1 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2022
    1. In my mind, there are three prerequisites to shift the Hoverton window. First, the speaker must have sufficient intellectual gravitas. Specifically, he must be able to generate a novel idea, that departs sufficiently from conventional wisdom, but also anticipates and preempts the most likely response. He must also have a reputation which warrants his ideas being taken seriously. Second, the speaker must have secure tenure-in-office. To challenge the status quo, you need decisional independence. No one can override your position, or worse, tell you to stand down after an uproar emerges. (Tenured academics and Article III judges are among the few people who fit in this category.) Third, the speaker must have courage. You must be willing to publicly articulate your principle, knowing full well that you will be savagely attacked from all corners. (Very few academics and Article III judges fit in this category.)

      Criteria for being well-positioned to advance an idea that is an affront to elite legal sensibilities:

      1. "Speaker must have intellectual gravitas"
      2. Speaker must have sufficient reputation for his or her ideas to be taken seriously
      3. Speaker must have independence to stand by idea when he or she receives criticism

      Very interesting perspective. In the specific context of changing policies at law schools, the argument is well-reasoned. The premises have been considered in the broader debate about the limitations of populism in effecting changes in culture and policies (see e.g., Curtis Yarvin's You Can Only Lose the Culture War vs Jeremy Carl's response).