Doing the Business: Judges, Academics, and Intellectuals

A. Hutchinson
{"title":"Doing the Business: Judges, Academics, and Intellectuals","authors":"A. Hutchinson","doi":"10.1017/9781108363242.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this short essay, I want to explain what is the ‘business’ that I think that I am in as an academic or, more grandly, as an intellectual. In particular, I will explore and explain what the implications of these intellectual commitments are for the fraught and misunderstood relationship between the academic and judicial (and, by implication, the professional) sectors of the legal community. In order to do this, I will first of all introduce an important distinction between the two different types of intellectual role – a traditional one and a critical one – that polarize law schools; this duality is far from original or unfamiliar. Then, I will take the recent confirmation process of Elena Kagan in her appointment to the United States Supreme Court to illustrate the political characteristics and institutional context which give rise to and sustain the pervasive acceptance by most law professors of their role as traditional intellectuals. Lastly, I will look at how this continuing nexus between judges and law professors affects academics in the way that they go about doing their intellectual business. Throughout the essay, I will emphasise that ‘law is politics’ and that there is no site of political innocence or independence that academics or judges can inhabit in meeting their professional roles and responsibilities.","PeriodicalId":83293,"journal":{"name":"The University of Queensland law journal","volume":"31 1","pages":"133"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The University of Queensland law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108363242.003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this short essay, I want to explain what is the ‘business’ that I think that I am in as an academic or, more grandly, as an intellectual. In particular, I will explore and explain what the implications of these intellectual commitments are for the fraught and misunderstood relationship between the academic and judicial (and, by implication, the professional) sectors of the legal community. In order to do this, I will first of all introduce an important distinction between the two different types of intellectual role – a traditional one and a critical one – that polarize law schools; this duality is far from original or unfamiliar. Then, I will take the recent confirmation process of Elena Kagan in her appointment to the United States Supreme Court to illustrate the political characteristics and institutional context which give rise to and sustain the pervasive acceptance by most law professors of their role as traditional intellectuals. Lastly, I will look at how this continuing nexus between judges and law professors affects academics in the way that they go about doing their intellectual business. Throughout the essay, I will emphasise that ‘law is politics’ and that there is no site of political innocence or independence that academics or judges can inhabit in meeting their professional roles and responsibilities.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
做生意:法官、学者和知识分子
在这篇短文中,我想解释一下,作为一名学者,或者更夸张地说,作为一名知识分子,我认为我所从事的“业务”是什么。特别是,我将探讨和解释这些知识承诺对法律界的学术和司法(以及隐含的专业)部门之间令人担忧和误解的关系的含义。为了做到这一点,我将首先介绍两种不同类型的知识分子角色之间的重要区别——传统的和批判的——这两种角色使法学院两极分化;这种二元性远非原创或陌生。然后,我将以最近对埃琳娜·卡根(Elena Kagan)被任命为美国最高法院大法官的确认过程为例,说明导致并维持大多数法学教授普遍接受他们作为传统知识分子角色的政治特征和制度背景。最后,我将探讨法官和法学教授之间的这种持续联系是如何影响学者从事学术研究的方式的。在整篇文章中,我将强调“法律就是政治”,学者或法官在履行他们的职业角色和责任时,没有政治清白或政治独立的场所。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Robodebt and Novel Data Technologies in the Public Sector The Territorial Scope of Australia’s Unfair Contract Terms Provisions Regulating Decisions that Lead to Loss of Life in Workplaces Lending on the Edge Substantive Equality and the Possibilities of the Queensland Human Rights Act 2019
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1