jackbalkin at yahoo.com
bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
ian.ayres at yale.edu
corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
sgriffin at tulane.edu
jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
jkessler at law.columbia.edu
akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
slevinson at law.utexas.edu
david.luban at gmail.com
gmaglioc at iupui.edu
mazzonej at illinois.edu
lmcclain at bu.edu
mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
pasquale.frank at gmail.com
npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen
michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
dpearlst at yu.edu
rick.pildes at nyu.edu
dpozen at law.columbia.edu
raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
alice.ristroph at shu.edu
siegel at law.duke.edu
david.super at law.georgetown.edu
btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
winkler at ucla.edu
Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases
The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC
The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic)
Leiter's Contradictory Conclusion
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Leiter's Contradictory Conclusion
Typical Brian Leiter. He cannot just say why he thinks you are wrong: he sets out to destroy you, ruin your credibility and reputation, and grind your face in the dirt. Leiter says I owe the world an apology—that I must abase myself and do public penance for writing Failing Law Schools—because Simkovic and McIntyre’s (S&M) study has definitively proven me wrong. Remarkably, for all his bluster, when Leiter lays out “what I think we know and don't know,” he repeats one of my main objections to their study.
Two brief comments:
(1) David Rabban shares my view of your book on the realist-formalist divide. You are misrepresenting the content of his recent work.
(2) My doubts about your book on the realist-formalist divide were set out in detail here:
We saw his style a few years back on this blog in his "don't be mean to the torturer enabler" effort and he was enabled, even when he treated regular contributors crudely. But, if fighting with him is a losing proposition, you tried too hard.
Leiter is similar to Krugman in is his creepy, self-referential style of writing, and in his refusal to engage in good-faith debate. In the manner of about 5,000,000 Internet cranks, he thinks it's a contribution to wonder whether those with whom he disagrees are stupid or evil.
Doug Richmond (second comment from the top) is wrong. I am in the world, I am not and have never been an academic, and I cared enough about the (non-existence of) the formalist-realist divide not only to read Brian's book but to review it favorably for The Federal Lawyer.
I believe Leiter is some sort of sociopath. It isn't just the bad behavior, but his apparent inability to recognize how others see it. I sense that Leiter really has no idea that he is not respected.
Anyway, Brian Tamanaha's reputation won't be destroyed by the likes of Brian Leiter. Leiter just isn't that influential. Nobody really cares what he thinks, especially as it pertains to this issue. Although he has played the role of cheerleader for others, he has yet to contribute any meaningful work or scholarship to this debate. He's out of his league arguing with Tamanaha.
Let's take care in identity with so many Brians in the picture now.
Speaking of defending a "profitable franchise," is it clear that this was a reference to Brian T's book? Or is the "profitable franchise" what I described in a comment on an earlier post of Brian T as the JD/Student Loan Institutional Complex? Brian T as a member of the Complex raised serious issues. Brian L is a long time member of the Complex and perhaps he feels threatened.
And perhaps there are many members of the Complex who basically agree with Brian T but may have been hesitant about speaking up to avoid the "Leiter than air" treatment. So I say to Brian T, don't be too sure that you have offended that many of your colleagues in legal academia. There will be changes in the Complex, there will be changes in the Big Law model. You were not protecting your pocketbook with your book; rather, you had the interests of JD students with their heavy economic investments.
Now let's look at the problems of the Complex as they impact the public's need for the delivery of competent, affordable legal services to the masses.
I think that most law professors understand that Tamanaha is right. I used to become frustrated at the lack of attention paid this issue on the various law professor blogs out there. I now believe that their silence is because they know Tamanaha is right.
Very few law professors are seemingly willing to associate themselves with the arguments of Tamanaha or Campos (although there have been a few). But they seem equally unwilling to associate with Leiter and Diamond.
It would be a whole lot easier to join sides with the people looking to protect the status quo. The only thing you'd have to lose is your reputation, as you'd have to go on record in defense of the indefensible. Only a certain kind of person has what it takes to do that. Law professors are mostly decent human beings, so they remain quiet.
Even if one agrees with the conclusions of Simkovic and McIntyre, this does not mean that law schools acted appropriately in raising tuition year after year, chasing higher U.S. News rankings, or manipulating employment statistics. Brian (among others) deserves credit for forcing legal academics to confront this and other troubling behavior.
This being said, I'm not sure what is left of Brian's core argument that the economics of law school are broken. He now seems to concede that for all but S&M's bottom quarter, a law degree is likely to be a good investment. With respect to the bottom quarter, he suggests that historical data is not predictive. But he has also acknowledged that IBR reduces the downside risk.
