End of a golden era? UCL’s Colloquium in Legal & Social Philosophy

Interviews with Professors Ronald Dworkin, Jonathan Wolff and Stephen Guest

Since 1998, Professor Dworkin, whose work in the past 30 years has had a global impact on the agenda of the modern debate in legal and political philosophy, has chaired our Colloquium in Legal and Social Philosophy at which distinguished thinkers in legal and political philosophy present new research. He stepped down from the Chair of the Colloquium programme at the end of the last academic year, but will be inaugurating this year’s programme by presenting a new paper.

Professor Dworkin – RD Dr. George Letsas – GL Dr. Riz Mokal – RM

GL: Ronnie, you took up the Quain Chair here at UCL from Oxford in 1998. How did that come about?

RD: Jeffrey Jowell [former Dean and Head of the Department of Laws] persuaded me, but it was against the background that I would have had to retire from Oxford in a couple of years anyway. We were talking one night about that and about what I might do, and he suggested that I could move from Oxford to UCL. I said, well, alright, that is a very interesting idea, I will Professor Ronald Dworkin QC do it in two years, and he said no, with William Twining and Mike the period when I was here, it I think you should do it right away. Freeman and Jeffrey himself, and, might be more interesting, and So I did it right away. of course, Stephen Guest, whom I add something that was not here had known already. Stephen had before, if we were to organise a GL: So your friendship with Jeffrey been a student of mine at Oxford Colloquium here. The format of this and perhaps others at UCL and I was quite close to him. He event had by that time been very influenced your decision? had written a book about me. I felt well developed. It was an organic that I knew the scene here a bit thing that started at NYU almost RD: Yes, I liked the idea of being and I also felt it was congenial. twenty years ago now. We had at UCL. I first joined it on a very refined it and worked it out and it sketchy basis [in 1984]. I gave GL: You were already at the time had become quite a useful, viable a few lectures here, but taught convening the Colloquium in Legal, formula. Then we found it was mainly in Oxford. But I liked the Political and Social Philosophy being copied all over the world. idea of being in London since I at NYU. What made you start a So I approached Stephen and we was living in London anyway, second one in London? decided that we could usefully do commuting to Oxford to spend it here. a couple of nights a week there. RD: While talking to Jeffrey and And as I became acquainted with others about what I could do at Over the years, the strength of UCL I was pleasantly surprised to UCL, we had the idea that instead the UCL Colloquium just increased, discover enormous interest in legal of teaching a regular course in as did the number of people who theory. I valued conversations

13 were talented in the disciplines of news. I was surprised to discover RM: They might think that the the Colloquium and so were likely that the lunch itself is very much discussion had been stitched up? to be engaged. It just seemed that part of the Colloquium, where the the idea caught on, to a point paper is discussed, the evening’s RD: Yes, they might. Sometimes when the Philosophy Department session is planned, and the main the discussion at lunch is better, was happy to join in. objections to the paper’s argument I find, because there are fewer are highlighted. Starting at 1 PM, people and so the argument I don’t know whether any of you the Colloquium continues non-stop is more concentrated. Perhaps get teaching credit for this. No? for something like eight hours, it is not better but simply more So I suppose it is a labour of love; until 9 or 10 PM. Even people who focused. I think some participants that makes it more exciting for enjoy the three hours of the actual do have the opinion that they have me. People who participate enjoy seminar sometimes find it very hard left their best ideas at the lunch it, I think, which creates a good to keep up, with anything like your table! So we tell people that we feeling. And I find the style of the stamina and energy, for almost ten don’t want them to mention lunch! Colloquium extremely attractive. hours. Don’t you find the duration We don’t want them not to repeat It is very conducive to getting to and format of the Colloquium themselves. The whole point is to the point, and there is very little exhausting? get them to repeat themselves. personality to get in the way. RD: I would like your opinion about But the Colloquium is certainly not whether you find it tiring. I don’t RM: I don’t know about getting in just a repeat version of the lunch. find myself getting tired because the way, but regular participants at That has never been a problem. we are engaged in doing what we the Colloquium might disagree with Generally, both in New York and all want – to pursue ideas not in a you about its relevance: we have here, we raise enough trouble at polite way and not in a superficial seen that personality in philosophy lunch so that people go away and way. What is superficial is of course can be important, can make for take whatever time they have to relative: if you spend eight hours a particularly good discussion reflect. Not always, but usually they on an argument, then you can go in a seminar. But how does the reflect, and their arguments at the deep into the issues. But compared UCL Colloquium compare to the Colloquium are rather different to somebody who has been writing NYU one? We know there are from those at lunch. the paper for weeks, the eight similarities, like the format, but are hours is superficial. I hope I am not there noticeable differences? GL: I spend a lot of time reading fooling myself that the discussants the papers for the Colloquium, and the people who bring the not just when I join you on the RD: I think the New York programme papers enjoy it fully. attracts technically engaged people panel but also because we teach the paper to graduate students from a wider catchment area. On There is only one time I was told at our pre-Colloquium meeting. a regular basis, we get people this wasn’t so, Michael Walzer came It takes me at least a couple of from Columbia and other New York to New York, and at the end of the days to prepare, read it two or law schools, and from Penn [the day, after the eight hours, I made three times and then think about University of Pennsylvania], and a polite statement of thanks. I said, it. This is many more hours than some from Princeton. So there is “it is so good of you to spend all we spend discussing it. Yet I always a larger core of philosophers and this time with us”, and he looked learn more from the discussion lawyers who attend, with the result up and said “What choice did I than by reading the paper. In fact, that the argument tends to be have”! But I don’t think that is a I get almost everything after your more sustained, with more people common view. I think that there are summary of the paper’s arguments! pressing at every moment to be some afternoons when it is a bit And it often appears that the heard. But I don’t mean in any way of a labour, when the paper isn’t speakers themselves get a fuller to denigrate the UCL Colloquium dense enough. But if people know grasp of the argument they have by comparison, because that too about the formula, I think they give advanced in the paper only after now has a faithful body of people us papers of a sufficient complexity that summary. It obviously takes who come from the Philosophy so that we can enjoy them. Department, and from the Law an enormous intellectual ability and clarity of thought to present School and the Department of You make an interesting point someone’s views before him and Political Science. The difference is about the lunch. In New York, we analyze what his argument is and in the quantity rather than quality tell people not to mention the lunch what objections it is subject to. of participants. during the Colloquium because it is How do you do it? very, I think, disheartening for the GL: The first time I joined you other participants at the Colloquium in one of the lunches before for a visitor to say “Well, as I said at RD: Well, you do it too, so don’t the Colloquium, I was expecting lunch” or “This came up at lunch”; ask me. You all do it. I think it is some small talk with the speaker those not at lunch think they might something that you get better at about his trip to London, where have missed something. with experience, because you have he was staying, what was in the to strike a balance. You mustn’t

