Martini gives far more space and care to the normative than to the empirical aspects of her case. Some of Martini's disappointments and frustrations with law school remind me strongly of my own. Thus, even though her evidence is essentially anecdotal, I have no quarrel with Martini's claims that law school training can be brutal, corrupting, and also in a sense profoundly doctrinaire despite frequent professions of political and philosophical neutrality. For her assertions that law teaching is profoundly influential on the students' thinking and, what is more, on the subsequent governance of our society, however, Martini provides no direct evidence whatever. In fact, Martini makes it perfectly clear that she, for one, was only offended and not the least bit persuaded by the indoctrination her law professors inflicted upon her.
Stories are one thing and interpretations another.
Martini is sorely mistaken in her assessment of what law teachers teach and why they teach it. Remarkably, she appears not to have noticed any significant differences among her teachers in either guiding values or teaching style. Her thesis that Marxists have taken over the academy and socialists in turn the country is downright remarkable. Not only has Martini failed to notice what actually goes on in Washington these days, she has misunderstood much of what she has read and experienced. It would seem that, before entering law school, Martini was already captive to an ideology that successfully immunized her to its baleful influences.