Harvard Law School will hold a conference today that asks the question: Are law school faculties too liberal?
Joey Alicea, the president of the Harvard branch of the conservative-libertarian Federalist Society, and the organizer of the conference, told USA Today, “We have very few conservatives on the faculty here at Harvard Law School, and until that changes, we’re going to have a real lack of intellectual diversity here. Students are not well served by having such an intellectually monolithic faculty.”
One law professor at Northwestern University School of Law, John McGinnis, said that the situation has not improved since a study he conducted in 2005. The study discovered that close to 80 percent of politically active professors at top law schools contribute to Democrats.
“It’s overwhelmingly one way still,” he says. “Things are maybe somewhat better, but it’s not dramatically changed. In some sense, I think it’s worse for liberals, who don’t have their ideas challenged.”
Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, and the two senior justices, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, all graduated from Harvard Law School. Justice Elena Kagan was the dean of the school. Justice Stephen Breyer also graduated from Harvard Law School. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg studied at the school for two years prior to graduating from Columbia.
Libertarian legal views are set forth by the father of the movement today.
I like their broad view, desire to strengthen common law and juries, and attention to both process and multiculturalism in re-stating natural law and removing attacks on rights such as the drug statutes.
John Roberts is Chief Justice of the United States, not “…of the Supreme Court.”
Thank you for pointing that out. The text was changed accordingly – Editor
Terrific to see this being discussed. Law schools should be teaching students to hone their analytical and critical skills and should guard against veering into indoctrination. If law school faculties wish for their law schools to be among the best at preparing the next generation of leaders and scholars, they should actively include among their ranks leaders of thought from all sides of the political spectrum. Unfortunately many of the top law schools’ faculties have become so homogenous as to political viewpoints that their primary mission is suffering.
Nah, just get rid of that intellectual fraud Dershowitz and stop admitting radicals like Scalia. Problem solved.
Oh, Anna Maria, just who do you think is the “father” of the movement which Ayn Rand is generally credited with bringing about?
Naturally, I applaud Harvard’s support of these nut jobs’ free speech.
80-20?? How on earth can 20 percent of politically active law professors be supporting the lunatic know-nothings of the 21st Century Republican Party? That is an over-representation, in my opinion. Sure one in five Americans is a lunatic, conspiracist with sociopathic tendencies… but we don’t need such ingrates as law professors. … and I was a Republican right up to the Ken Starr nonsense, then again during W’s campaign … right until he nominated Ashcroft as A.G., disavowing any pretense of seriousness or compassion. Upon declaring an unwinnable war “on terror” – rather than Saudi Arabian terrorists – I began working on behalf of progressive causes. Nobody keeping score, no matter their personal religion or philosophy or politics, can credit the Republicans with being sensible or feasible as a leadership party. Good grief! That kind of diversity of opinion is not needed. I’d sooner invite anarchists, nativists, racists, than these Republicans that are all of the above in an intellectually inconsistent and dishonest manner. Worst.people.ever.
If only there were a viable Libertarian party… it’s not like those views find ANY support in Republican policy-making circles. Social-libertarians are logical allies to the Democratic party; pure libertarians are just playing the anarchy card and voting nihilistically, whoever they cast their ballot for.