There was a minor kerfuffle among left-bloggers a couple of days ago about the dearth of blogging on trade union issues. Nathan Newman suggested that it reflected the lack of interest of middle class liberals in trade unions. This is part of the story but only part. I suspect that the lack of media coverage of union issues, or, sometimes, of good information from the unions themselves, are equally important in explaining why people don’t blog on this as much as they should. Bloggers tend to rely on their morning newspapers to find out about the world - when those newspapers don’t cover union issues, bloggers are unlikely to focus on them. Which is why I hope that this recent NYT story describing a Human Rights Watch report on the US meatpacking industry gets the attention that it deserves from lefties, and indeed from union-friendly conservatives.
The report also concluded that packing companies violated human and labor rights by suppressing their employees’ efforts to organize by, for example, often firing employees who support a union. The report asserted that slaughterhouse and packing plants also flouted international rules by taking advantage of workers’ immigration status - in some plants two-thirds of the workers are illegal immigrants - to subject them to inferior treatment.
Original Human Rights Watch report available here (interested readers should also check out Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation, which has a trenchant and detailed discussion of how meatpacking firms abuse immigrants).
Update: Nathan Newman suggests that bloggers should sign up for email updates from American Rights at Work, an organization which I hadn’t heard of, but which seems to be doing excellent work on union-related issues.
While it’s not technically a weblog, and the group is Canadian, the Work Research Foundation has an online magazine, Comment, that tackles labour issues from a Christian, leftist perspective. Several contributors do have blogs, however.
This is a prime example of the delusional nature of blog triumphalism — we bloggers can “fact check their asses” all we want, but how would bloggers go about getting the MSM to report more on labor issues?
(Slacktivist is way ahead of the curve on labor stuff — but all of his posts on the subject are basically scanning a business page and asking why there’s not a “labor” page.)
Reporting isn’t the problem. The facts are out there on this subject and many reporters have done their job on the issue of illegal immigrant laborers being taken advantage of in the meat-packing industry. FWIW, I know first hand about this issue, having once been a worker for Iowa Beef Packers (now Excel).
My local paper, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, has done decent reporting on the subject too. Some politicans even give a damn about it, even conservative ones, given the impact the growing number of immigrant workers are having on rural Minnesota communities.
Now if bloggers give a bit more of a damn, I guess a few extra words won’t hurt, but it won’t help much either as long as suburban voters don’t feel guilty about it when they buy meat at the local grocery store. What’s needed is the same sort of labor activism that Ceasar Chavez led for illegal immagrants in the California lettuce fields. Now if some enterprising blogger could help promote that sort of labor activism, I’d be genuinely impressed.
It’s an interesting point. I’m a union member and I do a lot of policy work for unions, but I don’t often post directly on union issues. I should think more about this.
Yep, the meatpackers are evil. Blog about because a report says so. Very balanced approach if I must say so.
This is, in a sense, off-topic, but it’s a request for some blogger to write more about labor. I’m a libertarian who believes that employment is a contract much like any other. Can someone write a post justifying to a libertarian like me why companies shouldn’t be able to fire workers who try to organize a union?
I’m curious to know if there’s a deeper reason or even a different reason beyond “it’s good to give workers more money.” (Which is something that could be quite a good reason for a liberal, btw, just not for me.)
Can someone write a post justifying to a libertarian like me why companies shouldn’t be able to fire workers who try to organize a union?
To keep the spectre away?
Can someone write a post justifying to a libertarian like me why companies shouldn?t be able to fire workers who try to organize a union?
This is something I’ve wondered since a comment on this blog by Jacob T Levy. Levy is accorded considerable respect, but he seemed to advance the view that contract negociation was properly a matter to be decided solely between corporate person and non-corporate person.
The purpose of collective bargaining, which is a lot of what unions do for their members, is of course precisely to even up the playing field in negociations of this sort; my intuition is that this is indefensible from a Libertarian point of view, and this is not a small part of why I hold even the saner forms of Libertarianism to be contemptible.
“The purpose of collective bargaining, which is a lot of what unions do for their members, is of course precisely to even up the playing field in negociations of this sort;”
Mancur Olsen discusses distributional coalitions. Are distributional coalitions moral?
kstreetfriend comment:
According to the New York Times: Recently, a number of for-profit colleges have faced inquiries, lawsuits and other actions calling into question the way they inflate enrollment to mislead/increase the value of their parent company’s stock.