14 put everything in the summary. Its things he had thought about for RM: The UCL Colloquium with whole point is to try and focus on years. So it was very good in that Judge Posner springs to mind for what’s going to be consequential in sense. a variety of reasons, among them the discussion. If you’re going to being the time when a phone rang put everything in, then you might I also remember as being funny while you were chairing the session, as well ask for the speaker to one of Jerry Cohen’s visits. He kept and it turned out to be yours! We summarise it. It is meant to be an wanting to write on the board and then thought that you would simply editing. And I don’t think it would I didn’t want him to! switch it off, as most people would. be possible without the lunch. I But you took the call! never organise the summary before RM: I remember that at one point, the lunch because it is only there you had to pull him down physically, RD: Well, there was a reason for that you see what are likely to be and told him that anything which that! Only three people have my the issues. What you want to do is was worth saying could be said mobile phone number: my son, my to present the guts of it, but to do orally! secretary in New York, and the it in a way that is clarifying. editor of The New York Review of RD: That’s right. Luckily, nobody has Books. So when that phone rings, And the summary must also give ever tried to make a Powerpoint I always worry that it might be my some sense of what goes on in presentation! son, who might be calling because the paper’s philosophical, legal or he had a problem. That’s why I political background, because the GL: That may not be entirely accurate: took the call. paper generally starts in the middle. [UCL Philosophy’s Professor] Mike Most people would be aware of Martin used Powerpoint when he But Posner: yes, that was a the unmentioned background, but introduced your paper! memorable visit. The lunch was depending on the audience, I might very interesting. He is someone say just a couple of sentences to RD: Ah, but he had a jokey one! who is probably not as good in a engage people who don’t have a I had mentioned a painting that public forum as he is in writing. He sense of it. A significant number figured in [Henry James’s] The is best as a judge: he is apparently in the audience might not be Wings of the Dove, and I had made extremely good on the bench, specialists in the particular dispute. some interpretive point about the works very fast, writes very good, You want to make the introduction painting, so he put that picture up. very clear opinions. But he wants something which will catch people’s Then he put a very funny picture to do philosophy, though also to attention and give them a reason of me up, I think the Stephen condemn it, and he’s not very for listening closely. Pyke picture in his collection of good at it. philosophers' photographs. Maybe RM: Going back a bit, Ronnie, he was using Powerpoint! I don’t One important feature of the you mentioned one Colloquium at know. UCL Colloquium is that we try NYU which was memorable for a and bring people over to England particular reason. Can you think I have a sort of allergy to that others want to hear. In New of any at UCL which particularly projections, because it seems to York, Tom Nagel and I select the stick in your mind? George and I me that you can be much more speakers. Here, there is much more have a few examples tucked away, subtle verbally than if you start consultation. For example, people but we wondered if you had any writing things out. I do remember in the Philosophy Department favourites. the first time that I saw Jürgen here said, “Can’t we get [Harvard Habermas. He was going to give philosopher] Chris Korsgaard? We RD: I certainly have memories of a talk in Balliol, and I took Gareth have tried to get her and she very exciting times. The session Evans [the late Oxford philosopher]. doesn’t come. Maybe she will come with Bernard Williams was full of I told him that Habermas is a very for a UCL Colloquium.” And she excitement, partly because he was great man and we should listen to did. such a dynamic and deep and him. The lecture was starting at funny person. That was a very 3 in a room downstairs in Balliol, GL: Do you recall another incident – good session. a small room, quite crowded, with I cannot remember who the speaker blackboards on all the walls. By was – when you summarised the GL: That session was significant for the time we arrived, Habermas paper, highlighted three topics for another reason as well, wasn’t it? had already covered one wall discussion, developed the first one, with indecipherable script! And 3 and when we were deep into the RD: Yes, sadly, it was Bernard’s last o’clock struck, and then 3.15, and discussion, someone from the back public appearance. The drama of he continued to write. Finally, [Sir] of the room raised his hand. Instead the occasion was heightened by Anthony Kenny, who was Master of of asking a question, he turned to the fact that he was so unwell and Balliol, said “Professor Habermas, I you and said “Excuse me, sir, I we all knew it. But it was also the think you might begin.” “Ah”, said have been here for forty minutes paper he presented, which went Habermas, “I have nearly finished”! and you haven’t even introduced right to the heart of a lot of the