While Brian isn't responsible for how his work is used, scores of radical reforms have been proposed based on what now appears to be the dubious assumption that a law degree's cost far outpaces its value. It would be interesting to know whether Brian still believes that legal education needs to be transformed at the majority of American law schools.
A couple of comments about Brian Leiter:
1) He quotes Stephen Diamond favorably.
2) He describes this study as 'the first serious scholarly intervention in the debate about an economic value of a law degree'. First, it's not the first (I don't have time to find a link but on one of the blogs debating this somebody posted links to close to a dozen studies). Second, it's not serious - it hasn't been peer-reviewed.
I don't presume to speak for Brian T, but I think I can address the points you've brought up.
I think your comment about tuition whangs the nail right on the crumpet. There are essentially two questions that need to be asked. The first is for prospective students, "Is law school going to be a good investment?" The second, which is what the reformers should focus on is, "Can we do better for our students?" The defenders of the status quo seem to want to answer the first question, and so long as the answer is Yes, the mindset is "Okay, now let's milk the system until the answer is No, then back off a bit."
As for the results of the bottom quarter, I believe that's where the emphasis of the debate needs to be. That is a huge proportion of the students graduating from law school, and terrible odds when you're asking someone to shell out $150k in tuition, plus other expenses. As for IBR/PAYE reducing the risk, I don't think that should be taken too seriously. I think looking at default and poverty sets the bar too low. If your students are experiencing a life of financial hardship for the next 20 years after graduating, your school is in serious need of reform.
For the radical reforms, do you have any specific in mind? Closing 10-20 of the worst performing schools seems to be prudent, even accepting Simkovic and McIntyre's analysis.
The vitriol that against Brian Tamanaha is an entirely predictable result of his betrayal of his class.
One would think that Frank Pasquale would recognize this, if not Stephen Diamond and Stephen Bainbridge.
The class implications of the debate are particularly acute at lower ranked schools, whose student ranks are so often filled older students, students of color, immigrants, and first generation college graduates, while its professorial ranks are filled with Ivy League certified members of the upper class.
These professors would never dream of welcoming one of their students into their ranks, even if they are to make money it is only by toiling and hustling in the least prestigious fields of law.
Brian T: "But I must say I laughed when I read Leiter’s unnamed professor remark that I was defending a “profitable franchise.” This enterprise has been anything but “profitable” for me. I have vowed to donate all proceeds from the book to student fellowships, and so far have given much more to this than the royalties I have received. "
Right-wing propaganda is *always* Freudian projection. A lot of people have made very good salaries with federally-subsidized loans teaching students who will have less than a 50-50 chance of breaking even on their investment. They don't like being told what they are doing.
 Yes, it's a very good living, salaries ranging in the middle $100K's, job security by one's early 30's, and very comfortable working conditions. And no, Joe Random Law Professor, you wouldn't have made partner - you dropped out at year 3, when the odds were still 75% against you; if you had made partner, you'd have made more money, but not per hour, and certainly not per unit of stress.
Fred: "It would be a whole lot easier to join sides with the people looking to protect the status quo. The only thing you'd have to lose is your reputation, as you'd have to go on record in defense of the indefensible."
I disagree; it's those who buck the consensus who 'lose their reputation'. That's because the reputation is with the people who make money off of and support the consensus.
BL1Y: "The defenders of the status quo seem to want to answer the first question, and so long as the answer is Yes, the mindset is "Okay, now let's milk the system until the answer is No, then back off a bit.""
They'll back off when forced, and not one second earlier. And the answer to the first question is actually 'historically, probably'.
The study was peer-reviewed. BT says he was asked to review it for publication, though he disagreed with its findings.
Milan: "This being said, I'm not sure what is left of Brian's core argument that the economics of law school are broken. He now seems to concede that for all but S&M's bottom quarter, a law degree is likely to be a good investment. With respect to the bottom quarter, he suggests that historical data is not predictive. But he has also acknowledged that IBR reduces the downside risk. "
First, the big problem for S&M's argument is precisely that it hinges on 1985-2011 (excl. new grads) holding for the next 40 years.
Now, if they present evidence that sometime in that period the ratio of new grads: jobs and the salary composition of new grads matched what we see now, then they'll have an actually good argument.
As for IBR, there are a number of problems; read Campos on them.
BH: "The study was peer-reviewed. BT says he was asked to review it for publication, though he disagreed with its findings."
In what journal was it published?
It has been posted on SSRN. It has not been published yet. BT did not say which journal asked him to review it. I read somewhere else, I do not remember where at the moment, that others reviewed it.
Asking someone to read over your paper is not the same as peer review. Peer review requires a panel of judges, not of your choosing, who have the ability to deny your study publication if it has serious flaws.
