{"id":146282,"date":"2026-03-17T15:10:03","date_gmt":"2026-03-17T23:10:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/03\/17\/pigs-can-fly-the-sins-of-legal-scholars\/"},"modified":"2026-03-17T15:10:03","modified_gmt":"2026-03-17T23:10:03","slug":"pigs-can-fly-the-sins-of-legal-scholars","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/03\/17\/pigs-can-fly-the-sins-of-legal-scholars\/","title":{"rendered":"Pigs Can Fly!: The Sins Of Legal Scholars"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is an article about academic dishonesty, both with one\u2019s audience and with oneself.\u00a0It is about the goal of academia being advancement of knowledge and the making of a better world.\u00a0To the extent other things are sought, such as external validation<\/a>, the result can be a bastardization of that which we ought to be doing and perhaps making the discipline worse off deliberately or negligently.<\/p>\n

Throughout this blog post, assume an author has written an article about pigs flying.\u00a0It sounds ridiculous.\u00a0But consider how an author could tantalize you with an article title like \u201cOn the Prospect of Porcine Flight: Rethinking the Impossible\u201d or \u201cPorcine Aviation: The Politics of the Previously Unthinkable\u201d or \u201cPigs and the Potential of Porcine Bumble Bees.\u201d\u00a0Now you\u2019ve got something to tantalize the law reviews!<\/p>\n

Now, how to write that article as quickly and with maximum splash as possible.\u00a0Let\u2019s start with how it is all too often done:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Misleading Title Clickbait.<\/strong> \u201cCan Pigs Fly? The Truth Will Shock You!\u201d\u00a0No, it won\u2019t, and the author\u2019s claimed signal of excitement is misrepresentation.\u00a0The asking of the question also misleads, as it suggests there is an open question worthy of an article.\u00a0\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
      \n
    1. Lying About Facts.<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cPigs can fly.\u201d\u00a0\u201cI\u2019ve seen pigs fly.\u201d\u00a0No, they don\u2019t.\u00a0And no, you have not.\u00a0You may have seen an image of a pig jumping in a lake, but that isn\u2019t flight. (Note: Michael Sowa\u2019s<\/a> famous painting is called \u201cK\u00f6hlers Schwein mit Ente\u201d not \u201cflying pig.\u201d)\u00a0Making up facts is perhaps the most dangerous and self-destructive thing you can do as a scholar.\u00a0It can get you fired.\u00a0It could get you sued, depending on your funding and the subject of your paper.\u00a0And you might be the last person to know when your sin is discovered.\u00a0But worse, you do real damage to the discipline.\u00a0\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      There are a couple of prominent examples. Francesca Gino<\/a>, a professor at Harvard Business School who studied unethical behavior, was called into question for falsifying data<\/a> and lost tenure. Eric Stewart at FSU similarly lost tenure<\/a> for questions about data. Ward Churchill<\/a> was fired at UC Boulder for making up facts as well.\u00a0But his story runs deeper, as information he claimed was true about himself turned out to not be provable<\/a> \u2014 namely, that he hailed from a Native American background, a claim genealogy research failed to prove and which no tribe recognized. Authors have even been accused of stealing someone else\u2019s story<\/a> as their own.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

