I appreciate your publishing this letter, and I appreciate your choice of tone. You're certainly more likely to influence the illustrious dean by commiserating with her than by denouncing her, even when criticism is due. With that said, I expect your statement to fall on deaf ears.
Those names again - Cosgrove and Eldik? Still at YLS, to all appearances in the same capacities? Back in November, Dean Gerken's statement about traphousegate and fedsocgate said that she would not discuss "personnel matters...in a community-wide email." Many looked at that and said "aha, she may yet remove those responsible." But four months later, inaction speaks louder than those words ever did.
I know I also said so back then, but I think it's worth reiterating here. I think the evidence suggests Gerken's complicit in all of this misconduct. Cosgrove and Eldik's actions are hers by proxy; they serve little more function than a layer of plausible deniability.
And I would suspect that if C&E were "on the scene" of the most recent debacle, it was to reassure and support the hecklers, not redress them. Prove me wrong? I haven't reviewed the audio or video in detail. I hope that I'm wrong... but I'm growing less hopeful. Either way, I pray your words will have some impact.
You might be right; time will tell. One interesting detail (which maybe supports your view): when the protesters went back into Room 127 to ask aggressive questions of Kristen Waggoner, the person holding the door for them was none other than... Yaseen Eldik.
I suppose that could go either way. Aggressive questions are fine by me! But his presence implies at least a failure to act against the more disruptive aspects. And given what we know he and Ellen have done in the past, I'm just not inclined to be too charitable in my expectations.
This is good as a model open letter. It actually reads more as a letter to persuade the addressee than to proclaim something to the rest of us listening in.
Though I am not a Yale Law grad (I suspect that Yale would have put up walls and a moat if it has been rumoured that I was interested!), I think that the problem which prompted your correspondence is one that has affected undergraduate and law school campuses across the country.
Too bad we can't bring back Dean Guido Calabresi. And perhaps I was naive, but the students seemed to be grown up and civil then, compared to how folks seem to be now. Janet Hamilton YLS 1986
Thank you for your comment, Janet, with which I totally agree.
When I was at YLS (1996-99), back when I was still a member (and actually an officer) of the Federalist Society, we hosted a debate on affirmative action. The debater taking the anti-AA position was Dinesh D'Souza. He was perceived somewhat differently then—it was before his various personal and legal troubles—but he was still very, very controversial.
Who agreed to be D'Souza's sparring partner? None other than Guido Calabresi.
How did it go? I don't recall any protests. What I do recall is a packed Room 127 and a civil, thoughtful, spirited, and overall excellent debate.
I doubt you could hold a debate on affirmative action at Yale Law School today. And I doubt that any member of the faculty, to say nothing of the dean, would agree to share the stage with anyone willing to challenge affirmative action. [Correction: Actually, Judge Calabresi was the former dean by this point, but he was still a figure of great stature at YLS.]
You don't need to have any particular view on affirmative action to think that a willingness to engage with people on both sides of the debate is a good thing. And with the Harvard and UNC cases on the Supreme Court's docket for the next Term, being able to engage with affirmative action's opponents is a pretty essential skill for lawyers who support it. I'm not sure how affirmative action can be saved if the lawyers who are in favor of it aren't willing or able to argue its merits to either SCOTUS or the public at large.
Good points, but….To me, this is very patronizing and includes LOT of mansplaining (“ we all want to be liked”… really??); would you have written this to a MALE Dean?????? Somehow I highly doubt the style and tone would have been the same.
Thanks for this perspective. I honestly didn't see it that way—and I certainly didn't intend it that way.
I'm a man, and I like to be liked. Meanwhile, Roberta Romano—one of YLS's most prominent professors, and one of the few who has spoken out publicly about recent events—DGAF about being liked.
Sure, we all "like to be liked," but to varying degrees. Some of us let it affect what we do, while others do not.
