Why Don't Some Faculty Write? It's the Law Reviews' Fault

Why I Don't Write, by Geoffrey Rapp (Toledo):

Three years ago, Paul Horwitz started a wonderful discussion about the value of scholarship by law professors, Why I Write. ...  An equally interesting, and perhaps more troubling question, is why some professors choose not to write. ...  The question I want to explore here is why, even though it seems so obviously harmful to their own personal and professional interests, they choose other activities instead of write legal scholarship. The point isn't to lay blame or scold those who don't write, but rather to try to understand the roots of non-writing in the hopes of generating ideas of how to provide a chance for change.

1. I have nothing to say that would re-invent my field.
2. No one will read it anyway.
3. I object to student-edited law reviews.
4. I get more satisfaction out of service and teaching.

[T]here is something about writing that detracts from some professors' happiness, satisfaction, and sense of self worth. What is it? Maybe rejection. ...  [E]ven the most interesting article, when submitted to 50-100 law reviews, will be rejected by 90% of them. ... Service and teaching, by contrast, provide more immediate affirmation of worth ....

But if the reason some don't write is because of how they feel they are treated by law reviews, maybe we as teachers and advisers of student law reviews need to do a better job of reminding them that the way they reject authors can have real effects. We should encourage them to process pieces in the way they would want the products of their own hard labor to be judged, and to treat authors -- even those who submit pieces editors find lame -- with respect.