More On Law School "Class Warfare": Tamanaha & Interdisciplinarity

Brian Tamanaha's provocative post on why an aggressive interdisciplinarity may not be such a good idea at non-elite (his words) law schools, noted below in Chris Zorn's post, continues to stimulate interesting commentary across many blogs. For a sampling, click here, here, here, and here.

Update:  More discussion here (Leiter) and here (Solum).

Comments

[buy propecia]

I really like your ideas about posting comments. i am a new for blog posting and i just like your thoughtful post. i know i am not like that what you want in posting but i,ll try to be like that but honestly, i really like your thought

[corey]

There is an unexplored angle in this discussion. Interdisciplinary studies, being concerned with the interaction of law with other aspects of human existence, are almost inherently more democratic, empathic, populist... while doctrinal scholarship, with its uneasy relationship to formalism, can serve as a short path to fascist "vanguard party" elitism. I find that the more time one spends immersed in real narratives of literature, psychology, or social science, the harder it is to promote a "greater good" over an otherwise obvious moral norm.

To my mind, the law schools are choosing whether to produce citizens or technocrats. Civic virtue requires an understanding of civic culture.