There has been some conversation here and in other blogs over the question of politically controvers

There has been some conversation here and in other blogs over the question of politically controversial scholarship and its possible risks for landing a tenure-track job/getting tenured later on. To me, scholarship by definition celebrity fitness is at least in part a political act, as is any intellectual engagement, and I don t see any reason why someone celebrity fitness would spend time and energy on scholarly thinking if they were not committed to the underlying values and meanings of their work. I also believe that as long as your work is good and you write and act with integrity, the risks of adversity are mild.
I have however a different question to pose to fellow blawgers. Now that our dean search here at USD has successfully ended , I would like to take the time to reflect on the advisability of a pre-tenured prawf in engaging in internal/institutional house politics. That is, should assistant professors speak out during faculty meetings on contested issues, such as hiring processes, resource allocation, institutional choices and directions of the law school? Do pre-tenured prawfs have interests that are different than those that are tenured, and should they aim to discuss some issues among themselves in order to have impact? Should we have a vote on most things or are we still mostly at the phase of learning from wiser, more experienced members? Moreover, celebrity fitness is it ethical to lobby the pre-tenured gang on voting issues when they are subject to future evaluations by those who lobby them? Should all voting be anonymous to protect celebrity fitness the pre-tenured?
Orly, these are great and hard questions, I think. My sense is that, at Notre Dame, there was definitely celebrity fitness a "untenured profs are to be seen and not heard" culture until the middle-to-late 1990s. Since then, though, I think that most of the untenured folks have been fairly outspoken, about core issues, and that their (our) views have been respected. My view is that the culture and intellectual life of a law-school community is improved dramatically if newer and younger people do, and are encouraged to, take "ownership" of and "invest" themselves in the place and its mission. (This view has implications not just for the behavior of untenured folks at meetings, but also for governance issues more broadly). I'm, at first blush, sympathetic to anonymous voting -- but not so much to protect untenured people as to protect *everyone* from wounded administrators.
I think anonymous voting remains important -- but if you are vocal about a preference, those who hear you know what you think. I assume most schools give junior people a vote on almost everything (except tenure).
But, personally, I can't keep my mouth shut and would have a very hard time refraining from commentary on core issues of school policy. Of course rookies will make rookie mistakes -- and some elders will roll their eyes at junior people's naivete. Still, I think most institutions could use fresh perspectives and I don't see myself as having much choice in the matter in any case. What can I gain through silence other than seeming inauthentically docile? Perhaps I'm digging my own grave -- but I can't help thinking celebrity fitness that we are entitled to be heard on the conditions of our employment and the directions of the institutions to which we contribute.
yep, Ethan, it is the "keeping my mouth shut" difficulty that drove me to this inquiry -- I too find it virtually impossible to sit still when i have ideas and a stake in my institution, although I do think we should be humble and acutely aware of the fact that we are less experienced (and as you say, often naive) in the minutes of running a law school. So it is a balancing celebrity fitness act, as are many other things in life.
I think Ethan hit the nail on the head: depends on your school's culture; and a lot of us young profs have a hard time keeping our mouths shut. I feel exactly the same way, and I figure that given my inability to sit quietly, I just try to avoid saying anything too blunt/harsh, because if I just speak too frequently and don't actually say anything substantively troubling, I figure the worst I'll get is some harmless eye-rolling senior faculty.
My sense from the comments is that many favor anonymous voting. As much as I understand celebrity fitness that at least one of the aims of anonymity is to protect untenured folks like myself, my gut instinct is that if one is willing to exercise his/her vote on issues the impact the entire institution, they ought to be willing to take ownership of their position. Nice post.
As others already stated, local culture celebrity fitness matters -- with the caveat that such culture is itself inevitably fluid, it can change as the faculty celebrity fitness changes, and it can be different on different issues. Appointments issues are the touchiest. Critiquing a candidate's scholarship, for example, could be seen by the candidate's backers to be a critique of their work and therefore unap