Mr. BL1Y--I know what peer review means, having done it and been subjected to it. Here is BT on July 25th:
"Given the tone of my comments, it may come as a surprise to many that a couple of months ago I was asked by a law journal to evaluate S&M’s draft for publication, and, despite my reservations, I gave it a positive recommendation because I thought it raised a useful new perspective on the issue of economic return on a law degree."
That is nothing in that statement that suggests a friend asking a friend to read something.
Also this from S. Diamond--
" 'Their research was reviewed in advance of its posting on SSRN by a large array of respected senior scholars in law, economics and business. It was also peer reviewed prior to its acceptance at the American Law and Economics Conference held at Vanderbilt earlier this year, prior to its public posting on SSRN. As a test, without telling the authors, I wrote to one of those reviewers who, in fact, is a fan of the work of Tamanaha and asked him for his view of the research. He sent me the copy of the comments he originally sent to the authors in which he concluded their paper to be “very careful and well done” although he reserved judgment on whether what is happening in the market for JDs is “all cyclical or at least partially structural.' "
I am making no judgment about the merits of the article. I have not read it yet. I was merely responding to the statement that it had not been peer reviewed. There is evidence that it was.
It seems like every time Tamanaha has posted on this subject, Pasquale has soon, sometimes immediately, moved that post down by posting a response. This results in a situation where all three blogs involved in this argument -- Leiter, Concurring Opinions, and this blog -- feature the arguments of Tamanaha's opponents as their most recent posts on the subject. Doesn’t seem like fair play to me, but maybe it just means Tamanaha needs his own blog.
P Cass makes a good point. I reviewed Simkovic's posts at Concurring Opinion yesterday and noted that there were significant comments on his first two posts. There have been about five subsequent posts by him and no comments are noted; so I tested each such post by clicking on comments but each time there was no facility for comment. Perhaps there is a surrogate strategy on behalf of S/M (or at least S) to pile on Brian T. Frank P regularly posts at Concurring Opinions, sometimes cross-posting here. Frank P's CO posts permit comments but not at this Blog. Several of Frank P's posts at this Blog critical of Brian T are not cross-posted at CO and comments are not available to such posts of Frank P. So both Simkovic at CO and Frank P here at this Blog seem to be cross-blocking Brian T by not permitting comments. Is that the strategy?
Nothing about that process indicates that the people asked to review the article had the final decision on whether it could be published.
Peer input =/= Peer Review
Ticking off Leiter is not proof that Tamanaha is correct, but it's certainly a data point in his favor.
@BL1Y-- I think, "I was asked by a law journal to evaluate S&M’s draft for publication, and, despite my reservations, I gave it a positive recommendation" suggests that had BT and whoever else was asked to review the article given it thumbs down, the law journal who asked for this would have used his opinion in their calculations about publication. He used the term "recommendation" which is one of the choices usually given in this process, though there is no one way this is done among all publications. That is something more than just 'Hey, friend. What do you think of this?" Unless you have information otherwise-- and you could possess it and share it --there is no reason to think that the law journal was not using BT seriously as a peer whose recommendation they would take into account when evaluating whether to publish. That he was open-minded enough to give it a positive recommendation despite his disagreement speaks to his good faith in approaching it. And people asked to review articles and books for publication don't get the final say on whether the article or book is published.
Cass: "It seems like every time Tamanaha has posted on this subject, Pasquale has soon, sometimes immediately, moved that post down by posting a response. "
That's not as bothersome as the fact that he doesn't have the, ah - intestinal fortitude - to allow comments.
I've seen situations where not allowing comments is simply the desire not to run a sewer pipe into one's house, but in this case it seems to be lack of willingness to engage in debate - the legal equivalent of Mankiwism.
At Tax Prof Blog, there is an interesting post on Adam Rosenzweig's "The Economic Value of a Law Degree" and the Degraded State of Scholarly "Debate" that just may help get the debate to be more serious, pointing out that both Brian T and S/M deserve credit for their respective efforts in addressing a serious subject.
Cass: "It seems like every time Tamanaha has posted on this subject, Pasquale has soon, sometimes immediately, moved that post down by posting a response. "fifa coins elo boost cheap fut coins lol elo boosting
This web site is really a walk-through for all of the info you wanted about this and didn’t know who to ask. Glimpse here, and you’ll definitely discover it…. Plastic Surgery Risk
Anyone who reads both Leiter's and Tamanaha's posts can see that, regardless of any of their other attributes, the former is a bully defending a multi-billion dollar industry built on the suffering of naive and hopeful young people, and the latter is a well-meaning person drawing attention to legitimate concerns of a vulnerable young population.
You can disagree with someone without smearing them and undermining a person's entire body of scholarship or their career. Apparently the former never learned how to play nice in school.
