hurt their feelings anymore, and they pay back our tuition so they don't hurt our futures anymore.

      Any takers?

      Delete
    4. And:

      4. I'm not here 24/7, not do I read every word. None of the mods are here all the time and constantly reading these comments. If there's a problem that is important, emailing is the quickest way to bring our attention to it. Waiting for us to stumble upon it is not smart.

      Delete
    5. Is Nancy Leong related to the famous drag racer, Roland Leong, who drove "The Hawaiian"? Roland has two daughters and one of them was in the legal industry as a paralegal.

      Delete
    6. No her parents are Dorothy Leong and Andrew Leong. Andrew Leong works for CH2M Hill, an engineering company.

      Google will now pick up on this comment and archive it. Searching for Andrew Leong will now pull up this problem with the daughter I'm sure he can't stop bragging about.

      Delete
    7. I second the suggestion that law professors repay our tuition. Afterall, many of us are facing the equivalent of economic genocide given the draconian bankruptcy laws in this country. By coming to America, my ancestors killed their own bloodline by educating my parents who in turn encouraged me to go to law school. Because of that decisom, my parents will never have grandchildren, nor I children. I will never hold a child on my lap, hear their first words, teach them to spell their first word, walk them to class on their first day, sooth their worries with the soft words of a parent as they cry. Instead I work 80 hour weeks remotely as contract slave labor

      Delete
  4. Three-page footnotes cataloguing films. An utterly foolish thesis—dreary old court cases lack the flash and sexiness of low-grade billion-dollar Hollywood films—that the average five-year-old could demolish.

    I call it scholarshit. Because of its smell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And yet it was cited by a judge, basically undermining the central thesis of you pathetic """"""scambloggers"""""", that courts don't give a shit about professor scholarship.

      Delete
  5. Great Post, I seriously wonder what this wet behind the ears young lady could actually teach anyone. She has zilch law experience. To me it's like a surgeon, teaching surgery, because they read it from a text book. Total bullshit..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Total bullshit is correct. She is younger and more inexperienced than most of the writers on this site, and probably most of the readers, yet she continues to exude this air of superiority because she is some kind of "professor".

      Delete
  6. I cannot believe how huge that list of feminist law professors/writers is on Leong's blog.

    Does Student Loan money go to pay for their writings and sabbaticals in whole or in part? It sure must be nice for them.

    While the indebed and starving students and law grads get to play xylophone on their rib cages?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure she's already put those articles on her resume, which is already barrel-scrapingly long. I'm surprised she hasn't added her "50 yard backstroke, 3rd place" medal from when she was twelve years old and swimming for the local pool summer team.

      Delete
    2. I noticed that there's quite a contingent of "feminist professors" at American U, one of the worst scam institutions in existence. Activism, or in this case pretended activism, is often the desperate resort of the most insecure, resume-padding academic impostors.

      Delete
  7. The smut posted by the anonymous posters was bad, plain and simple, and the comments about her looks are irrelevant and offensive. It also severely weakens the legitimacy of the very cogent criticisms .

    But I find it odd that she thinks this is really about the lack of "substantive critiques of her scholarship" and not about the "free vacations masquerading as scholarly conferences that law professors routinely hold for themselves, vacations ultimately paid for by their massively indebted students" theme of your postings, which have targeted many law professors.

    Certainly a glaring omission from a professor who is trying to build a career thinking about the ways in which power and influence are exercised by groups in control to exploit those who are not in control. It's pretty clear that the negative effects of the law school scam fall harder on minority students, who, among other things, are less likely to have outside sources of funding for law school and as a consequence have to rely on high-interest debt, social networks that will give them a leg up in the job hunt, and know people who have been through it and can warn them away from law school if they are making a poor decision. Add into this the marketing tactics of some law schools which are so similar to those used by for-profit colleges that target poor neighborhoods and veterans to scam federal loan dollars, and you have a lot of fodder for an article about the power dynamics in legal education.

    Furthermore, in discussing the drawbacks of internet anonymity, she fails to mention its benefits. Scamblogs have done much more than prelaw advisors ever could to deconstruct the bullshit produced by the law school marketing machines. Even "respectable" sites like TLS would not exist without pseudoanonymity. And they've done so in a way that is accessible to anyone with an internet connection, as opposed to informal social networks like "my father's general counsel told me I should become a bond trader after I graduated from Harvard instead of going to law school."

    But don't take my word for it, Brian Tamanaha said all there is to say on the failures of progressive faculty to turn their critical attentions to the institutions that they participate in, benefit from, and control: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2256725

    Pages 325-26 are a good read.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Typo: "It also severely weakens the legitimacy of the very cogent criticisms made by dybbuk and others."

      Delete
    2. It doesn't weaken any legitimacy of any argument. It merely makes the person throwing out those insults look childish.

      The fact that Nancy and her colleagues are part of the scam is not weakened by someone calling her names.

      She is a scammer. No amount of insults can erase that fact.

      It's a diversion, sure. But it in no way weaken the criticism.

      Delete
    3. Yes. She knows that by breaking the cover of anonymity, she can destroy commentators who need anonymity to criticize her.

      A cheap tactic (and one of Brian Leiter's favorites), but then again would we expect anything less?

      She is trying to silence critics rather than debate the merits of her work with critics. Cries of "racism" and "sexism" and trying to reframe the debate about her work from its clear origins (that it was shit work) to her victimhood (which is self-imposed by the way) are the hallmarks of a pathetic mind.