      Bottom line, once you publish an article that is factually untrue, expect your scholarly reputation to tank.\u00a0You might be read, you might even be published, but you won\u2019t be trusted.\u00a0And that\u2019s the best-case scenario.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Misstating Theory. <\/strong>It might be intentional, but it might be based upon the limited knowledge of the author.\u00a0This happens quite a bit when an author\u2019s sources are not original sources.\u00a0Namely, the author has read what others have said about some tome but failed to read the tome itself.\u00a0This happens quite often in economics, where frequently few have bothered to read Marx or Marshall but have read quite a bit by others who claimed to have read them.\u00a0\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Take for example someone citing an article that says, \u201cthe court in Brooks v. Foglio<\/em> took judicial notice that pigs could fly, at least in theory.\u201d\u00a0And the cited article even quotes the case: \u201cThe Court thus takes judicial notice of the following facts: pigs can fly and hell has frozen over.\u201d Brooks v. Foglio<\/em>, No. CIV.A. 13-2504 JEI, 2013 WL 3354430, at *1 (D.N.J. July 2, 2013).\u00a0 But if you look at the case, this pigs statement is preceded with: \u201cIn what is almost certainly the first lawsuit of its kind, Plaintiff Marjorie Brooks alleges that her insurance company paid her too much money after her home was damaged by Hurricane Sandy.\u201d\u00a0So no, that doesn\u2019t mean pigs can fly.\u00a0More on this later when I write about the heroic assumptions people ignore.<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. Not Citing Literature. <\/strong>\u201cThere is no literature that suggests pigs cannot fly.\u201d\u00a0\u201cThere are no serious studies that suggest pigs cannot fly.\u201d\u00a0These statements, flat-out ignoring literature, might impress those who publish your work, but to true scholars, you look like an idiot who has not done the most basic literature search.\u00a0<\/strong>It is too common that authors do not realize there are other disciplines that have thought about these issues for longer, and are happy to limit their search only their own literature, where they are most comfortable<\/a>.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Not engaging with literature that contests your own thinking is as anti-intellectual as it comes.\u00a0This often leads to other failures, such as making heroic assumptions.\u00a0And it is often based on the next sin discussed, not reading the literature.<\/p>\n

          An author might not cite literature because it disproves their theory.\u00a0An author might not cite literature because they stole someone\u2019s idea and wants to claim they came up with it on their own.\u00a0Both are sins of misrepresentation.<\/p>\n

            \n
          1. Not Reading Literature.\u00a0<\/strong>Suppose the author cites a NASA study of zero gravity pigs on the International Space Station.\u00a0But the author doesn\u2019t read the paper, which\u00a0 reveals that the pigs aren\u2019t flying, they are technically free falling<\/a>.\u00a0The fact the author has failed to read the literature shows \u2014 to those who have read the literature, although it might impress law students and other fellow travelers of the school of being an ignorant academic.\u00a0By the way, \u201cPigs Can Fly\u201d and \u201cWhy Pigs Must Fly<\/a>\u201d are legit articles.\u00a0They just aren\u2019t helpful here, because they are using the metaphor and are not speaking of pigs literally.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            Moreover, the conditions upon which the pigs are doing the \u201cflying\u201d are quite limited.\u00a0One does not often encounter pigs on the Space Station.\u00a0And those conditions rarely hold true even under the most generous (and wrong) definition of flying.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

            As a corollary, reading requires thinking<\/em><\/strong> about the literature.\u00a0That means not immediately rejecting it without first understanding the article\u2019s perspective.\u00a0Using a sports analogy: Before you attempt to score points, you should probably figure out the rules of the game and the strengths and weaknesses of the other players.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

            What happens in the academy is often the equivalent of what children do: Side by side or \u201cparallel<\/a>\u201d play.\u00a0Children of an immature age will play near but not with one another.\u00a0\u201cI\u2019m building a house,\u201d says one.\u00a0\u201cI\u2019m drawing a house,\u201d says another.\u00a0And that\u2019s it.\u00a0This is what happens all too often in academia as well.\u00a0Not even a glance over at the other professor\u2019s house drawing or building.\u00a0There is hubris in that: \u201cWhat I have to say is so important that what others have couldn\u2019t be useful\u201d should not be a thing in academia.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

            Lastly, as this section was inspired by a Bluesky post of Professor Josh Sheppard at the University of Colorado, \u201cDo not cite an academic paper unless you\u2019ve read it.\u201d Be wary of citing without reading for AI reasons<\/a> as well.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