Many political pundits, male and female, don't care much about being liked—and it contributes to their success, because it lets them court controversy (which helps TV ratings, book sales, etc.). Examples include everyone from Rachel Maddow to Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson to Elie Mystal, my former Above the Law colleague. They are more courageous than I am; they care less about being liked. I could never do what they do. (Again, the examples are both male and female, left and right.)
So I didn't see this as gendered. Some of my (female) sources were the ones who told me that Dean Gerken, like me, likes to be liked. And a (male) reader just emailed me to say that he suffers from the same problem that I do on wanting to be liked too much.
I only used that as an example; I really felt that your “ explaining” SO many of your recommendations was highly patronizing…. And I doubt you’d have written that exact letter to Geoff Stone ( ex-UChicago Law Dean), or another prominent male Dean. Seriously, I really feel that - and I suggest you ask some women to read the post and see if they “hear” this tone as well …… I am willing to be wrong ( I’m not a lawyer - ha!)
1. I have a bunch of complimentary emails in my inbox from multiple women—including three women who are former law deans, actually. But things like tone are very subjective, so these women might not represent all women, of course.
2. Open letters are usually explanatory in tone (because they must sometimes explain things to the audience that the actual recipient is aware of).
3. I can definitely think of male ex-deans who sometimes let likability affect their decisions; if you want to email me, I can give you some examples. And I can think of female deans who didn't (e.g., Elena Kagan when she was dean at Harvard).
We might have to agree to disagree here. But I appreciate your flagging this for me—and I appreciate the opportunity to say here in the comments that this was absolutely not my conscious intent (but maybe it was floating around in my subconscious).
So David Lat, the most thoughtful and polite of legal commentators, was “mansplaining”? How about a more direct open letter with the same import: “Dear Dean, Get off your butt and do your job”. Mansplaining?
I appreciate your publishing this letter, and I appreciate your choice of tone. You're certainly more likely to influence the illustrious dean by commiserating with her than by denouncing her, even when criticism is due. With that said, I expect your statement to fall on deaf ears.
Those names again - Cosgrove and Eldik? Still at YLS, to all appearances in the same capacities? Back in November, Dean Gerken's statement about traphousegate and fedsocgate said that she would not discuss "personnel matters...in a community-wide email." Many looked at that and said "aha, she may yet remove those responsible." But four months later, inaction speaks louder than those words ever did.
I know I also said so back then, but I think it's worth reiterating here. I think the evidence suggests Gerken's complicit in all of this misconduct. Cosgrove and Eldik's actions are hers by proxy; they serve little more function than a layer of plausible deniability.
And I would suspect that if C&E were "on the scene" of the most recent debacle, it was to reassure and support the hecklers, not redress them. Prove me wrong? I haven't reviewed the audio or video in detail. I hope that I'm wrong... but I'm growing less hopeful. Either way, I pray your words will have some impact.
You might be right; time will tell. One interesting detail (which maybe supports your view): when the protesters went back into Room 127 to ask aggressive questions of Kristen Waggoner, the person holding the door for them was none other than... Yaseen Eldik.
I suppose that could go either way. Aggressive questions are fine by me! But his presence implies at least a failure to act against the more disruptive aspects. And given what we know he and Ellen have done in the past, I'm just not inclined to be too charitable in my expectations.
This is good as a model open letter. It actually reads more as a letter to persuade the addressee than to proclaim something to the rest of us listening in.
David,
Bravo.
Peter Kalis
Editor in Chief
Volume 87, Yale Law Journal
Well said.
Though I am not a Yale Law grad (I suspect that Yale would have put up walls and a moat if it has been rumoured that I was interested!), I think that the problem which prompted your correspondence is one that has affected undergraduate and law school campuses across the country.
Too bad we can't bring back Dean Guido Calabresi. And perhaps I was naive, but the students seemed to be grown up and civil then, compared to how folks seem to be now. Janet Hamilton YLS 1986
Thank you for your comment, Janet, with which I totally agree.
