Text item: Re: Pro-business Philosophy
 
  Daphne, I was holding off responding to your message so that my
  provocations could play themselves out on the network.  It seems that
  reaction has now run its course, and I do not propose to stoke it.
 
  I do really believe that we as academics do have a greater influence on
  public policy (and on students) than you appear to believe.  Otherwise,
  why are we publishing research, quoting each other, developing expertise,
  "creating knowledge", shedding new light on old issues, placing issues in
  new theoretical perspectives, etc.?  I think our role goes much farther
  than mere exposition of legal principle, but I am probably more
  idealistic or naive than most people.
 
   A pro-business philosophy should not be considered an anti-employee
  perspective, although I appreciate that there is a sense of zero-sum
  gameship in the adversarial framework of law.  I think Laura put this
  into an interesting context although I think regulation is not
  party-neutral.  I believe, recognizing that it may be misguided, that the
  very questions that one consistently probes and the analysis that one
  generates reflect, at least in part, one's philosophy (or what Robert
  Lamb and Keith Maxwell referred to as "I call 'em as I see 'em" because
  we see 'em through our particular lenses).  Since you asked, a
  pro-business philosophy, therefore, might express itself in researching
  questions that business finds the most pressing and developing analyses
  and proposing legal solutions which are compatible with the business
  model.  This is certainly not a great definition: those who advocate
  employee empowerment might be better able to explain the philosophy which
  guides them.  And, as you suggest, one may not be able to consciously
  take on an orientation which does not come naturally.  I hope I
  understood your query.