              \n
            1. Misciting Literature<\/strong>.\u00a0Suppose the author cites a paper called \u201cPigs in Space: The Flight of Peppa.\u201d\u00a0Absent reading the article, the author has no idea that this is a (completely made up) children\u2019s book.\u00a0One example of my own is that I have a blog post titled \u201cUse Racial Slurs In The Classroom!\u201d<\/a>\u00a0The unscrupulous might cite me as a proponent of doing so, but even a quick glance shows that I\u2019m dead set against it, and was mocking professors who were in favor of it.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                \n
              1. Making Grandiose Claims.<\/strong>\u00a0Many of the failures to access literature can lead to grandiose claims about scholarly contributions.\u00a0 \u201cMy article is the first to\u2026\u201d\u00a0No, it isn\u2019t.\u00a0Others have done similar, and the author is not narrowly defining their contribution. Making grandiose claims is easier to do with the ignorance of a poor literature search.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                  \n
                1. Heroic Assumptions That Are Unrealistic.\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cPigs could fly.\u00a0That requires some evolution for the pig to grow wings.\u00a0The literature has already contemplated this: Numerous images throughout history show pigs with wings.\u201d\u00a0Okay, no.\u00a0First, pigs having \u201cwings\u201d does not mean pigs could fly.\u00a0Allow me to introduce you to the \u201cflying squirrel.\u201d\u00a0You might think, \u201cWell, allow me to introduce YOU to the bumble bee!,\u201d but that ignores pigs are not in the same family (let alone genus) as pigs (look up bumble bees, flight vortex, and Bernoulli\u2019s principle). Second, you\u2019ve only accounted for lift, not weight, thrust, and drag.\u00a0Third, there is no realistic evolutionary progression that allows for pigs to have wings.\u00a0In short, no matter how complex your argument, it is bullshit.\u00a0And often, laying it on thick with verbose text creates the ruse of intelligent thought.\u00a0But it\u2019s still bullshit.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                  Heroic assumptions often happens in economics, too.\u00a0People will speak of how easy it is to assume a zero-income effect.\u00a0But there\u2019s enough literature out there (if you read it) to recognize if you do this you are assuming a spherical cow<\/a>.\u00a0Law reviews might buy it, but you are not furthering knowledge.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

                    \n
                  1. Asskiss Cites.<\/strong>\u00a0These are cites designed to sway people who are big names in your field, but do not include the other folks who have written on it.\u00a0And just dropping those names without engaging in the flaws or weaknesses of their theories clearly demonstrates you are citing them for the same reason a monkey holds a lightbulb \u2014 not<\/em> for illumination!<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                    One of the reasons this is problematic is that someone\u2019s reputation is not an argument<\/em>.\u00a0\u201cI know this person and they are famous and therefore are correct\u201d is anti-intellectual: Many famous people are often wrong, and there is no law professor exceptionalism.\u00a0Have doubts?\u00a0Look up how many famous law professors made very bad COVID-19 predictions.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

                    And, merely because someone has become famous does not mean that the quality of their work is consistent throughout time or subject matter. Whether the work trends upward or downward (\u201creputational enshittification?\u201d \u2014 sorry, Cory Doctorow) depends on an appraisal of the work, not the person.<\/p>\n

                      \n
                    1. Sacrificing Accuracy For Speed.<\/strong> Doing scholarship correctly takes time. I\u2019m grateful to Professor Anthony Kreis<\/a> at\u00a0 Georgia State for observing\u00a0 the \u201churry up\u201d problem. Often, doing scholarship (and legislation, for that matter) right runs contrary to the desires of those who seek to make the world a worse place.\u00a0Sloppy is fast and potentially popular and done right may not come in time to undo the damage.\u00a0But it is invaluable to criticize that which is not done right, whether it is flawed assumptions, completely made-up facts, improper historical analysis, flawed methodologies, or other things that detract from the purposes of scholarship.\u00a0\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                      Hey, did you notice none of these long-standing sins have much to do with AI?\u00a0I mean, they could, but the problem is more enduring and more human.<\/p>\n

                      Maybe I should have written this column in \u2026 Pig Latin.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

                      \n

                      LawProfBlawg<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0is an anonymous\u00a0law\u00a0professor. Follow him on\u00a0X\/Twitter\/whatever\u00a0(<\/em><\/strong>@lawprofblawg<\/em><\/strong><\/a>). He\u2019s also on BlueSky, Mastodon, and Threads depending on his mood.\u00a0Email him at\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>lawprofblawg@gmail.com<\/em><\/strong><\/a>.\u00a0 The views of this blog post do not represent the views of his employer, his employer\u2019s government, his Dean, his colleagues, his family, or himself.\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

                      The post Pigs Can Fly!: The Sins Of Legal Scholars<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

