We study of the ideological balance of the legal academy and compare it to the ideology of the legal profession more broadly. To do so, we match professors listed in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of Law Teachers and lawyers listed in the Martindale-Hubbell directory to a measure of political ideology based on political donations. We find that 15 percent of law professors, compared to 35 percent of lawyers, are conservative. This may not simply be due to differences in their backgrounds: the legal academy is still 11 percentage points more liberal than the legal profession after controlling for several relevant individual characteristics. We argue that law professors’ ideological uniformity marginalizes them, but that it may not be possible to improve the ideological balance of the legal academy without sacrificing other values.
We present an approach to investigating causal mechanisms in survey experiments that leverages the provision or withholding of information on potentially important mediating variables. The designs we propose can identify the controlled direct effect of a treatment and also what we call an intervention effect. These quantities can be used to address substantive questions about causal mechanisms, can be identified under weaker assumptions than current approaches to causal mechanisms, and can be estimated with simple estimators using standard statistical software. Furthermore, these methods are compatible with a broad range of experimental designs, including survey vignettes and conjoint designs. We illustrate the approach via two examples, one on evaluations of potential U.S. Supreme Court nominees and the other on public perceptions of the democratic peace.
The standard approach in positive political theory posits that action choices are the consequences of preferences. Social psychology—in particular, cognitive dissonance theory—suggests the opposite: preferences may themselves be affected by action choices. We present a formal framework that applies this idea to three models of political choice: (1) one in which partisanship emerges naturally in a two party system despite policy being multi-dimensional, (2) one in which interactions with people who express different views can lead to empathetic changes in political positions, and (3) one in which ethnic or racial hostility increases after acts of violence. These examples demonstrate how incorporating the insights of social psychology can expand the scope of formalization in political science.
TanielIf we're talking about expanding the Court, we may as well talk about bigger institutional problem of having ppl performing political tasks but serving lifelong terms that last an eternity (and begin at times decided either by randomness or by deliberate political calculations). t.co/WfTNtQgmQH
JoshuaSGoodmanThis is terrible. It's hard to overstate how important Alan Krueger has been to modern labor economics. His work has deeply influenced the debate on so many important issues. And, most importantly, he seemed truly focused on using economics for the public good. He'll be missed. t.co/mHGpCRJQQd
BLMcKeanPlease spread the word! @osupolisci is hosting a conference for undergrads from historically underrepresented groups to present research and learn more about pursuing graduate studies - travel and meals covered! Applications due 4/12. More info at t.co/IIjyOMSLLWt.co/gREN14lgpe