In the last year, the Career Education Corporation of Hoffman Estates, Ill., has faced lawsuits, from shareholders and students, contending that, among other things, its colleges have inflated enrollment numbers. The company acknowledged that it was under investigation by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
In February 2004, F.B.I. agents raided 10 campuses run by ITT Educational Services of Carmel, Ind., looking for similar problems.
Kaplan is wholly own by the Washington Post Company. I provided the S.E.C., Department of Education, and federal courts information that appears to prove Kaplan inflated the Concord School of Law enrollment, telling investors that the “flagship” of its higher education division has as many as 600 to 1000 or more students.
Why didn’t the Justice Department and S.E.C. included Kaplan with their investigation?
According to the New York Times: Recently, a number of for-profit colleges have faced inquiries, lawsuits and other actions calling into question the way they inflate enrollment to mislead/increase the value of their parent company’s stock.
In the last year, the Career Education Corporation of Hoffman Estates, Ill., has faced lawsuits, from shareholders and students, contending that, among other things, its colleges have inflated enrollment numbers. The company acknowledged that it was under investigation by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
In February 2004, F.B.I. agents raided 10 campuses run by ITT Educational Services of Carmel, Ind., looking for similar problems.
Kaplan is wholly own by the Washington Post Company. I provided the S.E.C., Department of Education, and federal courts information that appears to prove Kaplan inflated the Concord School of Law enrollment, telling investors that the “flagship” of its higher education division has as many as 600 to 1000 or more students.
Why didn’t the Justice Department and S.E.C. included Kaplan with their investigation?
I’m a libertarian who believes that employment is a contract much like any other.
All contracts are equal, but some are more equal than others. Try googling the term ‘adhesive contract’ sometime.
I’d think libertarians should be all gung-ho about workers voluntarily banding together to increase their bargaining power, actually. At least, I’d expect libertarians who view antitrust/competition laws with a gimlet eye to be so, if they wish to be at all consistent. ‘Libertarians’ who are really just about cheerleading for the Business Roundtable may have other views.
Can someone write a post justifying to a libertarian like me why companies shouldn’t be able to fire workers who try to organize a union?
Employers have the right to organize in corporations, which not only have human rights in the Bill of Rights according to the Santa Clara railroad case, but a wide variety of additional abilities such as immortality, omnipresence (the ability to pick and choose dirisdictions), etc.
A true libertarian should be opposed to such superhuman entities, giving him three choices: 1) eliminate corporations, 2) remove the absurd interpretation of the 14th amendment granting them equal protection to humans, or 3) allow workers some form of organization to help humans compete on more even ground against superhuman entities in the marketplace. As the first solution is impossible, and the second is unlikely and will take a great deal of time to solve, practical libertarians (perhaps a vanishingly small subset) should take option three into consideration. While unions are far less powerful than corporations as an organizational tool granted by government, they do offer a slightly better ability to compete and corporations should not be able to suppress this competition by firing workers who attempt to organize a union.
I don’t think this is about corporations, Ab. If you eliminated corporations and had to bargain with a human entrepreneur-owner instead, it wouldn’t make much difference.
This is, in a sense, off-topic, but it’s a request for some blogger to write more about labor. I’m a libertarian who believes that employment is a contract much like any other. Can someone write a post justifying to a libertarian like me why companies shouldn’t be able to fire workers who try to organize a union?Well you’re correct in that it all seems to come down to “it’s good to give workers (or rather unions) more money” or “corporations are evil” mentality. If you believe that adults should be treated as adults and human relations ought to be voluntary, then it has to extend to the workplace. An employment contract has to be voluntary on both parts in that neither can use force or fraud on the other. While arguably an employer might have more “bargaining power” (although they generally have more at stake as well since it’s usually easier for an employee to switch jobs than an employer to start up a new company), neither can really “force” the other to do something against their will.
Just as an employee has (or ought to have) the right to refuse to work for a company that does or does not have a union*, an employer has (or ought to have) the right to decide whether they want* to have a union in their shop.
While arguably an employer might have more ?bargaining power? […]
There’s only one Thurston Wingnut!
‘Can someone write a post justifying to a libertarian like me why companies shouldn’t be able to fire workers who try to organize a union?’
What you’re asking is not a blog post, but a recap of modern history and law. In no democratic country employers are allowed to sack employees purely because they organise themselves. That right to form unions is decreed by law and it is also recognised as a human right. That should tell you something. If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with the whole last few centuries of human civilisation. You want a blog post to solve that? It’d be like trying to explain what red looks like to a color-blind person. Actually, that’d probably be more feasible.
