The supposed indexes of merit and obj ectivity are essentially contrived to deny minorities advance, thereby securing the dominance of, variously, white supremacists, the patriarchy, or heterosexuals. Naturally, if merit and objectivity do not exist, then traditional scholarship by which professors demonstrate excellence is equally flawed. Legal scholarship is generally concerned with discovering the intent of the authority that promulgated the la w, or harmonizing or explaining complex areas of the law, or with empirical studies of the real-world effects of the law. This studies presuppose the existence of some degree of objectivity, toward which scholarship is aimed. It also emphasizes the linea r reasoning of the law, moving from established premises to a reasoned conclusion.
Reason is merely a contrivance and thus the work of s cholarship is a sham.
Falling prey to the use of reason and linear logic would be surrender to the established order which the radicals have as their purpose to deconstruct. All sorts of objection may be raised to the storytelling movement. The stories may be atypical, not statistically representative of a larger universe of data, and thus not the proper basis of generalization. The stories may be inaccurate, incomplete o r entirely falsified, allowing their authors to draw conclusions and demand action on the basis of facts that do not exist. And whatever the veracity of these stories, they are susceptible to all of the interpretative contests that surround ordinary stori es.