UChicago has balls

Now that I have got you reading, I was overjoyed to see that the University of Chicago Law School is awesome enough to start its own, University sponsored, faculty blog. In and of itself, it looks awesome. Despite the fact that many of the best Chicago already has to offer are blogging (namely here and here), this is great for two simple reasons.

First, it is just going to increase the legitimacy of blogging. The University is throwing its clout to an exciting new area of scholarship: that which is rapidly available, off the cuff, and available to read and comment by all (often the comment and reply to comments on the Becker-Posner Blog are nearly as interesting as the posts themselves).

Second (and school pride warning), I love how Chicago is not afraid to actually use its clout here. This just does not seem to be something that universities with incredibly low blogger to faculty ratios (like Harvard) would even think of or if proposed would be pooh-poohed.

I did find one "bad review" of the idea (via Crescat Sententia). Gordon Smith's main complaint seems to be that there is no need, nor any improvement to blogging by Chicago entering into the game. I have to disagree. The blogosphere is one that is difficult to penetrate. It is not like the normal media, where if something is New York Times or Economist approved it comes with some sort of level of approval. Distinguishing between Freakonomics, Insta Pundit, The Corner, Volokh Conspiracy, or Crescat Sententia is no easy task. It basically requires you to exhaust hours of "testing" blogs to see if they have good and interesting stuff. The University of Chicago jumping into the fray provides that blog (which I am sure will have awesome stuff) and the blogosphere (an untested good to the overwhelming majority of the public) with an instant shot of visibility and legitimacy.

Congratulations University of Chicago, see you tomorrow.

-Mr. Alec