Adjunct Law Prof Blog

Editor: Mitchell H. Rubinstein
New York Law School

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Adjunct Prof Blog Accused of "Misblawgary"

Simple Justice, a criminal defense blog has accused me of "misblawgary." This criminal defense lawyer criticizes me for raising questions about an adjunct requiring students to post comments on his blog. I have also been criticized by Susan Liebel on her web site Build a Solo Practice. My comments concerned Prof. Randaza over at Legal Satyricon .

I do not mind being criticized. In fact, I think a heathly debate in blogosphere is a good thing. However, I would wish that people would read what I wrote before they criticize. I meant what I said. Requiring a student to post comments on a blog raises issues. Is the Prof doing this to get more hits? Many Prof bloggers get paid from advertising. What about students who cannot afford internet access, do not have computers or have difficulty reading on line. I have had students who fall into each of these categories.

So, what do you think? Should Professors require students to post blog comments online?

Mitchell H. Rubinstein 

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/adjunctprofs/2008/01/adjunct-prof-bl.html

Adjuncts in the News | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00e54ff5016c8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Adjunct Prof Blog Accused of "Misblawgary":

Comments

Aw Mitch. Talk about reading better, you weren't accused of misblawgery, but accused of accusing Marc John Randazzo of misblawgery.

For the sake of argument, I am prepared to accept your post-hoc position as sincere, but then you've got spend a little more time framing your questions and tone. If everybody read your post the same way, is everybody wrong?
__________
Only 2 people have commented. Is that everybody??
Mitch

Posted by: SHG | Jan 16, 2008 5:09:36 AM

Mitchell, you keep making this worse. Professor Randazza has a class blog, not his personal blog, the Legal Satyricon. There is no advertising (on his) or the class blog. If you wish to raise debate qualify you are not referencing inappropriately Professor Randazza as to personal traffic and advertising. Indicate Professor Randazza's requirement helped raise these questions in general but distinguish the appropriate facts from your hypothetical. Do not keep implicating through lack of correction you are talking about the facts of what Professor Randazza is doing.

As to your question, if the Professor deems it appropriate and the school itself provides the ability for a student to have access to the internet, then, yes, professors who choose to encourage blogging by their students should be free to do so.

But please distinguish one individual who is doing it, correct for your readers the way he is doing it and separate it from your generalized questions and assumptions.

If you don't, this is what is going to make you lose all credibility. As you said in a comment to my post, don't assume facts not in evidence, especially wrong facts.

Posted by: Susan Cartier Liebel | Jan 16, 2008 5:16:24 AM

Simple Justice didn't accuse *you* of "misblawgary," he reported that you accused *me* of it.

You really need to work on those reading comprehension skills. If you read a little more carefully, you never would have gotten yourself into this foolishness.

Step one in getting out of a hole -- stop digging.

Posted by: Marc John Randazza | Jan 16, 2008 5:25:56 AM

Mitchell,

Like I said in my post, you may be one helluva a guy. But when you asked the question, "is the professor simply trying to increase his traffic" that was not a question meant to stimulate intellectual debate. It was a question, however, that attempted to undermine Professor Randazza's integrity. And the catalyst for the question was wrong information.

As for my opinion regarding innovative teaching methods, I stand by that. I'm tired of the twin orphans, creativity and practicality, always left standing alone in the cold at most law school's front door.

If a student does not have personal internet access or a laptop, the school does provide access. If the student is computer illiterate it will be a challenge to actually practice law in the 21st century...period.

So, if you want to be viewed as credible with these statements, statements meant to spur on intellectual debate, present the true facts and then indicate they got you to thinking in general about a blogging requirement in law school. Had it been presented this way you probably would have achieved your desired result.

Posted by: Susan Cartier Liebel | Jan 16, 2008 7:20:13 AM

I was a student in Randazza's class. What is not conveyed through the blog, he conveyed to us in class the first day. He had an open-door policy, and so he told us if we had any issues (like being afraid to speak up in class) to see him. I am sure if someone had a problem reading online, he would have worked out a modification for that student.

What I liked about the blog is we had to post comments which had substance. He shut down the few students at the beginning that just threw something up on the page. That stopped. It made me work harder because he and others would be reading it. Instead of blurting out an argument in class, it allowed us time to reflect and then formulate our arguments before expressing them.

What impressed me most is that he took the time to read them. And please keep in mind he is a "mere adjunct"--- he already has a full-time job. However, I have to admit I never felt like our class took the back burner to his work.

I don't know why it matters that he is an adjunct. He has done something none of my other professors have been able to do: he has inspired me. I feel privileged to have been in his class.

Martza Majstoravich

Posted by: Martza | Jan 23, 2008 7:20:30 PM

Post a comment