Author: .,.,,..,..,.,.,:,,:,.,.,:,...,:,.,.:...:.:.::,..,,

Subject: A Defense of Nancy Leong

Nancy Leong's scholarship is attacked for three reasons: (1) Her writing style (2) Her subject matter (3) And an absence of any real world application.

With respect to reason (1), critics maintain that she is too wordy and does not immediately get to the point. Indeed, this is true. But one must ask why this is the case.

Leong majored in English at Northwestern. English majors are not taught how to argue. They are not taught inductive or deductive reasoning. Finding the author’s purpose and literary style is their objective. And their tutelage is based on just that.

This is evident in Leong’s writing. Using many words when few will do, complex term usage, and long sentences are examples of her writing style.

But her substandard writing style does not suggest that her work is not scholarship. Scholars in many disciplines possess obscure writing styles, yet their work is considered scholarship.

With respect to reason (2), critics maintain that her subject matter is impertinent to law. Some say her work belongs in the humanities or in ‘cultural studies’. These assessments are drawn from her work’s references to film and terms like “Racial Capitalism.” Paired with her writing style, it is not surprising why many critics hold these views.

Nevertheless, critics err when they declare Leong’s work as not legal scholarship, based on reason (2). Legal scholarship does not remain the same. New ideas and concepts are constantly being introduced. But many lawyers in shitlaw, like those at JDU, overlook this.

Lastly, with respect to reason (3), critics maintain that Leong’s scholarship does not help real lawyers in the “real world.” A proponent of this view is JDU poaster dybbuk. He believes legal scholarship aids attorneys, accelerates a change in policy, and contributes to the well-being of society.

But this is not the main purpose of legal scholarship, or scholarship in general. Adderall is helpful to people, yet it is not scholarship. Scholarship’s purpose is to bring novel and insightful ideas into this world. For law, its application need not always be direct.

Moreover, dybbuk argues that Leong’s work lacks real world application because of her inexperience. He thinks one must have many years of legal experience to be a legal scholar. But this is false. The academy is different from the practice of law and must remain that way. Too many years in the practice of law may corrupt independent thought required for legal scholarship.

As a very prestigious biglawyer, I find Nancy Leong’s scholarship fascinating. Her devotion to xo teddy’s ideas captivates me. If JDU lacks the pure intellectual horsepower to understand Leong, that’s their fault. We at xo, The Most Prestigious Law Discussion Board In The World, welcome new ideas and insights. And for that we welcome Nancy Leong, henceforth xo Nancy.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2460306&forum_id=2#24769655)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2750355&forum_id=2/#26884248)

Date: June 2nd, 2014 4:48 AM

Author: '""''''""''"

http://instagram.com/nancyleong219

One wonders if her students will ever make the salary needed to live this lifestyle.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2582734&forum_id=2#25672086)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2750355&forum_id=2/#26884254)

Charles C. Johnson @ChuckCJohnson · 5s 5 seconds ago

It's funny that I have to explain to journalists what the first amendment is.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2750355&forum_id=2/#26884321)