Social justice for me but not for thee?

Don’t you love it how North American CEOs like to lecture us about privacy, gay rights, or “social justice” while at the same time they are doing business in China. (Apple, Disney, the NBA, and Nike immediately come to mind.) Now, check out this academic job posting for a two-year “Vulnerability and the Human Condition Initiative Fellowship at Emory University.” Among other things, that job post tells us that vulnerability theory is about “decentering the individual and focusing attention on the law’s construction and maintenance of the social structures and relationships in which we all live our day-to-day lives.” (You cannot make this shit up!) How ironic, however, that an academic institution devoted to “vulnerability theory” and to “decentering the individual” itself replicates the existing feudal hierarchies of academia, or to quote an anonymous critic of the job post, notice how issues of social justice in academia are “never addressed self-referentially by high-income individuals with relative job security in legal academia, with respect to the relation of their own relative positions in society with those they employ in ‘lesser’ roles, e.g. VAPs, Fellows, Adjuncts, Lecturers, [legal writing] instructors, Clinical Instructors, Professors of Practice, and so on.” Touche’.

About F. E. Guerra-Pujol

When I’m not blogging, I am a business law professor at the University of Central Florida.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Social justice for me but not for thee?

  1. ESG is the new craze in corporate rent seeking. Putting on the facade of being socially responsible is an excellent ruse.

    Personally, cut all the disingenuous nonsense and just conduct business as you usual (subtracting the lobbying, bribery, and regulatory capture). Just about every one in the US buys Chinese goods due to their comparative advantage in manufacturing. Hell, but when I use to work in logistics ( for a now defunct Korean ocean carrier and then for a small freight forwarding company) most the freight was coming from China. The trans-pacific corridor was (still big business) for US imports; its just a part of doing business in the modern supply chain.

    However, it is scummy to pretend like you distancing yourself from this reality through virtue signaling. I sincerely hope most consumers are too intelligent to take the bait and not be swayed by “woke advertising”.

    • It’s like all this talk of “stakeholders” and “corporate social responsibility” — but take a look at any board of directors of any Fortune 500 company, and you won’t find a single employee stakeholder or community stakeholder on any of those boards

  2. Bryant Poythress says:

    Link seems incorrect

  3. $60k a year to research the “distorting effects of current conceptions of “liberty” and “equality” on the ways we understand and order essential social institutions.”

    Also, below is a quotation from the mission statement page (https://web.gs.emory.edu/vulnerability/about/index.html) :

    “The Initiative offers the “vulnerable legal subject” to displace the liberal legal subject that currently dominates law and policy.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s