15 yourself. Can I please have your from the Rawlsian idea of political GL: It seems that the debate name?” And you said: “My name liberalism, and have attempted to in legal philosophy between is Ronald Dworkin, I am Professor develop a different form of liberalism. interpretivists and Hart’s ‘children’ of Jurisprudence at UCL, and my Therefore, I have become, in these and ‘grandchildren’ continues, and Social Security Number is...” last ten years, more interested will continue for years to come. Do in traditions of philosophy that I you worry at all about the number RD: I think that is a nice feature haven’t been interested in before. of people now in the US and in of the Colloquium, that it has got I am reading a lot of Jean Paul this country who hold the other a certain giggly quality; people are Sartre, which previously I had never view rather than yours? ready for a laugh. Also, the room had much interest in. you hold it in makes a difference. When we have the Colloquium downstairs in the big lecture room [the Main Lecture Theatre at Bentham House], as we had to do with Bernard and on some other occasions, the discussion becomes less intimate. In New York, we had the Colloquium for many years in a mock court room with tiers and raised platform, and then NYU built a new, very grand, very luxurious building, and built a special room at the top surrounded by glass overlooking all of New York, which they have called the “Colloquium Room”. That was built for us. However, it is like the UN Security Council: it is a huge room with two concentric horseshoes and a table in front, and it is a little intimidating, it changes things a bit. The good thing about it is that it is wired brilliantly, and there is a Left to right: Dr Riz Mokal, Professor Ronald Dworkin, Dr Nicos Stavropoulos, Dr George Letsas and Professor Jonathan Wolff microphone at every desk.

RM: Talking of change, I did want RM: Yes, we have noticed something RD: No, I don’t worry about it, to ask you about the changes, if of this trend. For example, it was because I am not particularly any, that have occurred in your just last year, perhaps, that I first aware of it. My views are very substantive philosophical positions found you discussing Plato and much opposed to the positions in the ten years or so that you Aristotle in some detail. that have been dominant in have been actively at UCL. This is Anglophone legal philosophy for a not to take credit on behalf of UCL RD: That is part of the same shift long time, and though I would of for the changes! It is simply to map in my interests. I am writing an course like to convince everyone out quite briefly the movements in interminable book called Justice to reject these traditional views, your views, if any. for Hedgehogs. I just keep tugging I know that that is an unrealistic away at it while I am doing other ambition. Those views will continue RD: It’s been during this period things. But just doing something of to have their faithful supporters. that I think I have come better to that scope pulls you into different But I am surprised and pleased understand – although I still don’t directions. I have become much at how many legal philosophers, completely understand – what the more persuaded of the importance particularly those with interest and argument between me and [H. L. A.] of interpretation as a general training in general philosophy, seem Hart’s ‘children’ and ‘grandchildren’ phenomenon, for example. Now I ready to re-examine and reject really is. I think I am clearer am trying to defend the idea of those traditional views. I should about that now. But, of course, it the dualism between science and add, however, that the people who does not follow that I persuade interpretation. It is impossible to identify themselves as specialists in anybody. In political philosophy, I say what comes out of having been legal philosophy are not the people have become more aware of the connected to UCL rather than NYU. that I have been particularly trying continuity between ethics and These are just things that have to influence. The people I am trying moral philosophy: I think morality happened in the last ten years. hardest to persuade are academic is a study of how to live. I have, for lawyers, judges, constitutional that reason, moved further away lawyers, constitutionalists... And

16 my sense is that that’s going very doctrinal is much more popular I do think that the phenomenon well. now. [US Supreme Court] Justice of graduate students taking on the Breyer wrote in the introduction colour of their supervisor is very RM: So you would share my sense to Exploring Law’s Empire [ed. pronounced. I have seen this in many that particularly with the latter Scott Hershovitz] that I have had disciplines. But I don’t regret not audience, you are ‘winning’? an influence on US constitutional having had more graduate students. law, and he has told me personally I wouldn‘t have convinced everyone RD: I’m not sure what “winning” in more detail about the various no matter how many students I had. would mean. Most of the lawyers cases at the Supreme Court, some What’s important, anyway, is not and judges I hope to convince don’t of them very important cases, in numbers but arguments: we’re all trying to understand the character and phenomena of law better and controversy is indispensable to that project.