      Nancy if you want to stand behind your work, then stand behind it. Cite to it properly in your blog posts, quote us properly instead of misquoting and drawing fake conclusions, highlight who we are and what we are doing. Don't hide behind bullshit "don't want to link to those sites because it will draw attention to them" stuff.

      If you're (wo)man enough to have something to say, then say it properly instead of blogging without citations so as to deliberately misrepresent our position and goals.

      Delete
    4. If you have reasonable arguments to make, then there is simply no reason to go there. The fact that people say that crap makes everyone else's argument look weaker because readers wonder why people with those views feel attracted to this site and other scamblogs, just like I wonder why a lot of racists seem especially sympathetic to the Tea Party. Rightly or wrongly, as a practical matter, people use the motivation of the speaker as a proxy for the soundness of their arguments.

      Of course none of the professors or scamdeans would actually show up here and engage in an honest, open discussion with us little people if we could only get rid of all of the nasty mean racist commenters- with a few notable exceptions. But we're not only talking to professors and deans. Our main audience should be students and other lawyers.

      Note that I don't think any of this means we should affirmatively censor the comments. That's a road you don't go down.

      Delete
    5. You see this on any website. The admins on this site censor less material unless a person sends a request, which Nancy apparently never did.

      Delete
  8. IgnominiousdocreviewNovember 21, 2013 at 9:26 AM

    I do agree with Prof. Leong that the lewd comments are embarrassing and should be moderated. But she is just as bad as any of the people she singles out, not only by imputing racist overtones to some who clearly didn't intend it (ie dybbuk and his luau comment) but also by harassing dybbuk over the phone. I don't see how she is raising the bar for discussion on the internet by complaining about perceived sexism/racism constantly.

    I've yet to see her address the concerns raised by dybbuk in his various blog posts- the impracticality of her scholarship and the miserable financial outcomes of her students. Political correctness doesn't help Sturm students who graduate with $200k in debt and no jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The days when Profs could bully students and others into succumbing to their demands are over. We are all subject to criticism on the net and we must all learn to live with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. Nancy has been in education her entire life, now working in it, and she clearly has respect for the profession. And she is struggling to see how we can be so "disrespectful". Well guess what? When we tried discussing this "respectfully", law professors ignored us. So we did what the internet does well - draws attention to issues by silliness, breaking down boundaries, insulting when necessary, and using guerilla tactics to get the message out.

      I'm not sorry that this bothers Nancy. I'm glad that sites like this are doing what the professors refused to do themselves. If we can get the message out to students better than law schools can, then we will win. If she wants to join in an educated debate, instead of retreating to the age-old silencing technique of "that's racist" (when it clearly isn't), then good for her. She's just making herself look foolish and drawing more attention to her idiotic conclusions. And she's stupid enough to not realize that with each blog post she makes, she's making herself and the legal professoriate look like exactly the things we're claiming they are. Lacking experience, out of touch, and overpaid fools.

      Delete
    2. "The days when Profs could bully students and others into succumbing to their demands are over."

      Simply because the Professors no longer have anything valuable to offer in exchange for the bullying such as a rewarding career and life ahead.

      In fact, many of these professors will count themselves lucky if they can keep their jobs in the future, even at a reduced income.

      All of that kind of takes the steam out of an arrogant and smug bully is my guess.

      Delete
  10. Symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder include:

    --Expects constant attention, admiration and positive reinforcement from others
    --Envies others and believes others envy him/her
    --Is preoccupied with thoughts and fantasies of great success, enormous attractiveness, power, intelligence
    --Lacks the ability to empathize with the feelings or desires of others
    --Is arrogant in attitudes and behavior
    --Has expectations of special treatment that are unrealistic

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That sums up Nancy Leong in a nutshell.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    3. Looks like Painter lost his dare - and fell off the wagon.

      Delete
  11. Is "Feminism" a recognized academic discipline? If so, are there mandatory college courses or even law school courses in feminism?

    Unrelated topic, but wasn't it Scalia that said in some benign dicta in the past that overturning Bowers v. Hardwick would open the floodgates for Gay marriage legislation in so many words?

    And is that not what has happened over the last half decade give or take?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Careful guys and girls (and yes there are girls here too, me included, so be careful about putting male labels on all anonymous posts Ms. Leong.) All of these comments will be construed as personal attacks by her.

    It must be made clear that THE FIRST POST ON THIS SITE CONCERNING NANCY LEONG WAS A CRITIQUE OF HER SCHOLARSHIP, NOT HER AS A PERSON. She didn't like this, so she digs up the couple of comments that call her lazy or stupid or a bitch or whatever and she spins an entire fake web of hate towards her. Which she then writes about, attacking us and trying to discredit our commentary because of a couple of dummies who posted insults (grow up Nancy and ignore them!), and we write back here.

    BUT REMEMBER THAT THE FIRST POST HERE WAS ABOUT YOUR WORK, NOT ABOUT YOU. NANCY, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT YOU ARE DELIBERATELY TRYING TO HIDE FROM YOUR SUPPORTERS.

    So please link over here so they can make an informed decision. I doubt you will because to do so at this point would highlight your dishonesty in your recent articles. But I think that avid readers will have picked up on that already. They are not stupid or uneducated, and they can join the dots and retrace the steps of this issue and see that what started it all was you having a temper tantrum because somebody dared to call your shitty article out.

    The empress has no clothes!