What I don’t understand is, how can you not see the contradiction in your position. You say an employer-employee contract is equal, which is not exactly true apart maybe from freelancing professions, but let’s say it is - then it should be all the more evident to you that just like any company has its own internal and external organisation, associations, trade consortiums, business to business networks, negotiating power with banks and financial organisations, and so on ans so forth, its employees have the equivalent right to have their own internal and external forms of association. Otherwise, it’s not even close to being an equal relation at all. Why is that not obvious to you?
That right to form unions is decreed by law and it is also recognised as a human right. That should tell you something. If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with the whole last few centuries of human civilisation.
X, while I agree with you entirely, I hope you realize that this isn’t much of a retort. Calling into question the last few centuries of human civilization isn’t wignuttery anymore; in fact, it is the explicit stated goal of much of the Right today, in the US at least. Take a gander at today’s NY Times editorial: a book called “The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History,” which decries both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Brown v. Board of Ed., and which rechristens the American Civil War “the War of Northern Aggression,” is a top-10 bestseller. The Scopes trial is being rehashed in school boards all over the country (as well as in another comment thread right here on this very site). Children at a private school in North Carolina were being taught, in 2004, that slavery as practiced in the American South was “a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence.”
Given that context, what the hell, why not argue that 2+2=5? There’s a whole slew of folks out there, some of whom are running the country at the moment, who will not only agree, but congratulate you on your “courage” in doing so.
I agree that “you’re giving up on the last few centuries of civilization” isn’t much of a retort anymore. After all, if you’re giving up on the Enlightenment, you can hardly keep the intervening centuries. Actually, “you’re giving up on civilization” isn’t much of a retort anymore.
Several posters here seem to think there are libertarians whose position is that workers should be legally prevented from forming voluntary unions. This is not the case, and indeed is a silly strawman. Voluntary unions, like all other forms of voluntary association, are fine and dandy from a libertarian point of view.
What we mostly do think is that if you are a member of association A, and other people choose not to associate or make contracts with you because of your membership in A, this is not a violation of your right to be in A. To build on Mrs. Tilton’s point about antitrust laws: if for example a firm decides to join some cartel arrangement and I object to that, surely I may rightfully decide to stop buying the firm’s products, and my decision in no way impinges upon its freedom.
Now, Jacob Levy’s point from an earlier discussion applies equally here. There’s no reason to assume that in an unregulated labor market workers wouldn’t contract for protections against firing, and these could include the right to be in a union. But a libertarian would at least say that if a company makes clear at hiring time that workers who form unions will be fired for doing so, they should have the right to make good on that warning.
The objections to this so far on this thread are the standard egalitarian ones. Those are fine if you’re an egalitarian, but they are not going to be effective at convincing libertarians. For most of us equality is not an important value compared to individual freedom and inequality is not prima facie evidence of injustice. Once again I observe how common it is for CT commenters to implicitly assume that their audience accepts egalitarian premises.
BTW, abb1 is absolutely right when he says the corporate/noncorporate thing is a side issue. How many pro-union lefties here would grant that firms structured as partnerships or proprietorships rather than corporations should be able to fire workers at will? As it happens, the proper status of corporations is a matter of some controversy among libertarians, but that’s another issue for another thread.
Re: Labor Unions and Libertarians.
This is what Adam Smith had to say on the subject. Some editing on my part for length.
Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual rate. To violate this combination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to a master among his neighbors and equals. Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labor even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy, till the moment of execution, and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do, without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people. Such combinations, however, are frequently resisted by a contrary defensive combination of the workmen; who sometimes too, without any provocation of this kind, combine of their own accord to raise the price of their labor…..A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation….
Is this improvement in the circumstances of the lower ranks of the people to be regarded as an advantage or as an inconvenience to the society? The answer seems at first sight abundantly plain. Servants, laborers, and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconvenience to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged.
The liberal reward of labor, as it encourages the propagation, so it increases the industry of the common people. The wages of labor are the encouragement of industry, which, like every other human quality, improves in proportion to the encouragement it receives. A plentiful subsistence increases the bodily strength of the laborer, and the comfortable hope of bettering his condition, and of ending his days perhaps in ease and plenty, animates him to exert that strength to the utmost. Where wages are high, accordingly, we shall always find the workmen more active, diligent, and expeditious than where they are low.
Adam Smith
Welath of Nations
if for example a firm decides to join some cartel arrangement and I object to that, surely I may rightfully decide to stop buying the firm’s products, and my decision in no way impinges upon its freedom.
