[I am pleased to share this guest post from Professor Seth Barrett Tillman, discussing recent discourse on legal academia, including a recent post by Will Baude.]
There has been a lot of discussion on social media and blogs recently regarding what constitutes good behavior for academics. As someone who has been involved in academic disagreements from time to time—often unintentionally—I wanted to share my thoughts on that and related issues.
1. E-mail.
In order for academia to function, we need to be able to communicate with each other freely. This means reaching out to each other without fear of repercussions. I have, on occasion, sent or offered to send courtesy copies of my drafts and published articles to other academics in law and other fields. I typically make these offers to individuals whom I have cited or who have written about topics related to my paper. The responses I receive usually fall into one of two categories. Many will reply with: “Thank you very much, I believe your contribution to the literature will be beneficial to me when time allows.” Alternatively, I may receive a response stating: “There is no need for further email contact—I am already up to date on the literature.” The value of these responses lies in their clarity and guidance, leaving no ambiguity about the desire for future contact. Yes to the former; no to the latter.
However, there are times when I receive no response at all, leading to a dilemma: should I contact that person again? In some cases, I may reach out to a non-responsive recipient a second, third, or fourth time over the course of a few years. At that point, I may receive a standard response, or I may receive a more pleasant response that leads to fruitful exchanges, intellectual discussions, and sometimes, friendships.
On other occasions, a different type of response is received.
Professor B: Mr. Tillman, I have received your recent email, as well as several prior emails. I chose not to respond to your previous emails. However, you continue to contact me. You should have taken the hint. But since you have not: please stop now.
In situations involving non-responsive recipients, we can look to Professor A or Professor B to establish norms for good academic behavior. We can prioritize autonomy, privacy, and peace of mind, where a lack of response signals a desire to avoid future contact. Alternatively, we can follow the example set by Professor A, where a lack of response does not necessarily indicate a lack of interest, leaving room for potential future contacts.
So what is the best course of action?
As academia revolves around developing ideas, I believe it is worth risking upsetting many Professor B-type individuals in order to find even one Professor A. This approach allows for the exchange of ideas, even if it means encountering unwelcome or unpleasant interactions. It is important not to let the most sensitive individuals dictate the rules of intellectual engagement.
2. Responses As Counter-Authority.
I have had the privilege of presenting novel ideas on occasion. Introducing a new idea comes with challenges, one of which is how to handle counter-authority. Developing counter-authority carries the risk of bias in presenting evidence to shield one’s idea from criticism. Even if no bias is present, some readers may suspect otherwise. That is why I have actively sought responses to my articles to be published alongside my own. I have either contacted potential respondents myself or had the journal where my article was published reach out. This approach has numerous benefits, such as allowing your idea to stand alone, giving others the opportunity to critique it, attracting readers with the exchange of ideas, and potentially forming connections with other academics through these exchanges. However, there may be a few readers who are not receptive to new ideas and believe they have superior expertise, unaware of responses that challenge the original idea.
3. Changing One’s Mind.
It is beneficial to revisit what are considered settled issues from time to time and allow people to change their minds. A person who has never expressed doubt or changed their views may raise questions about the nature of their thinking. Changing one’s mind, especially in a public setting, should be praised rather than condemned.
Recently, Professor Calabresi and Professor Baude have both shifted their positions on certain constitutional ideas I have proposed. While I may not fully understand their reasons for the change, I respect their right to evolve their perspectives. Their willingness to engage in new conversations should be commended, even if I do not completely grasp their motivations for the shift.
Regardless of their changing viewpoints, both professors have consistently cited my work accurately, for which I am grateful. I remain hopeful that they will continue to explore these issues further, but I understand that their time is valuable and they may have other priorities.
4. What Academics Should Not Do On Social Media.
Some legal academics exhibit poor behavior on social media by using hyperbolic language to criticize ideas, individuals, and organizations. This conduct sets a negative example for students and can have consequences for their future employment prospects. While academics with tenure may be insulated from immediate repercussions, students who emulate such behavior risk damaging their own career opportunities.
While social media standards may differ from academic articles, using derogatory language to describe others’ work may not contribute to elevating discourse in the field. It is important to consider the impact of one’s words, both online and in academic publications, on the overall intellectual environment.