    (No Nancy not a sexualization of your body or a verbal raping and shaming or whatever you want to call it. Just a common phrase to indicate that you have been shown to have no substance behind you. You are transparent. We are not going to worship your fancy credentials that you are parading around. Instead we are pointing our fingers and laughing at you because you're caught in a lie, you are writing yourself deeper into the lie, and you have no credibility left.)

    LOL

    But you'll no doubt pluck that one quote and spin a whole article about how an anonymous poster stripped you bare on the internet and how hurt you are and what an immense problem this all is.

    The problem of rudeness on the internet has been solved. It's the little red "x" in the top right hand corner of your browser. Turn it off and get a life. This is far different from you being the victim of any discrimination or insults in a location where you have no choice but to endure them. Here, all you have to do is make one click and it all disappears.

    Sorry to destroy your entire feminist career so easily, but the rules are different online. Nobody is forcing you to read this, visit this site, or expose yourself in any way whatsoever to our comments. In fact you continue to engage!

    Please just go away. Problem solved.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Feminism includes a rule that guys can never criticize professional and career oriented women and to violate this rule makes one a sexist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I strongly disagree with this comment, and feel I must say so before some lawprof uses it to represent the scamblogger movement, or my own views. I support social justice causes, as well as feminism, just like so many lawprofs. The difference is that most lawprofs are hypocrites. They are making themselves rich and cozy off their students' likely future suffering, and refuse to see that as a form of oppression or as a betrayal of their purported ideals.

      http://outsidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2013/10/will-thomas-jefferson-law-prof.html

      Delete
  14. "On October 30th, Leong emailed me, demanding that I discuss what she deemed my racism and sexism, after which she would decide "whether or with whom I should share this information about your identity." Leong insisted that the discussion be conducted by telephone. She even imposed a deadline. ("If I do not hear from you by 5pm CT on Friday, November 1, I will assume that you are unwilling to engage in a discussion with me")"

    Isn't this blackmail?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe we should ask prof. Leong, she is a criminal law professor, right?

      Delete
    2. That's what I was thinking. Man dybbuk, why don't you just become a law professor. The kiddies would actually learn something from you, and - in their interest - you'd probably turn half of them away on the first day.

      Nancy Leong's self interested posts prove - through her cherry picked quotes and questionable inferences - that she can't be trusted to be objective or truthful.

      Just makin' bills off of idealistic (albeit naive) actual feminists. Kind of sick when you think about it.

      Delete
    3. Survey says, YES:

      "Blackmail is an act, often a crime, involving unjustified threats to make a gain or cause loss to another unless a demand is met"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail

      We're on a roll today . . . damage control time in the U.D. faculty lounge.

      Delete
    4. right, so every personal injury attorney in the world commits blackmail everytime they send out a demand letter. I don't think so.

      Delete
    5. Careful. That term is double loaded with meaning for Nancy to deliberately take the wrong way.

      I think the term she would prefer is "HawaiianFemale", not blackmail.

      Delete
  15. Only in America can you go to Northwestern and Stanford Law School, have your wedding written up in the New York Times, and then make a lucrative career out of writing about how oppressed you are.

    Tom Wolfe, of course, satirized people like that brilliantly in his short story "Mauve Gloves,Madmen, Clutter and Vine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If only we were all lucky enough to have suffered through her hardships. We'd all be comfortable law professors now instead of being so privileged to owe $150000 in student loan debt that pays her mortgage.

      She knows nothing of racism, sexism, or hardship. What a fraud.

      Delete
  16. In a way, she is like Jim Jones (he of the Kool Aid murders). When Jim Jones was criticized, he acted as though the person criticizing him was racist or anti-socialist (because Jim Jones was actually an effective anti-racism activist for awhile, as well as a socialist). This worked well enough for Jim Jones to lure in dozens of followers, whom he convinced to drink poison. Notably, his followers were mostly underprivileged young people.

    Similarly, when Nancy Leong is criticized, she hides behind her "identities". She's not a murderer, but she is willing to wave the flags of feminism and civil rights to deflect personal criticism. All of a sudden, we aren't talking about Nancy Leong anymore, we're talking about racism and sexism. Just like back in the 70s, Jim Jones successfully turned conversations about his own ethical lapses into debates about communism or racism.

    Nancy Leong is going lure in naive, idealistic, vulnerable students into her own cult of personality. The students themselves won't die, but their careers will be killed. Don't drink the law school Kool-Aid, kids!!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dybbuk you should report all blackmail to.the authorities. do they have "narratives" in federal prison?

    ReplyDelete
  18. of course the litte toad who moderates jdu scrubbed the thread of all comments that might be offensive to Precious Little Professor.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Does she not understand that she is the one making this all about her? Loves herself some spotlight does Nancy Leong.

    ReplyDelete
  20. So a prestigious law professor and progressive academic who speaks about feminism has a niche blog / dumpy message board criticize her scholarship anonymously (zero effect on her prestigious career), and her response is:

    -To engage anonymous posters on random/dumpy message board in a bitchy fashion
    -To creepily stalk one of the most neutral and intellectually-rigorous anonymous posters and sleuth out his identity
    -To contact said poster and 'net-blackmail him over his identity
    -To then post an asinine, butthurt article with intentional misstatements and omissions to concoct a ridiculous idea that certain posters are sexist/racist instead of addressing the critique actually being made.

    Gee, what an example of the modern professional female for younger women to emulate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She is acting more like a teenage girl. But then again, she is very young, much younger than many of us, and maybe this is just what girls of her generation do when they have too much time on their hands. Acting like she is in high school and out to get someone.

