Advice For Those Of Us With Tenure Or Lifetime Appointments

If you engage in these fallacies in a mean-spirited, toxic way, your colleagues may think you are seriously losing it.

Those of us who have tenure must learn to get along by treating one another with respect. Tenure is, after all, almost a lifetime employment, not entirely unlike that enjoyed by the Supreme Court. Sure, we’re all eccentric, but when we are debating serious policy at the law school, we should be kind to one another. One of the ways to ensure that we don’t start to act like pariahs, or become abusive bullies, is to show each other compassion and avoid engaging in logical fallacies when we debate. Let me give you some examples of how logical fallacies do not contribute to any debate.

Appeal to authority: For example, let’s suppose you are in favor of the death penalty. And while you make some logical arguments, you throw in this: “Perhaps JUSTICE BREYER is more forgiving—or more enlightened—than those who, like Kant, believe that death is the only just punishment for taking a life.” It’s been a while since I’ve read Kant, but since his death in 1804, perhaps society has progressed in terms of how we feel about punishment. Or nah. Regardless, saying you Kant believe Breyer isn’t aligned with Kant isn’t an argument. This is true even if you appeal to the authority of the nearest hippie.

Straw person: For example, let’s say you suggest that “[t]he Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.” You are not addressing your colleagues’ argument in the best possible form. You may be doing that elsewhere, but not in that sentence.

Slippery Slope: Say, for example, you disagree with the Supreme Court’s majority decision. Then, you might say, “This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of
Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.” You might forget, say, about the 1960s, and about how the Court made sweeping social change for the good, despite the views of many. You might even forget your own vote in Citizens United. Regardless, saying that things are going downhill quickly doesn’t make it so. So your argument just went to hell in a handbasket.

False Cause: Let’s suppose, for example, you cite some econometric studies that demonstrate that the death penalty deters, while ignoring others that suggest it does not. You might be led to believe that the existence of the death penalty causes a reduced crime rate, even while other econometric studies suggest that most criminals can barely see past the first year in prison. Of course, if you pick and choose your data, that is another logical fallacy.

Ad Hominem: Let’s suppose, for example you call someone’s argument “jiggery- pokery.” That does not further your argument, and is merely an insult. The same holds true if you call your colleagues egotistical or pretentious.

If you engage in these fallacies in a mean-spirited, toxic way, your colleagues may think you are seriously losing it. They may also make you appear ridiculous. You should save your humor for things like humor columns on blogs, where hopefully no one will take you seriously.

Sponsored


LawProfBlawg is an anonymous professor at a top 100 law school. You can see more of his musings here. Email him at lawprofblawg@gmail.com.

Sponsored