Apparently, some of the panelists at the Rawls conference were unhappy with Larry Solum’s coverage. Brian Leiter voices their criticisms and adds some of his own. Leiter’s main concern is
whether it’s fair to presenters to translate their ideas and arguments, and then present them to potentially thousands of students and faculty elsewhere via a blog. It is [fair] if one is consistently on the money, as Solum was in the session on public reason. But it’s unfair, and does a disservice, when the accounts produce the kinds of [negative] reactions from presenters quoted above.
Solum has replied to this criticism in what I think is a thoughtful and, to my mind, persuasive post. Those who take issue with his coverage can certainly write to him about it. I’ve never seen Solum shy away from objections to what he writes, and I have no doubt, as he says in his reply, that he would engage the merits of any serious criticism.
Leiter raises some important questions about the responsibilities of those who blog about public events. Yet, his basic principle seems to be: if you’re not an expert on the subject being discussed, and if you don’t convey what people say in ways that they will happily recognize as representing their views, then you simply shouldn’t blog about what you’ve heard. I think this principle is too demanding, especially when (i) there are open forums for those who spoke to correct perceived mistakes, and (ii) published accounts of their considered statements will be available within a reasonable time.
Accuracy in blogging public events is important, but responsible coverage may include a mix of opinions and observations with which others may disagree. In the case at hand, anyone who read Solum’s posts would have recognized that they were seeing the conference through his eyes. Solum was an enthusiastic participant at the conference, which is part of what made his coverage so great. He told us what was happening, who was talking, generally (and sometimes more specifically) what they were talking about, and, at the same time, he gave us his impressions about all of these things. Furthermore, Solum’s readers know he has written about some of the topics under discussion. (In fact, given his extensive work on public reason, I was somewhat surprised that he wasn’t on one of the panels.) We know he has views about these issues. Indeed, those familiar with the Rawls literature will most likely have spotted remarks that they think are slightly idiosyncratic. But that’s to be expected from anyone commenting on ideas they care about. And one thing that came across loud and clear to all of Solum’s readers is that he cares deeply about the subject of the conference.
As someone who works on topics related to Rawls’s political philosophy, I’m grateful to Solum for giving me a sense of what went on at the conference—even if all the details aren’t quite right. I will certainly follow up by reading the panelists’ papers when they are published by Fordham. In the meantime, however, it helps to know about the sorts of issues that were discussed. Let me also add that if, as a result of Solum’s enthusiasm, Rawls and his students have a few more readers after this conference, so much the better. Whatever misconceptions they have can be cleared up by their encounters with other readers and, hopefully, with the relevant texts.
On balance I would have to agree with Micah. I can see how it must be frustrating if your views are misrepresented on the Internet and I’m sure Larry Solum didn’t intend to do so. However, the benefit of coverage like Solum’s to Joe Public outweighs the irritation to the speaker.
I think we should also give Solum a break since the challenge of representing views in real time on topics as dense as these, is monumental.
Um, perhaps the conference should publish a proceedings. It could do so on the internet—no paper, saving lots of money. That way, the presenters could have their papers published the way they want them published.
That said, perhaps those objecting to Solum’s comments regarding certain presentations might consider whether their presentations were as clear as they thought they were. Assuming that Solum was trying to synopsize the presentations correctly, perhaps their presentations were not as clear as they might have been.
People who have not posted their papers on their home pages have no business complaining that someone else’s summary of their presentation is incomplete or inaccurate. The presentations are, after all, public, not private.
I file this under the heading of dog bites man (or Leiter bites blogger). Why Leiter feels that somehow blogging is different from the general range of the ways academics represent the work of other academics, I really cannot say. A feeling that one has been misrepresented or misquoted is common, and does not always involve published works to which people wishing to evaluate the claim of misrepresentation may be directed.
Moreover, I would argue that to a certain degree, academic prose now frequently is constructed so as to sustain multiple claims about what the central argument or point of a piece might be, and is festooned with numerous qualifiers designed to protect against various objections both trivial and non-trivial. Ferreting out what the author intends to be the central argument can in fact be a difficult enterprise for this reason, precisely because a certain amount of plausible deniability is often hardwired in, and certain objections preemptively fended off. In some cases, more genuinely, we only discover what our real central arguments are by testing a paper in a conference or workshop: we may be unconsciously undecided about some key points, and present our work in order to come to a decision.
Moreover, I think audiences at a conference are perfectly justified after listening to a paper to say, “The central argument of the paper was X, but I find X a fairly banal argument; the most interesting thing it had to say was actually Y, which was more of a throwaway”. That can actually be a generative, useful response, even if it redirects the conversation (and the impression audiences have of the conversation) away from the author’s own intention. That’s why you have audiences at conferences, or why you should: to engender conversation, to see what others make of the work you present.
Leiter seems to think that the purpose of a conference or workshop is the literal transmission of the exact words of an author, and that no interpretation, rethinking, responsiveness, or representation of the papers is warranted. In which case, why have conferences at all? We should just post papers as we complete them on websites and invite the whole world to read exactly what we wrote in exactly the form we wrote it in.
That’s not what I take to be the meaningful, generative point of academic conversation. The point is, “What do we make of what was said, written or thought by another”? And if that’s the point, we can certainly protest when we think that someone has misrepresented the arguments of another, but that protest is wholly the normal, everyday business of academic knowledge production. No need to make a big production out of it, and especially no need to ask another academic to stop representing the work of others for fear that a misrepresentation might happen. If it happens, contest it. Simple enough.
Leiter feels compelled for some reason to put a great gob of extra icing, sprinkles and candles on top of that rather matter-of-fact and ordinary point. We do not have a right to expect within an academic environment that each of us alone is qualified to represent what we individually have to say, nor a right to protest the representations of others as definitionally and intrinsically inappropriate by the mere fact that they are the representations of others. I can’t think of a faster way to kill off the entirety of academic discourse than that demand.
How is Solum different from any attendee at a public event? For that matter, how is Leiter different from any public figure claiming that he was quoted out of context? Certainly, if President Bush or one of his challengers tried to impose a requirement that a reporter could not report on one of his speeches unless the reporter confirmed that her interpretation of his remarks agreed with his own, he would leave himself open to considerable scorn.
Of course, the converse can be true, too. If a reporter can be shown to have skewed her reporting because of ignorance or malice, then presumably the reporter would be subject to criticism. I don’t get the impression that such charges are being raised against Solum here, though.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review