      Delete
    2. Seriously. Stalking and obsessing over what other people think are the signs of a not-fully-developed emotional intelligence. I expect this out of teenagers, not "Law Professors."

      While there is such a thing as racism and sexism, certainly, defaulting to that conclusion everytime someone thinks you are full of s**t becomes a bizarre self-fulfilling prophecy that confirms your skewed worldview. Some people would call it low-grade paranoia.

      Nope, sometimes you are just being an idiot and it actually has nothing to do with your race or gender, thanks for playing.

      Delete
  21. Tell us about the scam Nancy. How many of your students got jobs, Nancy?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi. Im xray cat. i can see through wood...and i never use the word "narratives"

    ReplyDelete
  23. Listen to the sheer arrogance with which she opens her blog articles about this subject:

    "This is the second in a series of four blog posts that discuss discrimination and harassment in cyberspace, its perpetrators, and its consequences."

    As dybbuk showed, she is the one harassing him and not the other way around. She stalked him. She found out his identity and called him at work and threatened him!

    And maybe now she is learning the consequences. Ridicule. Embarrassment. Being exposed as the spoiled child she is.

    You don't make the rules, Nancy. You don't define what a victim is, nor what constitutes harassment. You may have a sympathetic (pathetic?) audience at your echo chamber of an academic blog, but you don't have one here or elsewhere.

    You are the perpetrator. These are the consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Alan Collinge is still at work and you can read his comment on this article here:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-kogan/student-loans-are-a-good_b_4318609.html

    Maybe some others around here can comment there as well.

    ReplyDelete
  25. You all know that falsely accusing someone of committing a crime (e.g. blackmail) is libel per se in most states, including california, right?
    "Examples of libel per se are statements that . . . falsely claim that the person committed a crime of moral turpitude" -- http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel_per_se

    ReplyDelete
  26. From the blog of the Eminent Nancy Leong:

    "But in 2013 our social norms don’t actually condition having a voice on putting up with identity-based harassment. Suppose that I gave a presentation at an academic conference, and that during my presentation a member of the audience began shouting racial and sexual epithets, or announced loudly, “I’m undressing you with my eyes!” Would we laugh it off? Of course we wouldn’t. We’d remove him. So why do some people insist that the norms applicable to anonymous online speech should be different?"

    Whoa, whoa, whoa. "Him"? Why assume only men are racist/sexist, Nancy Leong? I think Nancy needs to revisit the gender neutral writing tips on Sturm's website (you know, the place where she [appropriate use of gender-specific pronoun btw] "works"). If she doesn't have time with all her laborious and tedious "scholarship," I'll repost an excerpt.

    "Avoid the sexist 'he' by using the specific name and appropriate gender-specific pronoun whenever possible..." (http://www.law.du.edu/documents/aap/writing-tips-avoid-sexist-language.pdf)

    I wonder if Slate will quote Nancy Leong's obviously biased belief that only males are perpetrators of sexist/racist behavior.

    Yeah, doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I’ve been following these fascinating (in a car wreck kind of way) threads for a while. As far as I can tell, dybbuk has decided to use a junior faculty member at a school that has been making news for trying to change legal education as his punching bag. You’d think he’d be happy that the Denver University is trying to add skills training to its doctrinal teaching. It’s the kind of thing that he (and I) have been advocating for. But he’s nonetheless decided to make this junior professor a target because he doesn’t like her articles, and so he posts about her over and over. Normally dybukk argues that legal articles are bad because they aren’t useful to judges and lawyers. (A sentiment I sometimes agree with). But he can’t really make that argument here because at least one court of appeals judge found the article he hates most very useful and quoted huge swaths of it in a concurrence. That certainly makes the article (even if I don’t care for it myself) one that has been of use to the profession. I’ve tried many cases in trial and appellate courts, and I’ve never once seen a judge quote a law review article so heavily – you can disagree with the judge, but on the criteria of being useful to the bar, this article can’t fairly be questioned. Not to mention the fact that the women writes lots of other stuff – far more than most of the professors I had (thanks to previous posts of dybbuk’s it was easy to find Nancy’s CV). And it looks like her students love her and she is willing to spend a lot of time supporting them in their work (all professors should be required to post their teaching evaluations – kudos to Nancy for actually doing that). So she works hard. Her students love her. Her work is quoted by judges. (I guess I could be accused of being a bit stalkerish myslf for looking at the cv and her evals, but I’ve grown really tired of these threads). It’s true that she wasn’t in practice long, so maybe that’s what makes her a target. But her short stint at a nonprofit was longer than lots of professors practice (and, frankly, many of my worst professors were the ones who had spent a lot of time in practice and just told war stories -- turns out, teaching and lawyering are different skills). So what’s left to make her the subject of this constant ridicule? She’s hot! And she’s Asian! (As dybbuk and oh so many of the posters on this blog and jdunderground have pointed out over and over). I’m all for good debate about how to teach law, but this sexualized fixation with one particular junior professor is not only a distraction, it’s pathetic. . . And now, back to your regularly-scheduled self-congratulatory feeding frenzy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So your argument is that it's okay she's part of the scam because she's nice?

      So you're saying that if I smile while I steal, it's less harmful?

      Delete
    2. You overstate the racism (which is actually non-existent and comes only from her head), and understate the fact that she has no experience. She is the opposite of what we need in our professors.

      Schools need to stop hiring inexperienced grads and start hiring lawyers.