RM: There is, I think, something of a resurgence of opinion amongst younger scholars, like Mark Greenberg and Scott Hershovitz, and others not too far from this room, who are persuaded by your views on the nature of law and legal reasoning. These people will continue to write and teach and train others over the next few years and decades, drawing on your work in legal philosophy. This might affect some of the trends you have been discussing just now.

RD: Good.

Left to right: Dr Riz Mokal, Professor Ronald Dworkin, Dr Nicos Stavropoulos, Dr George Letsas and Professor Jonathan Wolff GL: The final issue we should mention concerns your future plans. What’s next for you? hold any explicit legal philosophy, which he thinks that arguments like like legal positivism, that I can mine have made a difference. I find RM: Yes, many of us were saddened persuade them to abandon. Not that very gratifying. to learn that this [2007] is the last many of them know what a ‘rule year in which you will be leading of recognition’ is. Most of them GL: Turning again to the specialists the UCL Colloquium. On the other hold one or the other of two more in legal philosophy who are not hand, you have given us sufficient practical views. One of these is amongst your primary audience, to last! the tradition of so-called realism could one of the reasons why and critical legal studies. That is many of them hold views contrary RD: Well, I will continue to teach the sceptical tradition of which [US to yours be that some of the well at NYU and I will continue to jurist Oliver Wendell] Holmes was known players in the field, like spend the same amount of time in the great figure. Posner belongs to Joseph Raz, take on a large number England, but not teach. Instead, I that tradition, as do others who of PhD students? Were that indeed will write, and try and finish Justice call themselves pragmatists. And part of the explanation, would you for Hedgehogs, which is taking its on the other side are people who regret not having supervised a time. want law to be more formulaic, larger number of doctoral students more mechanical. [Harvard jurist] over the years? RM: Would it be possible to drag Fred Schauer would be an example you out, for love or money, to of someone who wants judges to RD: Well, I like all the students that come and participate in some of be more confined by strict rules. I did have! Students like Jeremy the sessions which we might have Waldron, Stephen Perry, Nicos in the future? My campaign to unite law with Stavropoulos, Stephen Guest...You political philosophy is directed are right that I have had relatively RD: Yes, certainly, though not for against those two views. So if my few graduate students, because money! I am not going to go away, side is ‘winning’, that’s because you don’t have them in American I hope. the idea of a principled kind of law schools and because I was at argument that is not exclusively Oxford for only a part of the year.

17 Professor Jonathan Wolff Professor of Political Philosophy, and Head of Department of Philosophy

Interviewed by Dr George Letsas, Laws

You have co-chaired the UCL much shorter, we take topics one one on the regulation of drugs. Colloquium in Legal & Social by one, and maintain focus on an How does the experience compare Philosophy with Ronald Dworkin issue until we are finished with it. to other paper presentations that since its very beginning. When did If a question is badly answered it most academics are familiar with? it all start and how did you get will be asked again, and if there is involved? a follow-up question we have time I have certainly learnt more giving to pursue it, sometimes in painful papers at the Colloquium than Actually I can barely remember a detail. elsewhere; points have been made time before it existed. I vaguely by Ronnie, the other people on the recall that a decision had been There is no doubt much pressure front table, and the audience, which made to offer Ronnie the Quain on the speaker who has to defend have led to substantial corrections Chair of Jurisprudence, and Ronnie his paper and rebut objections and revisions to my work. But I was keen to set up a Colloquium before a very competent audience. can’t say that the experience in London on the model of the How easy is the chair’s job how- of presenting is a particularly very successful Colloquium that he ever to prepare a summary, intro- enjoyable one, compared to giving and Tom Nagel run at NYU. He duce the paper and organise the other papers. The main difference spoke to some of his friends in discussion? is that when you give a paper New York about who in the UCL typically you are in control of the Philosophy department could run it The difficulty of the task varies occasion, and can run it at your with him and someone suggested tremendously. Sometimes we receive own pace and in your own style. my name. Ronnie asked me, and I papers that are very long, and seem At the Colloquium, however, it is could hardly say no; it was a great not to have a clear central theme. clear that others are in charge and honour and opportunity. Sometimes they are rather short, setting the agenda. They choose and it all seems to be over a bit what we talk about, and typically The format of the Colloquium is too quickly. On the whole, though, it will be the weaker parts of the quite unique: it starts with a working speakers know what they need to paper, which get cruel exposure. lunch between the speaker and the do, which is to send a meaty paper This is why it is both very valuable co-chairs at 1pm, continues with with a clear argument and thesis. and rather uncomfortable; at least a three hour discussion between It is then reasonably easy – even this is what I have found. 4pm and 7pm and finishes late in sometimes a pleasure - to prepare the evening with a dinner between a twenty minute summary. Typically In your work, you have put emphasis the speaker, the co-chairs and we try to split the discussion on the interaction between political invited academics. This is a very into three areas, and deal with philosophy and public policy. Do demanding format for the speaker them one by one. Organising this you think that political philosophers and the co-chairs alike but how division is probably the hardest should perhaps talk less to each exactly does it contribute to a part; it is discussed over lunch, other and more to policy makers better philosophical discussion? and a collective decision is made and politicians? about what would be the most It is amazing that often the dis- fruitful area for discussion. As for Well, I don’t want to stop political cussion doesn’t seem finished organising the discussion, this is philosophers from talking to each even at the end of a very long not difficult, largely because Ronnie other, but I would like them to talk day. In ordinary seminars there is such a quick and penetrating to people in policy circles as well. is never enough time to pursue thinker, always with something Policy makers and politicians have good questions in real detail. In a substantial to say, and able to a different perspective, but it is 90 minute session a presentation stimulate discussion and move in just as important to talk to people might last 60 minutes, and then a positive direction, even when involved in the delivery of policy - the chair wants to give everyone others are flagging and running out those who are helping to formulate the chance to ask a question. The of ideas. plans to support adults with learning discussion may well flit from topic difficulties; or making decisions to topic and often a question is You have also had the opportunity about providing or declining health misunderstood or not properly to present your own work at the care, and so on – as well as those answered. By contrast in the Colloquium. I recall your paper on who are on the receiving end, and Colloquium, the presentation is disadvantage and the more recent may be more or less happy about