Let's not let some things get lost in all of the other manure which has been flying around (mostly from Leiter).
If you make the enormous investment of time, money and energy which law school requires, even if you go to a top school, get top grades and join a top firm, you are STILL likely to face a lifetime of uncertainty in terms of your career. The up-or-out structure of law firms, the vulnerability of businesses to the business cycle, and the predictable failure of most employers to keep someone on the payroll unless it is absolutely in the employer's interests to do so are immutable rules of capitalism.
Law firms and most other organizations a lawyer can usually go to work after law school and meet the obligations of student debt and starting a family are businesses which depend on paying clients or customers keep their employees on the payroll.
Meanwhile, if you get through medical school and residency, you can generally expect a life-time of stability if you do all that the profession asks of you as a pre-requisite to entry.
Hospitals benefit from enormous government subsidies, health insurance, medicaid and medicare, which enable them to still be paid for services which they provide, even to people who couldn't afford to pay for them on their own. That's why it's so frustrating to hear law school industry apologists talk about how there's so much pent up demand for lawyers out there on the part of people who can't afford to pay for them. That is of no consequence to people who went to school anticipating the credential and skills acquired there would enable them to raise families and live decent lives.
In sum, if you pursue the highest calling in the medical profession, you can look forward to financial stability and confidently plan your life outside of work. If you pursue the highest calling in the legal profession, you can expect a lifetime of anxiety and uncertainty.
If you value financial and career stability and predictability, want to have a decent life, raise a family, not be kept up at night worrying about whether you will have a job in the morning, and retire with dignity, and your natural talents allow you the choice between medical school and law school, please choose the former.
Just ask yourself, how many unemployed, financially struggling doctors vs. unemployed, financially struggling lawyers do you know, and let that question guide your decision.
thanks so much i like very so much your post
حلي الاوريو الفطر الهندي صور تورتة حلى قهوه طريقة عمل السينابون طريقة عمل بلح الشام بيتزا هت كيكة الزبادي حلا سهل صور كيك
عجينة العشر دقائق
طريقة عمل الدونات طريقة عمل البان كيك طريقة عمل الكنافة طريقة عمل البسبوسة طريقة عمل الكيك طريقة عمل عجينة البيتزا فوائد القرفه
Its like you read my mind! You seem to know so much about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you could do with some pics to drive the message home a bit, but other than that, this is great blog. A great read. Sbobet Casino
very amazing post, I like It, Thank you for presenting a wide variety of information that is very interesting to see in this artikle, good job adnd succes For you
You are so interesting! I do not think I've read something like that before. So good to discover somebody with some original thoughts on this subject. Really.. many thanks for starting this up. This website is one thing that is required on the web, someone with a bit of originality!
Bertaruh dan memenangkan ribuan hadiah dan strategi untuk bermain permainan taruhan sangat penting.
Agen Bola Terpercaya
www.arenabetting.com sebagai salah satu situs agen bola tangkas online merupakan pilihan yang dapat anda percaya.
bola tangkas onilne terbaik
Bertaruh dan memenangkan ribuan hadiah dan strategi untuk bermain permainan taruhan sangat penting.
Dependable betting is the nearly all effective selection that will the person can think about online. Providing you will quickly realize businesses that will got your money so in purchase in order to be able to believe in your hard earned dollars pick the particular right one and luxuriate in wagering.
I must thank you for the efforts you've put in writing this blog. I am hoping to view the same high-grade content by you later on as well. In fact, your creative writing abilities has motivated me to get my very own blog now ;)
There is certainly certainly a great deal to know relating to this subject. I like the many items you earn.http://arenabetting.com/
This blog was... how do you say it? Relevant!! Finally I've found something which helped me. Thanks!
Good info. Lucky me I ran across your site by accident (stumbleupon). I have saved as a favorite for later!
Everyone loves it whenever people get together and share thoughts. Great blog, keep it up!
Pure Volume Internet Casino
Experience the online betting and try your luck and win. Look for trusted betting sites to secure your money.Post a Comment
Books by Balkinization Bloggers
Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023)
Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022)
Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022)
Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022)
Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021).
Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021).
Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020)
Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020)
Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020)
Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020).
Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020)
Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020)
Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020)
Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019)
Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018)
Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018)
Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018)
Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017)
Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017)
Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016)
Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015)
Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015)
Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015)
Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014)
Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution
Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014)
Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013)
John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013)
Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013)
Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013)
Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013)
James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013)
Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues
Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013)
Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012)
Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012)
Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012)
Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012)
Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011)
Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011)
Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011)
Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011)
Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011)
Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010)
Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010)
Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic
Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010)
Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010)
Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010)
Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009)
Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009)
Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009)
Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009)
Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009)
Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008)
David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007)
Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007)
Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007)
Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006)
Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006)
Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006)
Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006)
Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006)
Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005)
Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004)
The Information Society Project
Syllabi and Exams