                      This is an article about academic dishonesty, both with one\u2019s audience and with oneself.\u00a0It is about the goal of academia being advancement of knowledge and the making of a better world.\u00a0To the extent other things are sought, such as external validation<\/a>, the result can be a bastardization of that which we ought to be doing and perhaps making the discipline worse off deliberately or negligently.<\/p>\n

                      Throughout this blog post, assume an author has written an article about pigs flying.\u00a0It sounds ridiculous.\u00a0But consider how an author could tantalize you with an article title like \u201cOn the Prospect of Porcine Flight: Rethinking the Impossible\u201d or \u201cPorcine Aviation: The Politics of the Previously Unthinkable\u201d or \u201cPigs and the Potential of Porcine Bumble Bees.\u201d\u00a0Now you\u2019ve got something to tantalize the law reviews!<\/p>\n

                      Now, how to write that article as quickly and with maximum splash as possible.\u00a0Let\u2019s start with how it is all too often done:<\/p>\n

                        \n
                      1. Misleading Title Clickbait.<\/strong> \u201cCan Pigs Fly? The Truth Will Shock You!\u201d\u00a0No, it won\u2019t, and the author\u2019s claimed signal of excitement is misrepresentation.\u00a0The asking of the question also misleads, as it suggests there is an open question worthy of an article.\u00a0\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                          \n
                        1. Lying About Facts.<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cPigs can fly.\u201d\u00a0\u201cI\u2019ve seen pigs fly.\u201d\u00a0No, they don\u2019t.\u00a0And no, you have not.\u00a0You may have seen an image of a pig jumping in a lake, but that isn\u2019t flight. (Note: Michael Sowa\u2019s<\/a> famous painting is called \u201cK\u00f6hlers Schwein mit Ente\u201d not \u201cflying pig.\u201d)\u00a0Making up facts is perhaps the most dangerous and self-destructive thing you can do as a scholar.\u00a0It can get you fired.\u00a0It could get you sued, depending on your funding and the subject of your paper.\u00a0And you might be the last person to know when your sin is discovered.\u00a0But worse, you do real damage to the discipline.\u00a0\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                          There are a couple of prominent examples. Francesca Gino<\/a>, a professor at Harvard Business School who studied unethical behavior, was called into question for falsifying data<\/a> and lost tenure. Eric Stewart at FSU similarly lost tenure<\/a> for questions about data. Ward Churchill<\/a> was fired at UC Boulder for making up facts as well.\u00a0But his story runs deeper, as information he claimed was true about himself turned out to not be provable<\/a> \u2014 namely, that he hailed from a Native American background, a claim genealogy research failed to prove and which no tribe recognized. Authors have even been accused of stealing someone else\u2019s story<\/a> as their own.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

                          Bottom line, once you publish an article that is factually untrue, expect your scholarly reputation to tank.\u00a0You might be read, you might even be published, but you won\u2019t be trusted.\u00a0And that\u2019s the best-case scenario.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

                            \n
                          1. Misstating Theory. <\/strong>It might be intentional, but it might be based upon the limited knowledge of the author.\u00a0This happens quite a bit when an author\u2019s sources are not original sources.\u00a0Namely, the author has read what others have said about some tome but failed to read the tome itself.\u00a0This happens quite often in economics, where frequently few have bothered to read Marx or Marshall but have read quite a bit by others who claimed to have read them.\u00a0\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                            Take for example someone citing an article that says, \u201cthe court in Brooks v. Foglio<\/em> took judicial notice that pigs could fly, at least in theory.\u201d\u00a0And the cited article even quotes the case: \u201cThe Court thus takes judicial notice of the following facts: pigs can fly and hell has frozen over.\u201d Brooks v. Foglio<\/em>, No. CIV.A. 13-2504 JEI, 2013 WL 3354430, at *1 (D.N.J. July 2, 2013).\u00a0 But if you look at the case, this pigs statement is preceded with: \u201cIn what is almost certainly the first lawsuit of its kind, Plaintiff Marjorie Brooks alleges that her insurance company paid her too much money after her home was damaged by Hurricane Sandy.\u201d\u00a0So no, that doesn\u2019t mean pigs can fly.\u00a0More on this later when I write about the heroic assumptions people ignore.<\/p>\n

