Maynard on "Killing the Motivation of the Minority Law Professor"

Goldburn P. Maynard Jr. (Indiana University, Kelley School of Business) has published Killing the Motivation of the Minority Law Professor, 107 Minn. L. Rev. 245 (2022). Here is the abstract:

This Essay hypothesizes that a significant number of minority junior scholars with radical or non-normative ideas forego those projects or mute them to fit their work within the dominant paradigm of legal scholarship. Even those who move forward and publish their radical or non-normative proposals spend significant time attempting to overcome internal and external resistance, negotiating with mentors, and finding ways to make the radical seem palatable. This disproportionately harms the productivity of minority law professors, not only through inefficiency, but also through the long-term destruction of intrinsic motivation that is vital and overlaps with successful, fulfilling, and productive careers. To counteract some of these stifling effects, this Essay proposes several ways in which universities and the legal academy can support radical and non-normative scholarship.

The full article is available here.

Comments

[Anon]

One could easily apply this analysis to the scholarship of conservative and libertarian scholars who equally feel silenced by the ideological majorities, albeit political ones.

[anon]

"Conservative" and "libertarian" scholars aren't true scholars, as we all know. These "scholars" generally are rightly forbidden to comment in the FL.
Why should the faithful need to defend their views, right?
Perhaps the narrow minded, intolerant, self-satisfied arrogance that permeates legal academia is a problem not only for "minority junior scholars with radical or non-normative ideas"?

[A non]

"To counteract some of these stifling effects, this Essay proposes several ways in which universities and the legal academy can support radical and non-normative scholarship."

It would be great to see these proposals open the door to more far-right, fascist/corporatist, and anarcho-capitalist forms of scholarship, let alone Nietzschean work on the genealogies of progressive and liberal (legal) values and (legal) concepts, getting published in American law reviews. Let a thousand--genuinely transgressive--blossoms bloom.

Making a space for anti-American-imperialism scholarship would also be a welcome improvement in the name of inclusivity.

[Red State Kulander]

"far-right, fascist/corporatist, and anarcho-capitalist...Nietzschean works"

Nice! See if you can work "running dog," "imperialist gangster," or "bourgeoisie oppressors" in there.

[anon]

I always label the 50% of the people in this country who push back against the actions of the "liberal" party (which is anything but) as "far-right, fascist/corporatist, and anarcho-capitalist...Nietzscheans."

Doesn't everybody?

The "dominant paradigm of legal scholarship" rejects "non-normative ideas"? Say, huh?

Oh, Galileo, your world was tolerant in comparison to the one these folks seek! By support, one wonders what is truly sought.

[A non]

I choose to take your remark literally, Red State Kulander. So, here you have it.

"[B]ourgeoisie oppressors"? You must be an old white guy. The old/traditional left, though, is being discredited for its essentialist conception of class. Intersectionality helps to expose the old left's gender and racial biases, and indeed inadequacy, in this regard; you instead need to be alive to different dimensions of oppression and domination--and indeed, to largely focus on THOSE ones, while downplaying socioeconomic considerations that equally impact whitey.

However, aren't the intersectionalist's conceptions themselves essentialist, parochial, and often employed anachronistically and disingenuously? Don't they CONSCIOUSLY avoid deconstructing their own norms, conceptions, and political values? Don't they avoid talking about how the indeterminacy thesis applies not just to law but equally to the crits' own morality(ies) and political ideologies?

If so, don't these considerations suggest that it is just a superficial, hypocritical form of propaganda?

You betcha!

Which is why, unlike the running dog liberals and social dems in the academy and media, quite a few folks on the old left believe CRT is, or has been adopted in furtherance of, a psyop. The "theory" is promoted (if not generated by) the bourgeoisie oppressors in the universities and the deep state, to, at least in part, discredit the old left and to prop up the multiculti-capitalist system in the United States.

America is now also foisting this superficial garbage down other countries' throats, like the imperialist gangster state that it is (and always has been), in order to "socially engineer" them to accord with America's "liberal-progressive" (distorted, false) image of itself. However, scholarly discussion of domination and oppression of the Global South through such means doesn't ever get discussed publicly by the crits, let alone the rest of the academy-- especially when it comes to American-led duplicitous efforts to refashion brown, black, and yellow peoples' views of gender and sexuality across the globe.

[anon]

A non
ALl that gibberish amounts to a racial screed that presupposes that "brown, black, and yellow people" have some inherent goodness that "whitey" lacks. The fact that you are allowed to post racist rants on this site flies in the face of the deletion policy that is usually employed.
You accuse someone else of being "an old white guy" as to discredit and insult.
This is evidence of racism. If the tables were turned, and you insulted another group in such a manner, all the "liberals" who probably eat up your nonsensical, jargon-laden (used, one supposes, to try to convince readers about how "intelligent" you are) childish and bigoted ranting would be appalled by your words.

[anon]

BTW, if this is an example of the "scholarship" to which the main post refers, then the reason this "scholarship" is rejected is no mystery:

"Which is why, unlike the running dog liberals and social dems in the academy and media, quite a few folks on the old left believe CRT is, or has been adopted in furtherance of, a psyop."

Stunning.

[A non]

anon,

I am white and on the right. Hopefully that clarifies some things things for you.

One of the right's problems--and it has many--is a general unwillingness to actually learn and understand leftist theories. If they bothered to do so, they'd be able to do a much better job of criticizing and debunking the left's bullshit. The very few rightists who do so EASILY rip them to shreds.

