Document Type

Article

Publication

California Law Review

Year

1992

Abstract

In this response to Professor Rubin, Professor Schlag argues that a prescriptive theory of evaluation does not free an evaluator from the bias inherent in his own pre-figurations. On the contrary, the belief that better evaluative criteria will advance the cause of fairer evaluation is itself an effect of flawed and unrationalized pre-figurations of conventional legal thought. Professor Schlag argues that the evaluation question and its attendant disputes arise from a more significant development--the unraveling of the dominant paradigm of legal thought, the decomposition of normative legal thought.

Comments

This article is a response to Edward L. Rubin, On Beyond Truth: A Theory for Evaluating Legal Scholarship, 80 Calif. L. Rev. 889 (1992).

Share

COinS