My #LawTwitter Disclaimers

OMG, I’ve retweeted something. Is it an endorsement? Does it mean I approve of the message? What if I “like” it AND retweet it? There’s been discussion about what it means when law profs retweet or like a tweet. Or more precisely, what it should mean and what it might mean to students.

To me, the fundamental point of Twitter is to learn. That’s what I do on Twitter. I learn about things that are interesting, from science to philosophy.  It also entertains me. I see humor. And I see joy and support and hope. Of course, I see the worst of Twitter, too.

I’ve started to retweet more political things. One reason is my law prof follows have been tweeting more political things. But it’s mostly because I find #whataboutism maddening. It’s like two kids engaged in the knife fight suggesting that only the stab wounds they inflicted are righteous. The gotcha games and the “refs” who play for one team only calling flags on the plays of the opposing team is troublesome to me. There are more determinative factors than who stabbed whom first, like the area of the stab wound and the intent behind the wound. I hope I get out of the habit of reading political twitter soon.

I retweet and like to my heart’s desire, both things with which I agree and things with which I disagree. I learn regardless of whether I agree with the tweet or not. Does that make me a Hegelian? Sure, sometimes I call out tweets I think are problematic, untrue, or wrong. And sometimes I telescope my policy preferences, especially in my areas of expertise. I might be right, or I might get schooled. Either way, cool.

The role of the legal academy is the search for our core truths, which requires some navel-gazing into moral values. Suppression of ideals — even bad ones — runs counter to that. It is easy to listen to others when we all have the same values. As a friend once told me: “Developing a capacity to listen and to understand different ideas, different cultures, different moral values and different experiences is surely the primary way to minimize one’s own ignorance and maximize your academic experience by learning from each other.”

That doesn’t mean we should tolerate bigotry in the academy. Bigotry’s root is ignorance, which comes from being sheltered from different world views. As my friend also said, “Bigotry has no place in an academic institution, particularly one engaged in the never-ending search for truth, the critical examination of moral values and the development of skills essential to creativity and the peaceful resolution of disputes.”

That search for truth requires professors to have a damn bit more humility and compassion than I often see. It means we must let go of our own egos (or, more precisely, our own insecurities). It means admitting we don’t have all the answers. It means admitting we aren’t always right.

And it means not being contrarian to win the 8th-grade popularity contest.  The purpose of counterarguments is to search for truth and to enhance the quality of your own arguments. It might even mean — GASP — rejection of your own arguments in the face of evidence to the contrary.

But, maybe it is the case that law professors need a Twitter policy in case students read the tea leaves and believe a professor has it in for students with certain ideologies. Here’s mine.

LAWPROFBLAWG’S TWITTER POLICY

1. A retweet is not an endorsement.
2. A like is not an endorsement.
3. An endorsement may not be an endorsement for the reasons you think.
4. If I follow an account, it does not mean I endorse or read that account’s posts. I follow over 18,000 people, and I just don’t have that kind of time.
5. When I tweet, it is usually only with the purest of heart and intent. But I’m human. If you have concerns or issues, please DM me. I will do my best to listen and be respectful. If you choose a more confrontational approach, I’ll assume that you just want to be made famous and will be far less likely to hear your concerns.
6. My tweets typically fall into the following categories:
   • Puns
   • Tweets about my opposition to certain food items like pineapple on pizza or Instant Pots. These are just my preferences and I am not trying to impose my will on others.
   • Tweets concerning two spaces after the period at the end of a sentence. These are rebellious tweets against my imperialist single-spacing overlords. We will be victorious.
   • Tweets of an analytical and intellectual nature. Yeah, I still got game.
   • Satire (“Snark”) usually applied to point out inconsistencies or faulty logic.
   • I reserve the right, as with everyone else, to sometimes tweet other things or be snarky. I’ll do my best to minimize that.
7. It is possible I engage with followers you do not like and that I do not like. That’s okay. I learn from people I don’t get along with. However, if we’ve had an unpleasant interaction, I might mute you. Life is too short. And I’m done walking on eggshells. Repeated unpleasantness will lead to me blocking you.
8. I know it seems like it, but I’m not always on Twitter. Also, I do work. A lot.
9. If you would like me to amplify your scholarship, DM me. I read it first, though.
10. You must remember this: A kiss is not still a kiss. Ask Fredo.
11. But a sigh is just a sigh.
12. The fundamental things apply, as time goes by.

Of course, I might change these as I go along.  But you can find them forever updated here.

I hope if you like pineapple on pizza, you don’t feel my antithetical view will affect your grade. And I won’t even notice if you single space after a full stop on your exams.

---

LawProfBlawg is an anonymous professor at a top 100 law school. You can see more of his musings here. He is way funnier on social media, he claims. Please follow him on Twitter (@lawprofblawg) or Facebook. Email him at [email protected].