18 what is done for them in the name Over the years, the Colloquium has But the following day there is a of justice. hosted some the most important new paper – for next week’s session contemporary philosophers: Bern- – in my hand and sometimes I I think it is important for political ard Williams, Joseph Raz and can barely even remember the philosophers to write about issues Tim Scanlon are some of the topic of the paper we discussed of distributive justice in terms names that spring to mind. Which in such detail only the day before. which can help people in policy papers would you consider to be Of course it comes back to me at all levels to conceptualise the the highlights of the Colloquium when I see a published version of dilemmas they face, and provide and which sessions or particular a paper that was presented, but it them with materials to help think incidents stick in your mind? is alarming at the time. through the problems. At the same time such encounters can enrich In fact the sessions with Williams, Many of the papers that are political philosophy by providing it Raz and Scanlon are among those discussed each year are on with a stock of real examples to that I remember best. Also very legal philosophy: legal positivism, the connection between law and morality, objectivity in law etc. Legal theorists have always tried to explore the relevance of moral and political philosophy (or other more technical areas of philosophy such as philosophy of language and epistemology) to law. What do you make of the topics that interest legal theorists and of lawyers’ forays into philosophy?

Inevitably I find the sessions on legal philosophy generally of less personal interest to me than sessions in political philosophy. I am rather baffled by the ongoing discussion of legal positivism where the main question appears to be one of classification: who is, or is not, a positivist and whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. I still am unsure about the answers. In general I prefer intellectual enquiry when it is problem driven, rather than concept driven, and to my mind a lot of legal philosophers have not got the balance right.

It also worries me a bit when anyone – legal philosophers consider, and a wider conceptual memorable was Samuel Scheffler’s or otherwise – takes currently repertoire. It can also help us realise paper on egalitarianism, and the fashionable doctrines from central that we make many assumptions paper by our UCL colleague Janet areas of philosophy and tries which are questioned elsewhere. For Radcliffe Richards on equality of to apply them to issues in their example, one of the most important opportunity, but of course Scheffler subject area. It inevitably leads to things in my recent philosophical and Radcliffe Richards work on rather unhelpful disputes about development was to read work in topics that particularly interest me whether the philosophical doctrine disability studies, and to meet and in my own research and so this has been correctly interpreted and talk to disabled people and those may be why I found them especially applied. And it is hard to keep up involved in service delivery. By the stimulating. But I should make a with the shifting fashions in another time I had thought through what confession: the frenetic schedule field, and thus one can be building egalitarianism really meant for of the Colloquium almost wipes my one’s analysis on a view which people with disabilities it seemed to memory clear the next day. I work many philosophers actually working me that we needed new egalitarian very hard to understand the paper, in the area regard as mistaken. I theories, rather than simply apply especially when I am summarizing am not saying that there are never what we had to different cases. it, and of course we spend close to real insights to be gained by using eight hours discussing it in detail. discussions in metaphysics or