      It's law school, not regurgitate school!

      Delete
    3. "As far as I can tell, dybbuk has decided to use a junior faculty member at a school that has been making news for trying to change legal education..."

      Hi, Dean Katz!

      Delete
    4. 1. I have some notion as to who posted this comment (someone who has never tried a case), but I have zero inclination to play the silly game of unmask-the-anonymous-critic that certain lawprofs find so compelling.

      2. Prof. Nancy Leong has near-zero experience in legal practice, and precisely zero in the field she purports to profess, criminal law. If teaching a profession and actually practicing it are so unrelated then perhaps I should apply for a professorship in medicine or architecture, having never treated a patient or designed a building.

      3. Leong has asserted that legal scholarship is immensely important to the profession and to students on a thread supporting the ongoing practice of providing five-figure summer research stipends for law professors to top off their six-figure salaries. (I have linked to this thread in the third paragraph of my post). Hilariously undermining her own comment, Leong has written the most poorly conceptualized and poorly written thing I have ever read in a professional journal ("Open Road"). My post links to her article, so readers can draw their own conclusions.

      4. Leong refuses to engage her critics on the merits of their complaints (See JDU thread screenshots below), and then complains that It is the critics who refuse substantive debate. Moreover, in her post at Feminist Law Professors, Leong refused to acknowledge that it was Open Road, rather than her stuff about racial capitalism, that is the subject of most scamblogger criticism, certainly my own.

      5. Speaking of "stalkerish," conduct and intimidation, maybe this law professor should stop calling me at work, and maybe she should not have written me a bizarre email containing scurrilous accusations and an implicit threat. Or, how did Nancy Leong put it to me in her email?:

      "I have screenshots of the numerous postings that allowed me to verify your identity. . . I mention this because I want you to know that deleting your prior postings would not be fruitful."

      Delete
    5. I've also been following these threads from afar, and find your reaction to be pretty bizarre. Leong is paid a high salary at a low-ranked law school that charges excessive tuition, with zero real world experience. She's a pretty good example of how our profession has veered off its tracks, and her inane law review article illustrates that point quite vividly. Since you are a long-time practitioner of law just as I am, it's hard to believe these facts don't bother you.

      Delete
    6. How precisely is the University of Colorado trying to add skills training? By hiring the likes of Nancy Leong, whose contribution to the law is going on about how judicial decisions are, like, dry and BORING?

      Can you imagine a med school professor going on about how anatomical drawings are boring? Or an electrical engineering professor complaining about how circuit diagrams are dry and lame? Why is Nancy Leong in law again, if she thinks it's so dull?

      I can tell you for certain that most electrical engineers are actually interested in those diagrams -- they find them exciting and fascinating. That is why that is a good career for them. If the fundamentals of your field are just BORING to you, you have no business in that profession.

      I guess that U Colorado thinks it can help its students become more practice-ready by hiring professors who have no practical experience and don't even enjoy the field of law. A bold strategy for sure, and surely worth $200,000 of students' /taxpayers' money.

      Delete
    7. U Denver, not U Colorado

      Delete
  28. A lot of the calling Nancy a "perpetrator" is a bit hypocritical. Had any of you had the opportunity upon graduating (or shortly after) to have her job, you'd have jumped all over it after wetting your pants. That didn't happen, and now her job is to be despised. Go figure. If you were among the lucky few, it'd have been you fending off a bunch of critical, name-calling wanna-be's who didn't make the cut.

    That said, here's the lesson. You made a deal with the devil by going to law school and wanting in on the scam. Suck it up. Warn others. But don't forget; you would have been singing a completely different tune had you landed in her position.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You tellingly use the phrase "lucky few". Because law school stats claim that the successful grads are far more than a few!

      Thanks for highlighting the scam for us. A handful are successful, most are failures in comparison.

      And please also write the same message to Nancy, reminding her that were it not for her good fortune (and not necessarily hard work and brains, because we worked hard and have brains too) she would be one if us and writing to change the disgusting legal education system instead of profiting from it.

      Cuts both ways, dude. Your argument cuts both ways.

      Delete
    2. WE ARE WARNING OTHERS!!!!!!!! THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT POSTS LIKE THIS DO!!!!!!! IT EXPOSES THE FACETS OF LAW SCHOOL THAT MAKE IT A SCAM, PART OF WHICH ARE THE PROFESSORS WHO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT HOW TO PRACTICE LAW OR WHO WASTE STUDENT MONEY WRITING DUMB ARTICLES!!!!!

      Delete
    3. I didn't want in on the scam. I just wanted a stable career helping others.

      Delete
  29. At 9:27. Right, it cuts both ways. That was the point. So, consider that as you try to rip on profs like her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How, exactly? There are professors who are trying to work to change the system. You're assuming that the people on the outside who are interested in changing the system would not be in that group?

      Delete
    2. No. I am saying that you all are ripping a prof. because she wastes time writing useless garbage and has no real-world experience. These might be true, but if that job had been offered to you all (to waste time writing useless garbage and teach subjects where you have no real-world experience), you'd have jumped all over it. How do you blame her for jumping all over it? Hell, I would have, too. She is being cast as "evil" for doing the same thing all of you would love to be doing.

      Delete
    3. @11:28:

      You are a fool who sadly thinks you've caught on to some sort of hypocrisy at work here.

      Where you're wrong is the assumption that dybbuk and others would behave with the exact same behaviors they criticize.