So have you stopped buying petrochemicals, or do you simply not object to OPEC?
Why unions? Because it’s the only way to equalize the bargaining power between employers and workers. The economy requires surplus labor to function effectively - unemployment. When unemployment gets too low, inflation picks up and the Fed raises rates to slow growth - i.e. to get people fired. So employers are always in a position where there are fewer jobs than people who want them - and the result is that employers have a persistent negotiating advantage over workers.
The answer is for workers to unionize - it’s the only way to level the playing field. Moreover, unions must care about the survival of companies; companies (and, more importantly, their executives) don’t care about the survival of workers or the adequacy of wages.
As to why should libertarians allow a closed shop? Preventing free-ridership - the same reason taxes are compulsory and the government enforces your property rights.
Yes, bargaining power, which operates very similar to physical power.
If I put a gun to your head and make you sign a contract - that’s coercion.
If I and my friends own all businesses in town and you have a choice to sign an employment contract with me or starve - that’s coercion too.
Natural response to coercion is violence, communist or anarchist-style violence in this case. We don’t want that.
I’m a libertarian who believes that employment is a contract much like any other.
Why do I always get the impression that people become libertarians first, and then figure out what to believe later?
Mrs. T: I don’t object to OPEC. :-) Actually I really do mean this, in the sense that OPEC is such an ineffective cartel that it’s hardly worth doing anything about.
silent e: your dubious economic theory aside, why would you assume libertarians are any friends of the Fed, or think closed shops should be prohibited (as opposed to not being required)?
abb1: that’s a hypothetical bearing no relation to reality. For one thing, even if all businesses in town are monopolized— a rare phenomenon indeed if the town is of any size— there exist many towns in the world, and you can move. Indeed many very poor people have managed to move long distances in successful pursuit of employment opportunities; were it not so, America would have a very different population.
In the real world, almost all places at almost all times offer some level of competition for laborers. Often not as much as one would like— certainly not enough to make for equality of negotiating power, whatever that means— but enough to dispel the silly comparison to signing a contract at gunpoint. And when there really is little competition, it’s usually a result of government intervention on behalf of favored businesses, something no libertarian supports.
The politics of most bloggers, and most liberals is pretty mediocre.
The ones who think of themselves as intellectuals argue mostly from the standpoint of some form of technocratic faith. That there might be a conflict inherent in their position never occurs to them. In a technocratic world/philosophy all contradictions are either resolvable or ignored.
—-
On another note:
“…my intuition is that this is indefensible from a Libertarian point of view, and this is not a small part of why I hold even the saner forms of Libertarianism to be contemptible.”
Yes, and yes.
Nicholas,
true, there is some level of competition in modern industrial welfare states, mostly because of the safety net they provide. In most third world countries it’s much more obvious - you take a 17c/hour 16 hours/day 7 days/week job or you starve.
It’s exactly as blatant as shooting you between the eyes and taking your stuff, only what they take is your labor.
It’s a bit less obvious in industrial/post-industrial welfare states, but the essence is the same. When Bill Gates signs a contract with Larry Ellison - that is a free contract, there is no coercion here; but when you sign an employment contract with Bill Gates - he’s taking advantage of you, because you need a job to survive and he’ll survive just fine without your labor.
abb1: claiming that labor competition exists only in modern developed countries and only because of the safety net is ridiculous. India, for instance, recently posted a huge gain in average wages due to increasing competition for labor— and India is not noted for the strength of its safety net.
And are you seriously claiming that, because Bill Gates needs a job less than I do, if Bill Gates offers me a software job at MS it’s in essence the same as “shooting me between the eyes and taking my stuff”? That’s just too silly for words.
NW: “dubious”? Hardly. Demand drives up prices. When demand for labor is high, the price of labor rises. Unemployment is a measurement of the demand for labor, relative to supply, because official figures include only those seeking work. If unemployment drops, labor is more scarce. That scarcity raises the cost of labor, and hence prices throughout the economy: inflation.
Because the Fed fights inflation, it must ensure that demand for labor does not get too high. Thus, every time the unemployment figures come out, the markets look closely for any signs that the economy is getting “too hot” because too many people are getting hired. If unemployment gets too low, the Fed raises interest rates to throw people out of work. One in 10 working-age Americans does not work today. One in 20 working-age Americans wants to work today, and cannot.
