For law geeks like me, late January and early July are among the best times of the year. These dates mark the beginning of each the two law review article submission cycles. (For outsiders who are interested in how this bizarre process works, see my article on the subject.) This Fall cycle I'm submitting my 37th law review article to the journals for publication. It's titled "Disorderly Conduct: An Investigation into Police and Prosecutor Practices."
In recent years I've found that half the fun of submitting and publishing many of my first 36 articles has been following the "Prawf's Blawg angsting thread" throughout the submission cycle. It's basically a blog post and comment thread where law professors, wannabe law professors, and even a few actual practicing lawyer-authors (like me) post a wide range of questions, comments, and news about the article submission and publishing process. Debates and arguments have even broken out from time to time. (To see what it looks like, you can find last submission cycle's blog post and comment thread here.)
Because I'm self-employed and answer to no one, I've always posted my questions and comments under my real name with a link to my web page. However, almost everyone else posts anonymously. (Last cycle, one poor law prof posted with an anonymous name -- names, actually, over the course of multiple comments -- but then accidentally provided a link to his real webpage each and every time. Woops.) And when law professors get to hide their identities (or at least think they are hiding them) the profs can write honestly. That enables this generally speech-restricted group to post some pretty harsh and adversarial comments.
Such hostility didn't sit well with many profs who followed the beloved angsting thread. After all, most law profs are quite sensitive. The younger among them went to school in the age of trigger warnings. (See here.) Worse yet, most of them, regardless of age, have never practiced law and therefore haven't been toughened-up by hostile adversaries, defiant witnesses, or nasty judges. And because of this level of sensitivity within the academic bubble, I remember threats by the Prawf Blog's moderator / host / or whatever the position is called that if all the little boys and girls didn't play nicely with each other, the entire thing might get shut down. And now it has been. Shut down. Finito. The Prawf's Blawg angsting thread for Fall 2021 and thereafter has been terminated.
Now, it's quite possible that the moderator / host / or whatever just got tired of moderating or hosting or doing whatever else is involved in producing such a fantastic service for the rest of us. If that's the case, then so be it, and many thanks for the good times. However, I suspect that the real reason things have shut down is that too many law profs were offended by some of the comments. I further suspect, rather than simply not reading the damn thing, these hypersensitive souls had to complain about these perceived injustices and, as a result, the glorious angsting thread has died with an unceremonious thud.
There are other possible explanations, of course, for why this wonderful service has shut down. But regardless of the reason, it has shut down. I hope it's the case that it's very easy to run a post and comment thread such as this, and that someone else will start one up ASAP.
And if anyone does, please email the weblink to me at mdc@CicchiniLaw.com, and count me in! Otherwise, this Fall's submission cycle just won't be the same.
Thank you for posting this. I've appreciated your contributions to the angsting thread. I'm angsting about the loss of the angsting thread and hoping someone will create a replacement. I'm looking for a place to angst about Northwestern's exclusive submissions window for their empirical issue. I don't blame Lawsky for stepping back. It's a dangerous time for a law prof to subject herself to possible blame for maintaining a forum in which profs question the fairness of law review publication decisions and especially the role of identity-based preferences. I suppose that's why the comments were censored and closed and then the thread was cancelled.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you found my post! I didn't know that comments were censored on the angsting thread. I have wondered, though, about identity-based preferences in law journals. I saw a law review's post recently on Schoastica -- don't remember the journal; maybe Washington L Rev -- that said it will used blind submissions but will also give preference to "scholars of color" or something like that. How are those two things compatible? How are those two things even possible in combination? It's a bizarre world out there.
ReplyDeleteSome law reviews have formally adopted preferences, while anecdotal information suggests that others are doing so informally. This was a topic of discussion on the thread, and comments were removed. Regrettably, some commentators speculated about a particular publication decision at a fancy journal. It is unkind to speculate publicly about any particular decision, even if it is inevitable that people will wonder in a preferences-based system. I don't know exactly how journals incorporate preferences into their processes. I think I remember some journals using a form questionnaire for identity categories; the editors could use responses to such a form to incorporate identity preferences into a blind review process. Most journals don't even attempt a blind submissions process, which to my mind is the biggest problem with the system, leading to letterhead bias, bias toward established scholars, and identity bias. The last of these is now ostensibly being corrected for by preferences, but that just leaves those of us historically URMs who do succeed under the shadow of suspicion that our success is not based on the quality of our work.
ReplyDeleteOh, I do remember that discussion. I didn't know the comments were later removed. In any case, I agree that it's poor form to comment on a particular, specific publication decision, as opposed to commenting on general practices. In addition to the problem you raise, it also stinks of jealousy.
ReplyDelete