19 philosophy of language elsewhere, I remember asking my father to the Colloquium what it is, and so but the danger is that as there is call me from Greece every Tuesday valuable for all involved. No doubt no settled or agreed doctrine in morning at 7.30am to make sure it will be possible to continue with philosophy, it is a high risk strategy that I did not oversleep and miss something called ‘The Colloquium in and requires tremendous skill and your morning class which was Legal and Social Philosophy’ if the hard work to do well. less crowded and allowed more law faculty is prepared to continue opportunity for participation. You to support it in the amazingly Almost half of the Colloquium are now Head of the Philosophy generous way it has to date. But it speakers each year come from Department at UCL and you also would be something very different. US Universities which produce a write a monthly column for the great deal of what is called ‘Anglo- Guardian Education Supplement. American’ political philosophy. What How have recent changes in PHILOSOPHY & LEGAL are the differences and similarities university funding affected the PHILOSOPHY AT UCL between American and British teaching of philosophy in the UK? political philosophy? BA Philosophy: Ah yes, I remember that class UCL’s Philosophy department offers Of course it is hard to point to from 2000! For some reason most undergraduate degrees as well as general differences, especially as students chose to sit in a crowded combined Philosophy degrees with there are many Americans working classroom at 6.00pm rather than a Economics, Greek, History of Art, in the UK and British philosophers relatively empty one at 10.00 am. and French working in the US. But you have This taught me quite a lot about See www.ucl.ac.uk/philosophy invited me to generalise so here student priorities. The next year we goes! Americans write longer papers split the class in two and allocated MA/PhD Philosophy: with more citations and fewer typos. people to a particular time-slot. UCL’s Philosophy department offers They are very thorough and very Actually I was also Head of the Philosophy as graduate degrees, professional, and generally see Department of Philosophy that year both MA and Mphil and PhD. themselves as making an advance too. Throughout the last decade the See www.ucl.ac.uk/philosophy in a literature which is already well- amount of money universities have established. British philosophers received for teaching humanities MA in Legal and Political Theory: can often seem rather eccentric in undergraduates has declined by UCL’s School of Public Policy’s comparison, sometimes trying to about 30% while costs have been MA in Legal and Political Theory work out an idea without worrying increasing, leaving something of a provides students with the key so much about how it fits with crisis in funding. So far, though, analytical skills to study the ethical existing work by other people. This we have not had to make many dimensions of public policy. The has costs and benefits; the costs are changes in our teaching, Some of programme explores the moral obvious in that by neglecting other our MA group sizes are a bit larger, quality of the decisions citizens and work it can suffer in comparison undergraduates have fewer one-to- professionals take, and the justice and seem naïve, and if it doesn’t one tutorials (but they still have of the legal and political structures connect with existing literature it some, if they want them) more PhD within which they operate. The can be hard to assess and absorb. students do some teaching, and we MA also features weekly research The benefit is that there can be new are more active in seeking external seminars, where the best current insights and sense of excitement grant funding, but fundamentally work on legal and political theory is that something genuinely new is nothing has changed very much in presented by eminent guest speakers appearing. The characteristic vice what we provide to students. from around the world. of American philosophy is that it See www.ucl.ac.uk/spp is boring; the characteristic vice Ronald Dworkin announced last of British philosophy is that it is term that this year’s Colloquium LLM Module: Jurisprudence and embarrassing. But there are crude was his last one at UCL. Is there Legal Theory generalisations. a future for the Colloquium as we UCL Laws LLM programme offers know it or was this the end of an Jurisprudence and Legal theory as I am extremely fortunate to era? a module. It provides a rigorous have been a student of yours. I Who can say? Personally I find study of selected topics in analytical remember taking your course in it very hard to see how it can and normative Anglo-American Contemporary Political Philosophy survive without Ronnie. He has jurisprudence. Consideration is given back in 2000 which was so popular an unmatched ability to see right to the nature of law and also to that you had to teach the same to the heart of the issues of the the relation between law and values seminar twice per week, one early paper, find the vital assumption such as liberty and equality. in the morning and one late in the or missing premise, and pursue it See www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/jurisprudence afternoon. Students were free to relentlessly until everyone sees the choose which one to attend and issue the same way. I think it is Ronnie’s unique talents that make

20 more were attracted by the high- Professor STEPHEN GUEST powered atmosphere created by Professor of Legal Philosophy, Laws the Colloquium in Legal & Social Philosophy (to give the formal Interviewed by Dr George Letsas, Laws name) and Ronnie’s presence. By the time Ronnie came, we had accumulated some sort of critical intellectual mass. You have been a member of the early eighties in the LLB there the Faculty since 1975, teaching was a significant influx of women Ronald Dworkin joined UCL from jurisprudence for over 30 years. undergraduates. Perhaps this Oxford in 1998 to take up the Quain What was the subject like back had an effect. And in 1994 the Chair of Jurisprudence. This was a then, in the late 70s, and how has student run and highly successful very strong appointment for UCL, it changed over the years? UCL Jurisprudence Review started to one of its most distinguished up. The students were amazingly It was quite different. There were chairs. What do you recall about enthusiastic. I think it contributed it and how did it change the way three one-hour lectures delivered by to the much better writing – the Michael Freeman. Then there were Jurisprudence was taught in the outstanding writing – which we are Faculty? weekly tutorials of around twelve now seeing. students, these tutorials following the substance of the lectures. There was no formal writing component, and the syllabus was based on the chapters in Lloyd on Jurisprudence (now Lloyd & Freeman). The attitude to Jurisprudence was very different as there were constant rumbles from both staff and students for it to be made optional on the grounds that it was a. opinion and b. not required by the legal profession. The LL.M class was a small class taken by Lord Lloyd. There were hardly any PhD students.