Calling something mere gibberish only makes YOU look ignorant to the left. It's why every fuckwit GOP Congressman or state official who never bothered to try to understand even the rudiments of CRT but nevertheless felt confident to publicly criticize it on television or in print was never going to convince anyone on the left of the theory's harmfulness or demerits. If anything, their superficial remarks only helped to pushed the ignorant to favor a theory the latter *themselves* have never studied and don't understand.

You will also most certainly find orthodox Marxists who claim that critical theory (Marcuse particularly, who worked for the precursor to the CIA) and CRT these days were promoted by the state to refocus people on the left's attention on culture (and then race) instead of upon class and economics. (A simpler explanation, though, is that a refocusing on such issues was easier to promote publicly during the cold war while the Soviet Union was still around.)

If you are nevertheless stunned by that, it's only because you have no idea what those people write and think about.

Regarding black, brown, and yellow people, I was discussing Western-white created and driven LEFTIST hypocrisy vis-a-vis them. The Western leftists who CLAIM to be anti-imperialist, post-colonial, and to want to effectuate "decolonization" are COMPLETE LIARS about that. Unfortunately, that includes the efforts of major parts of the federal government's foreign policy since at least Woodrow Wilson's time.

Hugs and kisses,
A non

[anon]

""Which is why, unlike the running dog liberals and social dems in the academy and media, quite a few folks on the old left believe CRT is, or has been adopted in furtherance of, a psyop."

Yep. Cleary smarter than the rest of us, that A non.

[A non]

It's not groundless...

In terms of the running dogs, fortunately, most people--with ample reason--don't trust the establishment media anymore, and a quite a few universities will likely go bust in the coming years. The libs and social dems in the law schools, social sciences, and humanities are nevertheless ensuring that they lock in their more radical successors' preferred ideologies now for the surviving institutions. (History will nevertheless damn the former for helping to turn institutions of learning and knowledge production into ideology centers and circuses.)

Perhaps with the impending collapse of the American Empire things will shift in ways beyond their control, though.

Thanks for your thoughtful dialogue. Why don't you respond to this post by calling me a racist again or something?

[anon]

Race is a social construct, but you seem to be far too brilliant, or perhaps too flippant and arrogant and convinced by your own gobbledogook, to refrain from gutter sniping racial slurs. When I read, "You must be an old white guy," or " refashion[ing] brown, black, and yellow peoples' views of gender and sexuality across the globe" (as though such people have no agency) and "whitey" I recognize a low level of thought posturing as genius insight. So, "racist"?

When challenged, it is amusing to read how you start throwing quills like a porcupine! Do you spit at people as well? Do you really believe that you erase all the loose racial talk by stating: "I am white and on the right"?

Wow. Again, stunning. You seem to be asserting that that self-identification means, per se, you are not a racist.

You say, "quite a few folks on the old left believe CRT is, or has been adopted in furtherance of, a psyop. The "theory" is promoted (if not generated by) the bourgeoisie oppressors in the universities and the deep state, to, at least in part, discredit the old left."

Instead of spewing this gibberish, why not actually write something to make the point you are actually trying to make?

Charles R. Lawrence III, Richard Delgado, Devon Carbado, Mitu Gulati, Derrick Bell ... and so forth. Fit these and so many others into your rant? Nah. Attack. Spew. Get nasty!

And please, you are so brilliant and knowledgeable, so, cite someone other than yourself who has made your points more coherently, please. I am actually interested in knowing the sources you find compelling.

But, please, don't bother explaining this one: "Perhaps with the impending collapse of the American Empire things will shift in ways beyond their control, though."

I think that that level of assertion really does provide some "clarity."

The original post above seemed to be advocating for something that already exists. To the extent that your response is relevant, it proves the point. What exists is a screen for, well, what would be the right word, A non?

[A non]

Thanks anon. Some responses:

"[R]efashion[ing] brown, black, and yellow peoples' views of gender and sexuality across the globe" (as though such people have no agency) and "whitey" I recognize a low level of thought posturing as genius insight. So, "racist"?"

My point was that white leftist Westerners are, and have long been, engaged in a cultural, legal, and political imperialist project vis-a-vis the Global South. I don't deny that the peoples of the Global South have agency per se; but I am calling out white leftists for being hypocritical racist imperialists. There's PLENTY of literature on that. (Personally, I'd love to see some international TWAIL folks give American CRT, critical feminists, and their fellow travelers a proper, public spanking in this regard.)

"Instead of spewing this gibberish, why not actually write something to make the point you are actually trying to make?"

See what I said above of a lack of understanding of critical theory and about "gibberish", too. This only reaffirms *my* point.

"Nah. Attack. Spew. Get nasty!"

Accuse of racism when you don't understand what's written! Ignore the substance and the merits! Deflect! Demand citations in a blog post! Make someone else do your homework for you!

[Red State Kulander]

What might help in this debate is use of the Systematic Buzz Phrase Projector. As any self-respecting bureaucrat knows, it is bad form indeed to use a single, simple word when six or seven obfuscating ones will do.

Joe Bob says: check it out!

https://losernet.tripod.com/bafflegab.html

[anon]

Let it be noted that the threads here have been censored and stifled and deleted for many many months.

Some might read the thread above and conclude "For good reason!"

But, it seems to me that the conclusion should be that although the exchanges get nasty and brutal (and juvenile) at times, the ultimate outcome has been that it all calms down and the tidbits of relevant discussion grow into more fulsome discussions.

Those who are interested in teh FL should take note. Don't shut down speech.