Charles J. Goetz

Goetz is a law and economics scholar who, until his retirement a few weeks ago, held the Joseph M. Hartfield Chair in Law at the University of Virginia.

If one believed certain sources, the nation's judges are being brainwashed at propaganda seminars that are staffed by shills and bent to the behest of dirty-money bankrollers.

The targets of the outcry are educational programs run by so-called "private" entities. Among these is the Law and Economics Center at George Mason University -- one of Virginia's state universities, not "private" at all.

As far as the center is concerned, I have an up-close insider's knowledge. I've taught in at least one of the George Mason programs every year for more than two decades now. So, let me explain briefly why the alarms about these programs strike me as disingenuous, partisan muckraking.

George Mason runs ambitious high-quality educational seminars. Many of these seminars advance the proposition that economic principles and rigorous analysis can contribute to sounder public policy decisions. Hence, the seminars are often directed not only to academics but also state and federal judges.

Some now argue that these seminars are outrageous instances of propaganda peddling. So, what's the truth here?

First, it is just plain laughable to picture judges as being gulled by a platoon of academics. Of all people, judges are probably the most impervious to being suckered. A judge's daily experience involves onslaughts of clever verbal cajoling by some of the brightest, most compelling partisan advocates in our society. In a judicial system based upon adversarial argument, judges spend all day every day sorting the wheat from the chaff and draining out the snake oil.

There have been a handful of occasions on which this topic has surfaced when I've been in the company of judges. Some judge always notes, to a chorus of agreement, that any insinuation of judicial susceptibility to "improper influence" at seminars is not only absurd but also just plain insulting. Quite right.

Second, and speaking of insulting, consider whether the people who allegedly do the propagandizing would plausibly stoop to acting as partisan shills. I know most of the George Mason instructors personally and all of them by reputation. These highly regarded scholars would incur enormous costs in professional prestige were they seen to act as advocates for anything that does not meet rigorous scholarly and educational standards.

What I present at George Mason seminars is the same material that I teach in uncontroversial forums such as my regular job at the University of Virginia School of Law and at "neutral" programs for the Federal Judicial Center, American Law Institute, etc. As I've observed personally, other lecturers in the George Mason seminars also adhere scrupulously to the precise standards of professional objectivity that they would observe in any other forum. Moreover, the material presented teaches generally useful theoretical principles. Lectures are not issue-oriented, and specific topics that might come before a judge are avoided like the plague.

Despite contrary insinuations, it is hardly fair to characterize a typical seminar faculty as a homogeneous group of laissez faire conservatives. I've shared seminar duties with such folks as Nobel laureate in economics Paul Samuelson and distinguished legal scholar Cass Sunstein, neither of whom probably ever voted for a Republican.

Significantly, critics do not really attack the quality or content of what is taught at these seminars -- for it would be impossible to do so credibly. Instead, the motivations of the presenters are smeared. Similarly, the programs themselves are depicted as ideologically infected if they accept donations from "dirty-money" sources such as, heaven forefend, a Big Oil company.

This is utter nonsense. The people whom I've known and worked with, both faculty and administrators of the George Mason programs, let the chips fall where they may. They teach about important things that are broadly accepted by other scholars and that are useful for judges to know.

So, the bedrock truths are these: The content of George Mason lectures exemplifies that of serious educational programs, not propaganda machines; and even if dubious influence were attempted, it just wouldn't work with judges. A judge who reads a daily newspaper, watches TV or listens to cocktail party conversation is more likely to be subjected to "improper influence" than at one of these judicial seminars -- and, more important, also less likely to learn something that will advance the public interest.