Things changed with a major revamp of the undergraduate syllabus in 1982 and the arrival of our new Quain professor, William Twining. We virtually abolished lectures and introduced two-hour seminars, establishing the principle that each tutor was to be master of their own seminar, setting their own examination questions, within the confines of a broad syllabus. Discussion of issues rather than of On the LLM side the classes In fact Ronnie joined us in 1984 ‘what jurists said’ (or, as William remained relatively small. The and then stepped up his already put it then, ‘what chaps said’) classes got slowly larger but didn’t considerable contribution between became the norm, and this was really expand until the MA in Legal then and when he joined as Quain an important change in my view. & Political Theory was created in in 1998. His particular responsibility After some flutters (some first year the mid-1990s. Jurisprudence was was running the Colloquium, students wanted Jurisprudence to made one of its options and so although he continued to lecture be made optional, and there was our LLM class in Jurisprudence was to the undergraduates, graduates a formal Faculty debate in 1988 suddenly twice the size, containing and research students all together, in which the motion that it should intellectual historians, philosophers increased the number of LLM/MA be made optional was defeated and political scientists as well as seminars he gave and had contact 100-2) we haven’t looked back. the usual lawyers. Discussion was with the research students through One reason was that the changes more diverse and the standard their participation in the Colloquium. were matched in other parts of rose. We also had an influx of Before 1998 he had spoken at good PhD students through the our Cumberland Lodge weekends, the LLB course as a whole, and things became more serious. It MA and through the increased participated in a most interesting interest in human rights, and even series of Graduate school seminars wasn’t only syllabus change. From

21 on interpretation, which Jonathan Such a concentration is unusual there. Miller attended, and did occasional since many philosophy departments one-off seminars, such as a great these days specialise in philosophy I like the symmetry. While Dworkin’s one on judicial policy with Lord of science (LSE, for example). We theories of law and political morality Bingham in 1994. He continued with also have the Bentham Project, directly oppose both Bentham’s these, most recently one last year, a wonderful centre of activity in theories of legal positivism and on the notorious Al-Kateb decision itself, and its connections with utilitarianism, each philosopher is of with Judge Michael Kirby of the intellectual historians world-wide, the same intellectual cast: intensely High Court of Australia (who wrote particularly America. Amongst practical, public, moral, rational a well-known liberal dissenting its most distinguished scholars and clear. It is entirely fitting that judgement in that case). was Herbert Hart until 1993 the Colloquium is held in the Moot when he died. UCL’s origins are Court of Bentham House. I think the stage was set for him and philosophical, too, resting on the so the change really was a stepping ideas of distinguished contemporary The format of the Colloquium is up of the standard of argument to philosophers, Bentham and others, quite unique: it starts with a work- a very high level. We attracted who influenced the politicians of ing lunch between the speaker and many distinguished philosophers the time. the co-chairs at 1pm, continues from all over the world. It was an with a three hour discussion be- experience for everyone to listen In 1996, the Centre for Law, tween 4pm and 7pm and finishes to them talking about what they Politics and Society was created by late in the evening with a dinner were currently working on, and Fred Rosen, then Director of the between the speaker, the co-chairs observe what they were like in Bentham Project, and me. We had and invited academics. This is a person. Ronnie, I thought, brought the strong encouragement of Jeffrey very demanding format for the the best out of them. He exposed Jowell, then Head of the Graduate speaker and the co-chairs alike but them to the raw. It was a learning School. The Centre became an how exactly does it contribute to experience of high order. It gave institutional base for members of a better philosophical discussion? you confidence to see how much the Philosophy Department, the Have you been enjoying it? of a paper could be merely good Bentham Project and the Laws presentation, how much could be Faculty, who came together to The day warms up earlier with the discerned through conversation, teach the new and interdisciplinary pre-Colloquium session I chair from how much was obscure but good. MA in Legal and Political Theory. 11.00 to 12.30 on the day. That There is no doubt that the charisma We also began a seminar series is fun. At lunch, which is usually Ronnie brought to those sessions in tandem with the long-established with the speaker, Ronnie, Jo and was enormously stimulating. I think and well-known Bentham seminars. me, Ronnie (or one of us) gives we became more confident, more The very first of these was given a brief account to the speaker philosophical, more aware that by Ross Harrison, our recent Quain of what the speaker will say that law is just a part of wider moral professor, now Provost of King’s afternoon, and then puts the first judgements we make about people College Cambridge, Jo Wolff gave question. To me the lunch has and society. the second and I gave the third. In always been the best bit, because 1999, the School of Public Policy you get the sense of how things You have co-chaired the UCL Collo- (now the Department of Political will go. We try to isolate the quium in Legal & Social Philosophy Science) was formed, and the issues and formulate two or three with Ronald Dworkin and Jo Wolff, Centre became part of the School. questions for the afternoon. Then since its very beginning. When did There have been some excellent there is a break. At 4.00 pm the it all start and how did you get appointments there. Saladin formal part begins. One of us will involved? Meckled-Garcia, for example, has summarise the paper – the speaker been a tremendous force for the does not contribute here at all - Ronnie was appointed primarily to good in our sessions. We also and there follows some discussion run the Colloquium. I don’t think had the benefit of various young between the chairs and then it is he was happy with how, in Oxford, British Academy research scholars open to the audience through until Jurisprudence had become so very affiliated with the Bentham Project, 7.00 pm. Then a few people will narrow and inward-looking, remote such as Colin Tyler, who injected have dinner with the guest speaker, from moral problems in law, and great energy into the sessions until Ronnie, Jo and me, continuing the he resigned his Chair there to he moved to Hull. So when Ronnie discussion of the paper until about come to us. He found us more arrived there was something in 9.30 pm, sometimes after. The congenial. We are also enormously place for him although of course day is exhaustingly long if you lucky at UCL with the Philosophy he radically changed its format to attend these sessions and attend Department’s concentration of that of the NYU Colloquium he and the lunch and go right through to moral and political philosophers: Tom Nagel chair. The New York the dinner. It is long even for Jo Wolff, Michael Otsuka and one began in 1981 and I was well those who only come to the formal Veronique Munoz-Darde. Recently, acquainted with it having attended session. But then that’s why it is Mike Martin has shown an interest. both the 1987 and 1996 sessions good, especially for students who