                              \n
                            1. Not Citing Literature. <\/strong>\u201cThere is no literature that suggests pigs cannot fly.\u201d\u00a0\u201cThere are no serious studies that suggest pigs cannot fly.\u201d\u00a0These statements, flat-out ignoring literature, might impress those who publish your work, but to true scholars, you look like an idiot who has not done the most basic literature search.\u00a0<\/strong>It is too common that authors do not realize there are other disciplines that have thought about these issues for longer, and are happy to limit their search only their own literature, where they are most comfortable<\/a>.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                              Not engaging with literature that contests your own thinking is as anti-intellectual as it comes.\u00a0This often leads to other failures, such as making heroic assumptions.\u00a0And it is often based on the next sin discussed, not reading the literature.<\/p>\n

                              An author might not cite literature because it disproves their theory.\u00a0An author might not cite literature because they stole someone\u2019s idea and wants to claim they came up with it on their own.\u00a0Both are sins of misrepresentation.<\/p>\n

                                \n
                              1. Not Reading Literature.\u00a0<\/strong>Suppose the author cites a NASA study of zero gravity pigs on the International Space Station.\u00a0But the author doesn\u2019t read the paper, which\u00a0 reveals that the pigs aren\u2019t flying, they are technically free falling<\/a>.\u00a0The fact the author has failed to read the literature shows \u2014 to those who have read the literature, although it might impress law students and other fellow travelers of the school of being an ignorant academic.\u00a0By the way, \u201cPigs Can Fly\u201d and \u201cWhy Pigs Must Fly<\/a>\u201d are legit articles.\u00a0They just aren\u2019t helpful here, because they are using the metaphor and are not speaking of pigs literally.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                Moreover, the conditions upon which the pigs are doing the \u201cflying\u201d are quite limited.\u00a0One does not often encounter pigs on the Space Station.\u00a0And those conditions rarely hold true even under the most generous (and wrong) definition of flying.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

                                As a corollary, reading requires thinking<\/em><\/strong> about the literature.\u00a0That means not immediately rejecting it without first understanding the article\u2019s perspective.\u00a0Using a sports analogy: Before you attempt to score points, you should probably figure out the rules of the game and the strengths and weaknesses of the other players.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

                                What happens in the academy is often the equivalent of what children do: Side by side or \u201cparallel<\/a>\u201d play.\u00a0Children of an immature age will play near but not with one another.\u00a0\u201cI\u2019m building a house,\u201d says one.\u00a0\u201cI\u2019m drawing a house,\u201d says another.\u00a0And that\u2019s it.\u00a0This is what happens all too often in academia as well.\u00a0Not even a glance over at the other professor\u2019s house drawing or building.\u00a0There is hubris in that: \u201cWhat I have to say is so important that what others have couldn\u2019t be useful\u201d should not be a thing in academia.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

                                Lastly, as this section was inspired by a Bluesky post of Professor Josh Sheppard at the University of Colorado, \u201cDo not cite an academic paper unless you\u2019ve read it.\u201d Be wary of citing without reading for AI reasons<\/a> as well.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

