Me And My Big Mouth

I had lunch with a former professor yesterday and we were talking about the Law School's search for a new dean. We talked about what characteristics a new dean should have, the direction he or she should take the law school. And about the problems the school has had, and how to fix them. It was a lively and interesting conversation. In most cases we agreed a lot about what the school does well and what it needs, and in some cases our ideas diverged a fair amount, and that was fun too, maybe more instructive to both of us than the parts where we agreed. The professor asked me if I'd be interested in being on the search committee for the new dean. I said sure, although I was thinking what the heck do I know about what a dean should do and be?

Hmm.... [the post now becomes a meta-post about posting....]

I notice myself being more oblique and self-conscious as I write this post because I'm wondering if it's okay to talk about the fact that I had this conversation and I'm wondering if I should try to shield the professor's identity. That's because we were frank with one another about folks at the school neither of us respects all that much, directions the school has taken that neither of us really digs. Not only am I conflicted about whether that's okay to blog about, I also have this strangely strong loyalty to the law school and I'm catching myself thinking, "Don't blog about the fact that there's anything you think should change." Which is silly -- there's a TON I think the school can and should do better. I'd tell you that, whoever you are, if you emailed me or called me up. Why shouldn't I write that down?

My dad taught me there's such a thing as loyal opposition -- you can be dedicated to an institution and also frank about what you think is wrong about it. But I think it's rare out there and often misunderstood and my self-editing as I wrote this post made me aware of how sometimes it doesn't feel okay. I wouldn't want anyone to think I'm not proud of my law school even while I could go on at great length and in as much detail as you'd like on what really ought to be different about the place.

This kind of self-editing makes me sometimes feel like this blog is a lie. I've written about that before. Because mostly I only say the nice things I have to say about people or places. Mostly that's because I'm a bit of a rose-colored-glasses person. But part of that is because I think it's risky and unwise to write about the things that I think are crappy.

Comments

[Bluerabbit]

I couldn't agree with you more on the meta-part of this post. I also wrestle with this every day, today in particular. Clearly, neither of us, and I might venture no one, has 100% positive thoughts about every one else (and I would venture that they'd be ridiculously boring if they did), but you're also a savvy and sensitive person who realizes what the consequences are if you do write those negative things. And so you choose not to engage or write about them.

On one level it is a bit false, since we all have these other thoughts running around in our heads. But these blogs are not meant to be a recording of every fleeting thing that flashes through the brain, and I think readers understand that they're/we're getting an edited sample.

[UCL]

I've chosen to write under a pseudoname for the very purpose of having the freedom to write negatively (as I did in my very latest post). I really wouldn't advise any lawyer (or any professional, really) to speak too critically about anything in one's personal/professional life if their name is known to everyone.

I am of course a litigator. So I see, more often than most people, what happens when these kinds of things actually DO come back to haunt you. The "worst case scenario" is very improbable for most people in their day to day lives. The "worst case scenario," however, is what comes across the desks of us litigators every day. And they keep us quite busy, rest assured. :)

[Katherine]

didn't Maine make you sign a statement at the beginning of your law career which said you'd never speak badly about the school, and then proceeded to list the consequences you agreed to submit to if you did violate the no-talking clause?

We all had to do that last semester.