Academics for Sale

Whatever force academics have in public debate comes not from a claim that we are somehow smarter than others but because we can claim the persuasive force of having opinions that have not been purchased by others. Over the years, I have watched the line between legal academic and paid advocate slowly erode--a trend that is perhaps not uncoincidental with the downward drift of the influence of legal academics in public debate.

It seems The Nation has been noticing also. While I was on the road last week, the magazine published a story entitled "The Scholars Who Shill for Wall Street," The article begins with a discussion of the activities of Professor Todd Zywicki, who will be known to many readers of this blog.

The issues raised by this article are particularly acute for legal academics, where normative claims are often standard fare. Indeed, I often hear criticism of legal scholarship for failure to make a normative claim. There is no methodology -- at least no agreed-upon methodology -- to assess different normative claims. The article is entirely correct when it suggests more disclosure of academics' financial interests where they are speaking in public policy fora. And, these disclosures should occur not just for things like congressional testimony but in other outlets for academics' work -- including law reviews and, yes, even blogs.