      No one is blaming Nancy Leong for accepting a plum job. We're blaming Nancy Leong for accepting a plum job, claiming expertise in areas where she doesn't have it, writing egregiously-inane garbage, and behaving like an utter loon.

      Paul Campos has limited, mostly junk practice experience. He writes crap about obesity. Yet no one here would ever throw him in the same category as Leong.

      It's about attitude, and you have no evidence whatsoever that dybbuk would behave like that **** if he had a professorship.

      Delete
  30. 100% wrong. we would not all choose to make a living at the cost of naive 22 year olds financialand person ruin. sounds like you would, though. that's your moral failing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You'll just have to be honest with yourselves on that point, although I doubt you are being honest outwardly. Had you been offered $180k to start as a prof. with little to no real-world experience, you'd have said, "No. I prefer unemployment/doc review/shitlaw." Yeah, I believe that. If you are telling the truth, God bless you, and I mean that.

      Delete
  31. I agree that very few would turn down the job, but that doesn't mean any of us would be low enough to threaten internet authors for their viewpoints like this entitled, vicious princess did to dybbuk. You don't like the world you live in, then don't go public with BS law review articles, don't be such an arrogant little princess that you are above criticism. It irks me that this princess has the audacity to threaten or to call somebody a racist or sexist as an attack against those who are giving their opinions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could be, but that's just putting the attention on petty interpersonal relations. It has nothing to do with scamblogging. The point is basic: Scambloggers are ripping on people for being who they want to be because they do what scambloggers wish they could be doing.

      Delete
    2. In my own case, I can honestly say I have no desire to be a LawProf. First of all, I will admit I'm not a great teacher, and the idea of trying to go through a syllabus and teach a class is not my idea of a good time.

      Of course, many LawProfs aren't in the gig to teach; in fact many of them have to be drug kicking and screaming to teach six hours a week. So, we're even there.

      Second of all, I don't hold any sort of "fascination" towards the law, so the idea of having to write make-work law review articles sounds horrible, and going to conferences and pretending to care sounds boring. There are lots of other kinds of work to be done, and I do my part there instead.

      So no, we're not ripping on LawProfs because we secretly wish we could be them. We're ripping on the fact that No One Cares (including most LawProfs) while thousands of 0Ls are loaded into the grist mill every year.

      Money is certainly nice, but there are lots of ways to make money. Consigning people to 25 years of ridiculous student loans is not the only way, although LawProfs don't seem terribly concerned so long as the gravy keeps coming.

      That is one of the reasons why we scamblog. Lower tuition (and by extension, LawProf salaries) and we would probably shut up.

      Delete
    3. Typical boomer assumption: everyone strives to have unearned wealth stolen from others and then to view the victims with smug scorn.

      The old adage that "everyone has their price" reflects generational values more than truth. It reflects a generation obsessed with getting to the biggest number at the expense of doing something of value.

      Delete
  32. "the point is basic."

    Yeah, it's really basic. All you're offering is a repackaged version of the "critics of legal education are entitled/whiners/losers" line. Nothing new there. As to your "point," it is patent nonsense to argue that all critics of legal education harbor a secret desire to become law profs. People are motivated by a variety of things other than large paychecks. For instance, given a choice between a food service job and a 100k job at an abortion clinic, how many religious conservatives do you suppose would simply chase the big dollar? Some, maybe, but quite a few would put their religious beliefs first. There is such a thing as honest criticism. Criticism isn't necessarily a manifestation of jealousy.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I think the fact that this argument is being made, ie scambloggers criticize the professors because they're jealous of them, shows we are making progress. Our critics seem to be scraping the bottom of the idea barrel.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Nope. You are wrong. I did not say scambloggers don't have a valid message or purpose. Clearly, they have pumped out too many lawyers at too high a cost to the student.

    However, you would take her job if you could. A few of you are lying about it, but you know you would. Maybe because it's out of reach for you, you find it easy to rationalize in your mind you wouldn't take it. There's probably a psychological term for that.

    $180k for teaching a few classes is mannah from heaven.

    You didn't go to law school to make great money? LMAO. Yeah, that's why you complain it left you destitute. No great jobs, etc. No, it wasn't about the money. Just money (or lack thereof) made you miserable.

    One thing you might want to do is lay off the "Boomer" rhetoric until you know what a "Boomer" is. You all commonly refer to people born 30 years after WWII as "Boomers."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would NEVER become a law professor simply because of the income...especially when it is on the backs of naive twenty somethings with no real-world experience. I would not be able to live with myself. I truly have no idea what you are talking about.

      Also, i think we all know what a Boomer is...even if you don't. Try to get a clue.

      Delete
    2. "However, you would take her job if you could."

      Nah, I make almost as much money as a law professor, and I can look at myself in the mirror without revulsion.

      I can't imagine the psychological pressure of having an easy, well-paying job, knowing that virtually all of the people paying huge amounts of money towards my salary are being financially ruined by doing so - i.e. a professor at a second-rate or lower law school.

      Added to that is the knowledge that I am virtually unemployable outside the law school professoriate, and that my job may well be axed soon - I suspect that I would engage in some combination of denial, bravado, and substance abuse to cope.

      I'll rather take honorable employment, thanks.

      Delete
    3. 7:40, you're a fucking idiot.

      Delete
    4. At 9:28, that's how people react when you hit a nerve.

      Delete
    5. 8:02, that is why the professors blow so much hot air about "justice," "social justice," "the oppressed," etc. Sort of like Lady Macbeth or Pontius Pilate, "out damned spot!"