So we require a large reserve of un- or under-utilized labor for our economy to function: tens of millions of Americans who want and need work, but who are told by their government that they must sacrifice their livelihoods, lives, or dignity for the benefit of land and capital. Where is the equivalent hobbling of land? Where is the sacrifice demanded of capital? For labor to negotiate with capital, it must organize.
Closed shops: this cannot be left to employer, because no employer (or at best a trivial number) will ever allow union organization, much less closed shops, if they have the choice to refuse.
…India, for instance, recently posted a huge gain in average wages due to increasing competition for labor…
You take India - arbitrary chosen geographical location - but most of the new jobs there have nothing to do with geographical location of the workforce. Why don’t you calculate what has happened to average wages of the actual jobs that moved to India? That would be a better, much more meaningful statistic.
That’s just too silly for words.
All I am saying is that for you having job is a necessity while for Bill Gates having you (or anyone) working for him is not. This gives Gates a leverage, power to coerce you into selling your labor for less than it’s worth. Why is it silly? It seems quite obvious.
good blog by someone who works for a union and writes frequently on labor issues
“This is, in a sense, off-topic, but it’s a request for some blogger to write more about labor. I’m a libertarian who believes that employment is a contract much like any other. Can someone write a post justifying to a libertarian like me why companies shouldn’t be able to fire workers who try to organize a union?”
Simple, in a world where perfect competition isn’t actually occuring on the ground, so instead oligopoly and monopsony rule the day, there is necessarily implied market power, including market power in labour markets, thus unions serve as a countervailing force to the market power of oligopolistic corporations.
Calling into question the last few centuries of human civilization isn’t wignuttery anymore
unkle kvetch - agh, I know, you’re right, but it doesn’t stop shocking me, the level to which people go to justify that kind of position. I can’t help it. The more I see it, the more I can’t believe it. Something doesn’t become any less crazy just because it becomes more widespread and acceptable.
Children at a private school in North Carolina were being taught, in 2004, that slavery as practiced in the American South was “a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence.”
Hmm, lovely. Hadn’t heard of that. Reminds me of a quote I came across recently in a charming account of the Republican Convention:
‘People are always shouting that they want to create a better future,’ Milan Kundera once wrote. ‘It’s not true. The future is an apathetic void of no interest to anyone. The past is full of life, eager to irritate us, provoke and insult us, tempt us to destroy or repaint it. The only reason people want to be masters of the future is to change the past.’
nicholas weininger - What we mostly do think is that if you are a member of association A, and other people choose not to associate or make contracts with you because of your membership in A, this is not a violation of your right to be in A.
Sorry, that’s just pure sophistry. In other words, bullshit.
What you are describing is one way of effectively voiding that right.
Let’s translate the argument on to another level where it might be clearer. Take the case of Mr X. He practises no religion. One day he decides to convert to Judaism. (Let’s assume that’s easy, for the sake of argument). If, after he’s become a Jew, people he works with stop associating with him, and more, his employers sack him, purely because of his religious membership, what are they doing if not voiding his human right to practice whatever religion he wants? A human right sanctioned by law. He would sue and it’d be an obvious case of discrimination. No one would dare defend the position of the employers, because it’s obviously wrong.
Of course religion is not the same as trade unions, so the parallel is loose, but the point is a legal right to do something is not just the right to do it, in and of itself, regardless of what happens if you do it. Otherwise, everything that can technically be done becomes a right. If I steal money from you, I go to prison. Stealing is not a right, not just because it’s wrong and identified as a crime, but because that means I have to pay consequences for committing that crime.
If I join a union, and my employer sacks me because of that, and other employers won’t even take me to work for them because of that, then they just are taking away that right to join unions, because they’re making me pay for it, they’re voiding the purpose of unions in the first place.
What would unions be for, if the right to join them and not have that be held against you as if it was some kind of crime is not respected by employers? Just a social club?
I don’t see how on earth that kind of discrimination against what is, I remind you again, a human right, can be justified.
The declaration of human rights doesn’t simply list a series of things that people can do. The purpose of defining those rights is to protect them against discrimination.
oh, and, regarding this: “Once again I observe how common it is for CT commenters to implicitly assume that their audience accepts egalitarian premises.”
I don’t even know what those definitions are supposed to mean in the abstract, seems everyone redefines them at their own will anyway, a bit like “freedom” and “democracy” - but in practice, how about, assuming that a series of existing legal principles should be accepted, respected and applied by all citizens of all countries who formally signed up to them? Is that unreasonable?
Call yourself libertarian all you like, it doesn’t give you a special license to pretend those laws are not there or to redefine the very basis of what makes a right a right.
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