I will blame the heat of this summer for reducing my blog posts to a trickle, but I have written elsewhere. The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal invited me to write a piece about the need for science and mathematics literacy in law school, and among lawyers and judges. I have touched on the subject before, but I agreed to submit a short essay that is now published as “STEM-ing the Tide of Scientific and Mathematical Illiteracy in the Law: Attorneys need to understand how numbers work. It’s time we teach them,” James G. Martin Center (July 26, 2024).

Although I was delighted to receive the invitation, I was initially skeptical of the organization. The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal (previously known as the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy) is a group that has criticized and sought reforms in higher education from a right-of-center perspective. I have given up calling such groups “conservative,” because the term no longer has any clear meaning. While I continue to view Burke and Oakeshott as having something important to say about our current crises, their counsel has no sway among self-styled conservatives in the Republican party, where neo-cons, theo-cons, paleo-cons, fascismo-cons, crypto-cons, techno-cons, ignoratio-cons, and plain ol’ con-cons have pitched one large ignominious tent.

Still, as a group that describes itself as particularly concerned especially with free markets, limited constitutional government, and personal responsibility, the Martin Center has much to commend it. Although I cannot agree with everything promoted on the Center’s website, which has articles from many authors, the group’s publications seemed sufficiently heterodox to me to consider it as a publishing venue.

My piece focused on the need for a modicum of scientific and statistical acumen and training among lawyers, and the ethical lapses that can result from lack of training. I chose to use real world examples of lawyers whose pronouncements in public and in court caused them to look either untutored or unethical. There were no lack of examples, but perhaps as a test of the Martin Center’s bona fides, I focused on three high-profile “conservative” lawyers, Alan Dershowitz, Ken Paxton, and John Eastman. Of course, the last of these lawyers has now had his license suspended, pending an appeal to the California Supreme Court. I was gratified that the Martin Center received and enthusiastically published my short article, which is now online at the Center’s website.