                                  \n
                                1. Misciting Literature<\/strong>.\u00a0Suppose the author cites a paper called \u201cPigs in Space: The Flight of Peppa.\u201d\u00a0Absent reading the article, the author has no idea that this is a (completely made up) children\u2019s book.\u00a0One example of my own is that I have a blog post titled \u201cUse Racial Slurs In The Classroom!\u201d<\/a>\u00a0The unscrupulous might cite me as a proponent of doing so, but even a quick glance shows that I\u2019m dead set against it, and was mocking professors who were in favor of it.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                                    \n
                                  1. Making Grandiose Claims.<\/strong>\u00a0Many of the failures to access literature can lead to grandiose claims about scholarly contributions.\u00a0 \u201cMy article is the first to\u2026\u201d\u00a0No, it isn\u2019t.\u00a0Others have done similar, and the author is not narrowly defining their contribution. Making grandiose claims is easier to do with the ignorance of a poor literature search.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                                      \n
                                    1. Heroic Assumptions That Are Unrealistic.\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cPigs could fly.\u00a0That requires some evolution for the pig to grow wings.\u00a0The literature has already contemplated this: Numerous images throughout history show pigs with wings.\u201d\u00a0Okay, no.\u00a0First, pigs having \u201cwings\u201d does not mean pigs could fly.\u00a0Allow me to introduce you to the \u201cflying squirrel.\u201d\u00a0You might think, \u201cWell, allow me to introduce YOU to the bumble bee!,\u201d but that ignores pigs are not in the same family (let alone genus) as pigs (look up bumble bees, flight vortex, and Bernoulli\u2019s principle). Second, you\u2019ve only accounted for lift, not weight, thrust, and drag.\u00a0Third, there is no realistic evolutionary progression that allows for pigs to have wings.\u00a0In short, no matter how complex your argument, it is bullshit.\u00a0And often, laying it on thick with verbose text creates the ruse of intelligent thought.\u00a0But it\u2019s still bullshit.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                      Heroic assumptions often happens in economics, too.\u00a0People will speak of how easy it is to assume a zero-income effect.\u00a0But there\u2019s enough literature out there (if you read it) to recognize if you do this you are assuming a spherical cow<\/a>.\u00a0Law reviews might buy it, but you are not furthering knowledge.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

                                        \n
                                      1. Asskiss Cites.<\/strong>\u00a0These are cites designed to sway people who are big names in your field, but do not include the other folks who have written on it.\u00a0And just dropping those names without engaging in the flaws or weaknesses of their theories clearly demonstrates you are citing them for the same reason a monkey holds a lightbulb \u2014 not<\/em> for illumination!<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                        One of the reasons this is problematic is that someone\u2019s reputation is not an argument<\/em>.\u00a0\u201cI know this person and they are famous and therefore are correct\u201d is anti-intellectual: Many famous people are often wrong, and there is no law professor exceptionalism.\u00a0Have doubts?\u00a0Look up how many famous law professors made very bad COVID-19 predictions.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

                                        And, merely because someone has become famous does not mean that the quality of their work is consistent throughout time or subject matter. Whether the work trends upward or downward (\u201creputational enshittification?\u201d \u2014 sorry, Cory Doctorow) depends on an appraisal of the work, not the person.<\/p>\n

                                          \n
                                        1. Sacrificing Accuracy For Speed.<\/strong> Doing scholarship correctly takes time. I\u2019m grateful to Professor Anthony Kreis<\/a> at\u00a0 Georgia State for observing\u00a0 the \u201churry up\u201d problem. Often, doing scholarship (and legislation, for that matter) right runs contrary to the desires of those who seek to make the world a worse place.\u00a0Sloppy is fast and potentially popular and done right may not come in time to undo the damage.\u00a0But it is invaluable to criticize that which is not done right, whether it is flawed assumptions, completely made-up facts, improper historical analysis, flawed methodologies, or other things that detract from the purposes of scholarship.\u00a0\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                          Hey, did you notice none of these long-standing sins have much to do with AI?\u00a0I mean, they could, but the problem is more enduring and more human.<\/p>\n

                                          Maybe I should have written this column in \u2026 Pig Latin.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

                                          \n

                                          LawProfBlawg<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0is an anonymous\u00a0law\u00a0professor. Follow him on\u00a0X\/Twitter\/whatever\u00a0(<\/em><\/strong>@lawprofblawg<\/em><\/strong><\/a>). He\u2019s also on BlueSky, Mastodon, and Threads depending on his mood.\u00a0Email him at\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>lawprofblawg@gmail.com<\/em><\/strong><\/a>.\u00a0 The views of this blog post do not represent the views of his employer, his employer\u2019s government, his Dean, his colleagues, his family, or himself.\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

                                          The post Pigs Can Fly!: The Sins Of Legal Scholars<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                                          This is an article about academic dishonesty, both with one\u2019s audience and with oneself.\u00a0It is about the goal of academia being advancement of knowledge and the making of a better world.\u00a0To the extent other things are sought, such as external validation, the result can be a bastardization of that which we ought to be doing […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-146282","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146282","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=146282"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146282\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=146282"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=146282"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=146282"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}