UT Prof and NRO: Things are not always as they appear

Earlier today, I blogged this post about this National Review Online op-ed by Hunter Baker, who is described in the preface of the article as a “Texas freelance writer.” Mr. Baker’s article is highly critical of UT Law Professor, Brian Leiter, for Professor Leiter’s earlier criticism of the student author of a Harvard Law Review note that was complimentary of Baylor philosophy professor Francis Beckwith‘s new book, “Law, Darwinism, & Public Education.” Professor Leiter subscribes to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, while Professor Beckwith is as proponent of what is known as the “Intelligent Design Theory,” which is an outgrowth of creationism.
At any rate, my earlier blog was critical of Professor Leiter, not so much because of his views on evolution, which he presents very well. Rather, I was critical of the Professor’s accusation that the student author of the Harvard Law Review note had engaged in academic fraud, which I did not think was clearly reflected by the note.
Well, the student reviewer may be pristine as driven snow, but Mr. Baker — the author of the National Review Online piece — is not. Turns out that Mr. Baker is a graduate student of Baylor Professor Beckwith! And to make matters worse, Mr. Baker did not bother to disclose his close association with Professor Beckwith in his NRO article.
In the last paragraph of his NRO article, Mr. Baker suggests that Professor Leiter owes the student author of the Harvard Law Review note an apology. I initially agreed with that sentiment. However, now I apologize to Professor Leiter for my earlier post, and suggest to Mr. Baker that he owes him one, too.

It must be Bill James week

Following on this recent post, this MLB.com piece provides more background on Bill James, the original sabermetrician and the pioneer of statistical analysis of baseball. As noted in this prior post, the best current book published annually about baseball is the direct result of Mr. James’ statistical analysis of baseball.

District Judge Vela being treated for cancer

This San Antonio Express article reports that long-time U.S. Federal District Judge Filemon Vela, who has taken senior status, is waging a personal battle against stomach cancer at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. Thanks to Bradley Clark over at the Texas Law Blawg for the pointer to this article.

First Circuit sticks it to KPMG-Belgium

Anyone who has ever pursued business litigation against foreign companies or their advisors in a U.S. court knows that it’s not a picnic. However, this recent First Circuit opinion provides some hope for weary plaintiffs.
KPMG-Belgium was the auditor for Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products NV, the Belgian software maker that collapsed in 2002 under allegations of accounting fraud. A securities fraud class action was filed against KPMG-Belgium and others in Masschusetts federal court.
KPMG-Belgium refused to comply with the plaintiffs’ discovery requests on the grounds that producing the papers would violate Belgian law. The plaintiffs moved to compel the production of the documents, which the federal magistrate handling discovery matters in the lawsuit approved. KPMG-Belgium then mounted a collateral attack of that discovery order in the foreign court. They filed a ex parte petition with a Belgian court seeking to enjoin the plaintiffs from proceeding with the requested discovery, and requested a mere 1 million euros fine for each violation of the proposed injunction.
The plaintiffs fought back and persuaded the Massachusetts federal district court to issue issued an antisuit injunction enjoining KPMG-Belgium from pursuing the Belgian injunction action, which KPMG-Belgium appealed to the First Circuit. The First Circuit affirmed the district court injunction order, holding that when “a party institutes a foreign action in a blatant attempt to evade the rightful authority of the forum court, the need for an antisuit injunction crests.”
As I write this, KPMG-Belgium has not decided how to respond to the First Circuit’s decision. However, non-compliance could result in severe sanctions, such as entry of judgment or a fine. This will be an interesting case to follow.
Thanks to the 10b-5 Daily blog for the pointer to this case.

UT Professor criticizes Harvard Law Review

Brian Leiter is the Joseph D. Jamail Centennial Chair in Law, Professor of Philosophy, and Director of the Law & Philosophy Program at the University of Texas at Austin. Professor Leiter advocates a Darwinian materialist vision of the world from his weblog, The Leiter Reports. Professor Leiter is also the author of The Philosophical Gourmet Report, which is a respected ranking of graduate philosophy programs in academia.
Hunter Baker reports in this NRO article, Professor Leiter recently criticized Harvard Law Review and Harvard law student Lawrence VanDyke for giving Baylor professor Francis Beckwith‘s new book, “Law, Darwinism, & Public Education,” a positive review in the January 2004 issue of the Harvard Law Review. In the following passage, Professor Leiter accuses Mr. VanDyke of “scholarly fraud”, which Mr. Baker reasonably interprets as an indictment if the student reviewer were ever to seek an academic position after finishing his education at Harvard:

The author of this incompetent book note . . . is one Lawrence VanDyke, a student editor of the Review. Mr. VanDyke may yet have a fine career as a lawyer, but I trust he has no intention of entering law teaching: scholarly fraud is, I fear, an inauspicious beginning for an aspiring law teacher. And let none of the many law professors who are readers of this site be mistaken: Mr. VanDyke has perpetrated a scholarly fraud, one that may have political and pedagogical consequences.

