kappycaft1 wrote:dixiecupdrinking wrote:albusdumbledore wrote:kappycaft1 wrote:Saying that Campos' arguments aren't valid because he is a law professor is a fallacious ad hominem attack. However, I can also see how his remarks, in light of his behavior, are troublesome for some. I do not think that he should have to become a sacrifice to get the word out - that wouldn't be fair. He has invested his career in law and, like many of those who have "disappeared," might not be able to find decent employment if he gave it up. Even so, it is odd that he continues to assist in the perpetuation of a broken system that he simultaneously denounces. It is great that he wants to provide more transparency, but at the same time he supports an institution with horrific employment statistics. I suppose he could be classified under the "do as I say, not as I do" category.
The thing about Campos is that he goes so far to make a moral argument against law and the system. If he really believes these schools are doing something objectively wrong, then he's tacitly implicating himself in it, so, right or wrong, the position he's in doesn't exactly do any favors to the argument. It's like your coke dealer telling you that drugs are bad.
No, because law school doesn't have to be this way. He's making an argument to reform legal education given the realities of the profession, not to throw out the whole endeavor. If he were saying that law school will always be bad for everybody, then yeah, it would be hypocritical to remain a law professor, but there is nothing wrong with criticizing an institution he's a part of if his goal is to improve it.
Well, there kind of is something wrong with it... Campos is saying that law school is a "scam," yet his salary is coming from those who are being "scammed" (and he is aware of this fact), which in a sense makes him a "scammer." albusdumbledore's analogy of the street pharmacist was right on.
what's true for the school is true for its employees?