      Delete
    6. I feel somewhat qualified to speak on this issue, as I once spent a year as an adjunct in a paralegal program. It was at a for-profit online college, and it paid me about $20,000 per year, after tax. Good money for doing very little.

      But I quit it, simply because I could not live with the obvious fact that I was part of a system that was failing its students. I knew that they would graduate (or some would graduate) into a job market that didn't want them nor need them, and that they had been sold a lie by the school.

      So whoever is persisting with this foolish idea that people do anything for money, and that money motivates us all, needs to shut up. Perhaps in his circles, people are motivated by money. Great. Some turn into wealthy bankers in NYC, but guess what? Some turn into hookers. The same thing motivates both groups - if they can make money, they'll do it. Morals don't come into it.

      And from what I've seen of law, it attracts the same caliber of people - they sell themselves for a shot at the big money. Which is why law schools are still full each year of new students for whom the desire to make big bucks overrides all sense of reason. They would kill for that biglaw office even if it means doing work that is boring, degrading, hurtful, and soul crushing. They see themselves as successful because they are well paid. Not because they are doing the right thing.

      But for many people here, they weren't motivated by money. They would not take part in the scam even if it meant they were successful themselves. Because they realize that it's just not right. They have standards that include not ripping off other people to benefit themselves.

      And thank god that people like us exist. Because if we were all like law professors who can compartmentalize the harm they do to students for their own personal gain, and still sleep well at night comfortable in their $500K houses with their $80K BMWs tucked away in the garage and their 8 hour a week teaching loads while their students slave away in doc review jobs and struggle for decades to pay off their punishing student loans, the world would be a fucking miserable place for us all. Thank god some of us have learned (and not from our Boomer parents/grandparents) that doing the right thing is far more important than doing the profitable thing.

      Delete
    7. Interesting.

      First: "And from what I've seen of law, it attracts the same caliber of people - they sell themselves for a shot at the big money. Which is why law schools are still full each year of new students for whom the desire to make big bucks overrides all sense of reason."

      Followed by: "But for many people here, they weren't motivated by money."

      I don't know what to make of that, but it sure sounds selective.

      It's easy to say you don't want "X" when you tried for "X" and then found you couldn't get it.

      I do not believe those people, who spent 3 years in law school, went into $130k debt and took one of the most grueling tests known, that they didn't make a deal with the devil and get shafted. Sorry, but I can't help but think your first observation is right and stands to this day: "And from what I've seen of law, it attracts the same caliber of people - they sell themselves for a shot at the big money. Which is why law schools are still full each year of new students for whom the desire to make big bucks overrides all sense of reason. They would kill for that biglaw office even if it means doing work that is boring, degrading, hurtful, and soul crushing."

      The problem is they didn't make it.... Satan reneged on the bargain.

      Nobody went through all that without dollar signs in their eyes. Nobody. Maybe to different degrees, more or less, but they were all in the same boat. These weren't people who had plans to graduate law and dig water wells in Central America.

      Delete
    8. Uh, yeah 5:40 PM. You've caught me out. Well done. I said one thing that you took to an illogical extreme in order to make me look like I contradicted myself. You're the best!!!

      Except you're the one who has spent his (or her?) entire weekend here trying to make a point that nobody is buying. If that makes you feel better about your greed, so be it. But we're not the same as you. We don't worship money, nor would we do anything to get a fat paycheck.

      Delete
    9. "Be true to thine self." You don't have to prove anything to me or anyone. You tried. It didn't pan out. What a drag. We get it. I've had disappointments, too. I especially sympathize with you all's because it is practically a life-shattering disappointment and something you can't just dig out of in a year or two.

      But you don't have to pretend you used to be somebody that you really were not.

      As far as getting the message out that law school is a tenuous deal, I agree. Totally. But there's no need to pretend.

      Part of what makes a solid message is to tell not just the truth, but the whole truth. "Yeah, we sold out. Yeah, it was stupid and did not pay off. Don't sell out. You are being sold a pipe-dream." All that is good.

      But to pretend you signed up for 3 years, hoards of non-dischargeable debt and a world-class exam - all so you could make your goal of earning less than a UPS driver - nobody will believe that.

      Telling the truth is a much better sell. In the end, had you been among the lucky few who got the sweet, low-hanging fruit of a law prof.'s job (a real prof.), your song would have been entirely different. You would not be here saying you wouldn't want to be a prof. making easy dough. You would never have had a message like this. Not even Campos, "the beneficent sympathizer," wants to give up his gig and share in your misery. Hell, yeah, it was about the money. Maybe your perspective has changed over time, but the tell-tale signs are there as to what drove you to law school in the first place. Nobody bets it all on red and thinks small.

      Delete
    10. Sooo disappointed in 6:13's post. I guess I'm the stupid one, since I went to law school - gasp, surprise - to work in public interest. But of course, I have to worry about appearing truthful and honest, since, apparently, no one is going to believe I could have actually been motivated by public interest work.

      On another topic, I wonder what it is like to be solely motivated by money....must be an empty existence, I would think, to only be worth what your next dollar is. Maybe one day I'll find out.

      Delete
  35. Hell hath no fury like a woman whose law review article has been scorned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And perhaps she's learning that when she's so successfully milking students for her own personal gain, she would be wise to keep her mouth shut about what a victim she is.

      Delete
    2. It certainly seems that way. Any pretense she once made at legitimate debate has devolved into silence on this board and intellectually dishonest postings on her own site.

