If you think the legal academy is easily going down like a tweeking zit-faced ten buck hooker without a fight, you'd be sorely mistaken. These folks have spunk in their blood. They're going to fight back against vicious calumny, and they don't care if they have to close the fictional holes in the opposition's arguments with the bodies of their loser graduates.
The New York Times recently published an editorial about alleged shenanigans. A cry went into the night, and the academy responded. Blake Morant (GWU dean), Kellye Testy (U. of Washington dean), Judith Areen (Georgetown professor), the aforepraised Scott DeVito, Michelle Anderson (CUNY dean), Debra Raskin (Fordham and Columbia adjunct), and Matthew Diller (Fordham dean). There's also David Stern, who heads the Equal Justice Works and wants PSLF to continue.
They're names that can be safely added to the Annals of Truth and Justice. It doesn't even matter what they individually say. We could spend days arguing over who laid down the greater wit between Morant/Testy/Areen's claim that capping student lending will damage poor students and Diller's claim that law schools were responsible and prudent actors in trimming their enrollments.
What matters is that they do it. See also my post from two months ago.
Every time there is a big swing by an opponent to legal education, someone from within hits back. It doesn't always have to be Leiter or Diamond or Allard. Great men like Matasar, Mitchell, and Hobbs can ride off into the sunset, and there will be a whole new group of brave warriors to step up in the ranks and wield the Mighty Sword of Paralogy against foes who would prefer the federal government to have rational student lending polices that don't confuse default with non-repayment.
It's like Leiningen v. The Ants. For those who haven't read that one, here's a spoiler alert: the species closer to cockroach wins. Always do.