On the Value of Professor to Law

[Sean Wilson]

Hi Sandy.

I begin my con law course with the Glorious Revolution. (But it's actually con 
development). Let me offer these thoughts about the relevance of being a lawyer 
versus an academic for discussions about "constitutional law." 

Academics are more likely to be free of what I call a "bent perspective." What I 

mean by this is NOT that academics don't have goofy beliefs (for surely some 
do). But rather that they will have been attentive to the pitfalls of whatever 
belief systems they adopt. And if they haven't been sufficiently attentive, it 
is usually owed to neglect rather than poor character -- meaning they'll go back 

to deal with it when shown. In fact, good academics will be embarrassed to find 
that a pitfall in his or her beliefs is overlooked. You don't get the same 
behavior (as a general rule) among people who do not take on as a life career 
the pursuit of truth and meaning.

As such, you shouldn't find among professors the sort of behaviors in 
opinion-making that you do on the A.M. radio. The way the mind maneuvers is 
different. It isn't debate; it's discussion. It isn't a sword or a contest; it's 

like a food or a wine. You come to appreciate the working of minds and the 
integrity of thought.   

All professors have this in them to some degree, merely because of what their 
work consists of. We're so insulated from the world. It's like living life in a 
bottle. Your job, 24/7, is to make sense of things (one way or another).  It is 
because of this that a discussion group devoted to topic X might want to 
favorably indulge those whose life's work involves thinking properly of things 
concerning X.  


(P.S. Sent to Law and Meta Perspective) 

Regards and thanks.
 
Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Professor
Wright State University
Personal Website: http://seanwilson.org
  (Subscribe:  http://ludwig.squarespace.com/sworg-subscribe/ )
SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860
New Discussion Groups! http://ludwig.squarespace.com/discussionfora/




________________________________
From: Sanford Levinson <SLevinson at law.utexas.edu>
To: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505 at yahoo.com>; "CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu" 
<CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Fri, September 24, 2010 4:58:37 PM
Subject: RE: union cards

  
I begin my constitutional law courses with "the case of the United States Bank," 

which, of course, for me is decidedly not the same as beginning with McCulloch, 
since the initial debate is that among Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, and 
Randolph  and the decision by Washington.  The reason I mention this is that I 
always ask students how it is, exactly, that the non-lawyer Washington was 
supposed to decide who had the better argument (not to mention that two of the 
three lawyers, Jefferson and Randolph,  believed the bill was unconstitutional, 
as against Hamilton, of couse).  Does one not have to be a lawyer to understand 
constitutional law (which, of course, is my own position)?  If, on the other 
hand, professional expertise is required, then why shouldn't  Washington have 
simply said, the anti's, one of whom is my Attorney General, explicitly to give 
his opinon as to constituitonality of legislation, have it?
 
Obviously, I see no reason to believe that law professors, any more than 
certified lawyers, have a monopoly on useful discussions of the United States 
Constitution.  I suspect it is highly desirable to be a lawyer  to be a district 

judge, since one must know the rules of evidence (which almost no law professor 
who does not teach teh subject does).  Does anyone really believe that every one 

of the members of the United States Supreme Court really needs to be a 
lawyer?   
(And does this mean being a member of the Bar or only graduating from law 
school?  I suspect that all of us know distinguished law professors who have 
never taken a bar exam.)
 
sandy