4 ms·

Did you read the article? It is pretty clear he is quite competent..

briantakita 9y ago
I did read the article, & I read his wikipedia page, & I even read some of his writings. While one needs to write well for the Supreme Court to accept a case, one also needs an interesting case to write about. Assuming he is competent for the position, the question is compared to the competition, is he the strongest candidate? I'm curious over the selection criteria for the position & what led to Georgetown hiring him, compared to the other applicants. Was it swayed by his past experiences? Having a scholarship from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation undoubtedly helps as well.
- mathperson 9y ago
  You are answering your own question.
- Retra 9y ago
  Are you trying find some injustice here? Or are you really trying to compare what little you know of this person to the nothing you know of all the other candidates? I have the number 7 on a card. Is that higher or lower than all the other numbers I have on cards? Seven is a pretty low number... There's gotta be a higher number on my other cards, right? Let's reason that one out. I tell you that seven is highest number amongst the cards I have. Now you'll call that into question because... seven seems pretty low to you? What do you know that I do not?
  - briantakita 9y ago
    > Are you trying find some injustice here? I'm just asking questions/reasoning about the selection process. > There's gotta be a higher number on my other cards, right? Not implying anything. Since this is an interesting case, it warrants more scrutiny. It's human nature to pay more attention to things that go against the norm. > I tell you that seven is highest number amongst the cards I have. Now you'll call that into question because... seven seems pretty low to you? In this case, I'm asking to see your other cards, or at least get a general sense over the calibur of other cards. Also, selecting a person/people is also not as simple as selecting a number. Many factors at play. In the video, the Georgetown staff gave Mr. Hopwood more credibility for being incarcerated as "being on the inside". I certainly can understand that. Of course there's a question of ethics. Perhaps Mr. Hopwood is in a position to where the risk of him having some latent criminal impulse (or exceptionally poor judgement) is minimized. I don't fully understand the impact of ethical responsibilities of a Law Professor. There are certainly many unethical Law professionals & I'm not implying that Mr. Hopwood is one. However, he does have a past criminal history, which in his case he may have fully reconciled. On average, previously convicted felons commit crimes more often than the general public. The devil is in the details. I'm sure these are all considerations in the selection process. Maybe I have some initial reservations, which encourages me to investigate more. Having skepticism & looking more into things does not make me a bad person. Having moral outrage to somebody who asks questions is morally questionable (in this case) at best; not saying that you are an immoral person. I'll go out on a limb & posit that Mr. Hopwood would agree with me.
    - Retra 9y ago
      My skepticism about the value of your inquiry and your assumptions for what makes a qualified candidate are "moral outrage", while your skepticism about a company hiring the optimal employee for its own purposes is just healthy rationalism triggered by knowing they hired a convict?

I did read the article, & I read his wikipedia page, & I even read some of his writings. While one needs to write well for the Supreme Court to accept a case, one also needs an interesting case to write about. Assuming he is competent for the position, the question is compared to the competition, is he the strongest candidate? I'm curious over the selection criteria for the position & what led to Georgetown hiring him, compared to the other applicants. Was it swayed by his past experiences? Having a scholarship from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation undoubtedly helps as well.

mathperson 9y ago
You are answering your own question.
Retra 9y ago
Are you trying find some injustice here? Or are you really trying to compare what little you know of this person to the nothing you know of all the other candidates? I have the number 7 on a card. Is that higher or lower than all the other numbers I have on cards? Seven is a pretty low number... There's gotta be a higher number on my other cards, right? Let's reason that one out. I tell you that seven is highest number amongst the cards I have. Now you'll call that into question because... seven seems pretty low to you? What do you know that I do not?
- briantakita 9y ago
  > Are you trying find some injustice here? I'm just asking questions/reasoning about the selection process. > There's gotta be a higher number on my other cards, right? Not implying anything. Since this is an interesting case, it warrants more scrutiny. It's human nature to pay more attention to things that go against the norm. > I tell you that seven is highest number amongst the cards I have. Now you'll call that into question because... seven seems pretty low to you? In this case, I'm asking to see your other cards, or at least get a general sense over the calibur of other cards. Also, selecting a person/people is also not as simple as selecting a number. Many factors at play. In the video, the Georgetown staff gave Mr. Hopwood more credibility for being incarcerated as "being on the inside". I certainly can understand that. Of course there's a question of ethics. Perhaps Mr. Hopwood is in a position to where the risk of him having some latent criminal impulse (or exceptionally poor judgement) is minimized. I don't fully understand the impact of ethical responsibilities of a Law Professor. There are certainly many unethical Law professionals & I'm not implying that Mr. Hopwood is one. However, he does have a past criminal history, which in his case he may have fully reconciled. On average, previously convicted felons commit crimes more often than the general public. The devil is in the details. I'm sure these are all considerations in the selection process. Maybe I have some initial reservations, which encourages me to investigate more. Having skepticism & looking more into things does not make me a bad person. Having moral outrage to somebody who asks questions is morally questionable (in this case) at best; not saying that you are an immoral person. I'll go out on a limb & posit that Mr. Hopwood would agree with me.
  - Retra 9y ago
    My skepticism about the value of your inquiry and your assumptions for what makes a qualified candidate are "moral outrage", while your skepticism about a company hiring the optimal employee for its own purposes is just healthy rationalism triggered by knowing they hired a convict?