Legal Commentary

James Poniewozik argues in his recent column in Time that journalists should publicly disclose their voting records. It has long been sacrosanct for reporters to avoid ever revealing their political preferences or party affiliations. Poniewozik?s challenge to this longstanding dogma makes for fascinating reading. Before reading his piece, I had always figured, without thinking about it too much, that reporters? public profession of agnosticism was a good idea. Now, I still do, but I admit Poniewozik?s piece has forced me to ask myself why.

His argument is that disclosing political preferences would make political journalism more trustworthy. I?m dubious. But it is interesting to import the questions he raises into our own circumstance, as law teachers.

How should law professors deal with disclosing political convictions in the classroom? At the lectern, the question is usually not whom you prefer for president, but which side you take in politicized legal controversies ? tort reform, the exclusionary rule, tenants? rights, the constitutional right to abortion, etc.

Should law professors come clean to students on issues such as these?

For myself, in Torts and my other classes, I tend toward disclosure. But I try not to be too quick about it ? I don?t want my side-taking to preempt good class discussion. But disclosure has a downside. As soon as I disclose my beliefs in the name of intellectual honesty, I worry about crossing the line to using class as a platform for spouting opinion.

And that, I suppose, is why I am comfortable with campaign beat-reporters veiling their own politics. It?s not that we, the readers, shouldn?t have access to the information. It?s that reporters, through the exercise of carefully keeping their politics private, engage in a kind of discipline and self-restraint that, at least potentially, makes them better reporters.