Mr. VanDyke is not backing off of his positive review despite Professor Leiter’s criticism:

He defends the substance of his book note and charges that Leiter’s attack represents “an effort to make sure all students recognize that if they step outside the bounds of Leiter’s orthodoxy, their careers will be in serious jeopardy.” He adds, “This is pretty amazing considering my book note actually talks about the ‘hostility and censorship of the evolutionary establishment.’ If anything, Mr. Leiter acts as if it his goal to prove me correct.”

Mr. Baker closes his NRO article with the following observation:

Unless he gets his temper under control, Brian Leiter won’t continue to have the influence in the academy he currently enjoys. Threatening the career of a young law student because he dared to differ is a sorry spectacle. Let’s hope a chastened Leiter will get a lesson in freedom of inquiry and expression from his fellows and then will be man enough to apologize to the promising student whose destruction he proposed.

Subsequently, Professor Leiter has penned responses on his blog to criticism over his attack on Harvard Law Review and Mr. VanDyke, which can be reviewed here and here. To his credit, Professor Leiter’s responses are well-prepared and contain many good links to the scientific basis for the theory of evolution, the lack of which is his main criticism of the Intelligent Design theory espoused by Professor Beckwith and others.
Thanks to Logos for the pointer to Mr. Baker’s article.

Odds are that God exists

Logos points us to this article that describes a scientist’s calculation that concluded that there is a 67% that God exists. Actually, such scientific calculations have been around for quite some time. They are essentially the basis of 17th century French philosopher Blaise Pascal‘s “Wager Theory” on the existence of God, brilliantly presented in former Notre Dame philosophy professor T.V. Morris‘ 1992 book, “Making Sense of It All.”

The Ten Most Influential Businessmen of All-Time

The BusinessPundit points us to this Forbes article that lists Northwestern University economics history professor Joel Mokyr‘s (editor in chief of the “Oxford Encyclopedia of Economic History“) ten most influential businessmen of all-time. Neither Ken Lay nor Jeff Skilling made the list. ;^)

Watch out for the virus on that nickel slot machine

This NY Times article reports a virus outbreak linked to a Las Vegas casino hotel that sickened more than 1,000 people, most of them from Hawaii. The hotel casino involved is the California Hotel and Casino, a downtown Las Vegas property with a largely Hawaiian clientele.

Justice opens inquiry over Royal Dutch/Shell’s reserve writedown

Given recent disclosures at Royal Dutch/Shell previously discussed here, this announcement that the Justice Department has opened an inquiry into the oil company’s recent restatement of reserves is no surprise.

Holman Jenkins on Health Care Finance

Holman W. Jenkins Jr. is a member of the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal and is the author of the weekly Business World column. He is one of America’s most insightful thinkers and commentators on the political implications of the most pressing business issues of the day. In today’s column ($), Mr. Jenkins examines the relunctance of both political parties and their candidates to address meaningful reform in America’s broken health care finance system. The entire article is a must read, and here a few nuggets:

[P]roductivity miracles don’t descend from heaven but arise when companies choose to invest in new tools to make existing workers more productive rather than hire additional workers. Why? Listen to what business owners say every time somebody puts a notepad in front of their faces: Computers and machine tools don’t create open-ended health-care liabilities. Human workers do.
General Motors, a company that has shrunk by 180,000 employees over ten years, reported last week that its long-term health liabilities now top an incredible $60 billion. GM spends $5 billion annually to treat 1.2 million workers, retirees and their dependents. That amounts to more than $14,000 per current employee, gobbling up what a worker would otherwise take home as cash pay.
. . . Indeed, we’ve pretty much come to the point where we’re trying to do the economically impossible and give a subsidy to everybody. The average family of four now pays about $1,600 a year in taxes to cover the cost of a health-insurance subsidy to itself. No real gain to anybody occurs: We just push checks around to conceal from people the true cost of their health care.
How bad this has become is lost on most Americans. When you add the tax subsidy to Medicare, Medicaid and other federal programs, government now touches 60% of the dollars in heath care. The tax benefit alone comes to $120 billion a year. It’s also grossly regressive: A family earning $100,000 a year gets $2,357 to help pay for medical insurance; a family earning $15,000 gets only $71.
The only reform that stands a chance is one that dismantles the nutty system of tax subsidies that fuels health-care inflation by commanding an unnatural urge to channel every ache, pain and prescription through a third-party payment bureaucracy.