When I was at YLS (1996-99), back when I was still a member (and actually an officer) of the Federalist Society, we hosted a debate on affirmative action. The debater taking the anti-AA position was Dinesh D'Souza. He was perceived somewhat differently then—it was before his various personal and legal troubles—but he was still very, very controversial.
Who agreed to be D'Souza's sparring partner? None other than Guido Calabresi.
How did it go? I don't recall any protests. What I do recall is a packed Room 127 and a civil, thoughtful, spirited, and overall excellent debate.
I doubt you could hold a debate on affirmative action at Yale Law School today. And I doubt that any member of the faculty, to say nothing of the dean, would agree to share the stage with anyone willing to challenge affirmative action. [Correction: Actually, Judge Calabresi was the former dean by this point, but he was still a figure of great stature at YLS.]
You don't need to have any particular view on affirmative action to think that a willingness to engage with people on both sides of the debate is a good thing. And with the Harvard and UNC cases on the Supreme Court's docket for the next Term, being able to engage with affirmative action's opponents is a pretty essential skill for lawyers who support it. I'm not sure how affirmative action can be saved if the lawyers who are in favor of it aren't willing or able to argue its merits to either SCOTUS or the public at large.
> This is why I’m much happier as a one-man band here at Original Jurisdiction, instead of running Above the Law; I don’t enjoy managing
preeach brother
I also like to see the word "inapposite" used. I'll have to look for an apposite occasion to use it.
Good points, but….To me, this is very patronizing and includes LOT of mansplaining (“ we all want to be liked”… really??); would you have written this to a MALE Dean?????? Somehow I highly doubt the style and tone would have been the same.
Thanks for this perspective. I honestly didn't see it that way—and I certainly didn't intend it that way.
I'm a man, and I like to be liked. Meanwhile, Roberta Romano—one of YLS's most prominent professors, and one of the few who has spoken out publicly about recent events—DGAF about being liked.
Sure, we all "like to be liked," but to varying degrees. Some of us let it affect what we do, while others do not.
Many political pundits, male and female, don't care much about being liked—and it contributes to their success, because it lets them court controversy (which helps TV ratings, book sales, etc.). Examples include everyone from Rachel Maddow to Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson to Elie Mystal, my former Above the Law colleague. They are more courageous than I am; they care less about being liked. I could never do what they do. (Again, the examples are both male and female, left and right.)
So I didn't see this as gendered. Some of my (female) sources were the ones who told me that Dean Gerken, like me, likes to be liked. And a (male) reader just emailed me to say that he suffers from the same problem that I do on wanting to be liked too much.
I only used that as an example; I really felt that your “ explaining” SO many of your recommendations was highly patronizing…. And I doubt you’d have written that exact letter to Geoff Stone ( ex-UChicago Law Dean), or another prominent male Dean. Seriously, I really feel that - and I suggest you ask some women to read the post and see if they “hear” this tone as well …… I am willing to be wrong ( I’m not a lawyer - ha!)
1. I have a bunch of complimentary emails in my inbox from multiple women—including three women who are former law deans, actually. But things like tone are very subjective, so these women might not represent all women, of course.
2. Open letters are usually explanatory in tone (because they must sometimes explain things to the audience that the actual recipient is aware of).
3. I can definitely think of male ex-deans who sometimes let likability affect their decisions; if you want to email me, I can give you some examples. And I can think of female deans who didn't (e.g., Elena Kagan when she was dean at Harvard).
We might have to agree to disagree here. But I appreciate your flagging this for me—and I appreciate the opportunity to say here in the comments that this was absolutely not my conscious intent (but maybe it was floating around in my subconscious).
Nicely replied….🙂
So David Lat, the most thoughtful and polite of legal commentators, was “mansplaining”? How about a more direct open letter with the same import: “Dear Dean, Get off your butt and do your job”. Mansplaining?
Oh, I like your version better! 🤣