      Stanford should be disappointed in turning out such an easily quieted debater.

      Delete
  36. The personal attacks which can be summarized as saying "You'd be a law professor if you could, but you can't and you're jealous" are clear evidence that the scammers have no arguments to make on the merits.

    Because if they did, they'd make them instead of engaging in personal attacks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nobody, except the scambloggers, said anything about jealousy. Please go back and read it all again to see what was really said.

      Delete
    2. 5:41 PM, you've now been trying to make this same point for at least 24 hours. Permit me to summarize:

      1 - You think we all would wet ourselves to have Nancy Leong's job.
      2 - You think we are criticizing her writing only because we didn't get her job and it's our way of saying "yeah well we didn't want that job in the first place."

      It makes no sense on so many levels, primarily because of your flawed assumption that everyone would jump at the chance to be a law professor.

      Not me. Not Dybbuk. Not any of the writers here. Not most of the readers either.

      In fact, I think it's just you who is jealous of her job.

      Maybe come back when you've developed some kind of comments based on reality?

      Delete
    3. "Jealous" is the wrong word, but yeah, it's a sweet gig. As I said in my reply above, no need to pull the charade as to why you went to law school. Everyone knows why. It's why they all go.

      Not everyone thinks they are going to be millionaires, but I bet everyone thinks they will be flush soon thereafter (5 - 10 years) and living a comfortable lifestyle with a growing stockpile of equity. Nobody goes to make doc. review money.

      Delete
    4. OTLSS, your summary isn't quite complete.

      3 - Anyone denying #1 or #2 is just a big liar.

      Taken as a whole, an inescapable black hole of logic!

      Delete
    5. 6:17 has a severely over-inflated sense of “I've figured the world out.” I'm a 10+ year lawyer and have a position in government that I feel passionate about. I get to walk into courtrooms and argue interesting and important issues of constitutional law, on cases that make real differences to people's lives and to society. I'm not earning $500,000 a year but I make a pretty good living. More than the money though, I get to dig into the trenches and try and sway juries and appellate judges alike on things that matter, and I love doing that so I never intend to stop until I croak. You really think I'd give up a life like that to teach Property Law and research the Irish constitution? Or spend 2400 hours a year billing while reviewing payroll records? Spare me.

      Delete
    6. To 5:41 PM et al

      It may be that many people who go to law school are greedy, that the legal profession self-selects for greed (see BigLaw and plaintiffs' lawyers) and that not every greedy lawyer is as successful as they would like to be.

      But that misses the point of the criticism of law professors, particularly at lower ranking law schools - greed is one thing, living off of lives destroyed by non-dischargable debt is quite another.

      To analogize, lawyers in private practice may be greedy, and work hard and legitimately be successful, but a lawyer, greedy or not, who steals from his client is still a thief.

      Delete
    7. Can't tell if "you guys were totally trying to whore yourselves out to be LawProfs but now its sour grapes hypocrisy because U R luzers" guy is just a random troll or Mr. Infinity/Knorps.

      The single-minded, passionate, all-or-nothing binary approach suggests the latter.

      Delete
    8. @10:05, like you, I spent the past ten years in public law positions. My goal in law school was to work as a PD/DA, which I did (both actually). I now work for a state agency and love going to court. I never sought a job in big law and would never want to "teach" law, especially at a school like DU. Many of my friends are in the same boat. Everyone I work with has spent a career in public law.

      Delete
  37. Tomorrow morning there will be a new headline post on OTLSS. As far as I am concerned, I have said everything I needed to say about this professor's qualifications and scholarship. It would be good judgment on her part, on both our parts, to allow this this matter to conclude. My guess is that Leong and I have this in common: there are other things we would rather focus on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She has the remaining two articles in her magnum opus on "waaah waaah waaah somebody doesn't worship me" to write over at that embarrassing graveyard feminist law professor blog. This isn't over yet as far as she is concerned.

      My bet? One of her upcoming articles will focus on how she stood up to "bullies" and they stopped writing about her, pretending that she "made" you move on to other topics.

      Delete
  38. The new scam is here:
    University of Iowa to offer six year bachelor and JD program:
    http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20131121/NEWS/311210045/

    ReplyDelete
  39. You have to ask why this trend of rewarding inexperienced law grads from top universities with sinecures at lower ranked colleges came about. But whatever the reason, its probably unsustainable now. I can see it gradually dying off, with colleges now requiring more prior experience, more work and offering less pay to new professors.

    ReplyDelete
  40. On the surface, a scamprof's job appears to be a good one. They're overpaid and underworked for sure, and pampered in ways that outsiders can't even conceive. But consider the costs they pay for their easy existence. At DU, they have to write embarrassing nonsense that no one ever reads, and pretend to be profound thinkers for having done so. That kind of thing erodes whatever respect anyone may have had for their pretentious job. And then there's the enormous inner vacuum, the continuous deficit in integrity and inner peace. And of course, the constant bogus accusations against anyone who dares to criticize them, which support a nagging fear that better-founded accusations may be brought back against them.

    It's a pathetic existence of misery and permanent unhappiness that the scamprofs have to endure. I don't see Nancy ever turning back, and if she manages to trade up for more "prestige," that may further impair her thinking. I predict further acting out as Nancy tries to adjust to the effects on others of her parasitic career. Substance abuse, increasing to horrendous amounts, is another outcome we often see in cases such as this.

    No, I don't want to be Nancy. End of subject.

    ReplyDelete