22 are still in the process of coming institutions on one’s personal un- this special treatment from Dworkin to jurisprudence. (The MA students derstanding of others as oneself, I and Nagel, of course). You see also have a peer-assisted learning thought, involved thinking of such dazed speakers emerging from the session on the paper, chaired by institutions as acting on that remit lunches, and I felt dazed myself, Saladin Meckled-Garcia, in the as my agent. but I didn’t feel like fleeing from hour before the main session at the afternoon session. By 9.30 4.00 pm.) You learn a lot, for the Ronnie’s first question was: ‘How pm, though, you are ready for the culture of the Colloquium is very did my account draw a distinction knacker’s yard. serious. The forensic set-up of between purely personal relation- question and response clearly gets ships, such as those I have with Over the years, the Colloquium has Ronnie’s adrenaline going and you my wife, which give rise to spe- hosted some of the most important see him at his best. This is a good cial duties towards her, that my contemporary philosophers: Bernard reason in itself for the format. agent, the state, lacks?’ If I had to Williams, Joseph Raz and Tim Scan- choose between my wife drowning, lon are some of the names that But I also think this format is alien and a stranger drowning, it is natu- spring to mind. Which papers would to an at least equally good way of ral to suppose that my duty is to you consider to be the highlights doing philosophy, better suited to my wife, and that looks as though of the Colloquium and which ses- some people. Perhaps the format I had a duty not based on a prin- sions or particular incidents stick in encourages some grandstanding. ciple of equality at all. Whereas it your mind? And the three-hour afternoon seems the state has a strict duty session can be gruelling on the rare of equality in my sense to all. It There are different levels of occasions the paper is not good. It can’t pick and choose. He gave sessions. Some papers are good is disappointing when you can tell charity as another example. I may but the discussions are not so from the first few sentences that a donate money to any charity of good. And there are some not so weak paper is not going to go far. my choice. But the state cannot good papers where the discussions Ronnie is excellent at drawing out pick and choose that way. So the are great. In 1999, almost exactly everything in a paper but if there state, it would seem, is not my at the time of the very first session, is not much there, it can be a agent but an independent force in Ronnie’s wife, Betsy, became very struggle. Nevertheless, do I enjoy its own right. ill, and could not travel with him it? ‘Enjoy’ is not quite right, but I’ll to the UK. Ronnie nevertheless be unhappy without it. In retrospect, I think I could have chaired three of the sessions that stuck to my guns more. Equality year, flying from New York the day You have also had the opportunity grounds our right to form special before and returning early the day to present your own work at the relationships. If I promise, my after. For the papers he could not Colloquium. I recall your paper on exploitation of equality – my attend he wrote responses, and equality in particular. How does the creation of trust - creates a he circulated these very shortly experience compare to other paper special duty that means I have after the original papers had been presentations that most academics to treat the promisee in a special circulated. It’s impossible to know are familiar with? way, one that is different from how he did it. Amongst the papers the way I treat others. But that he missed was one by Susan It is a stimulating mental event. inequality of treatment is brought Mendus on feminism, which was When you are writing the paper about through a more fundamental excellent, and in some way English you know the format and you know principle of equality, in the way we – sort of diffident and pliable but your arguments will be raked over might treat very sick people using very honest - and I would have very and everyone will have read your more resources than we would for much liked to have heard his oral paper. It is much more usual in only mildly sick people as part of response. David Wiggins’ paper on academic life now for papers to be our treating all as equals. And, moral objectivity was very good, I ‘delivered’ and discussed in half- it is not true that the state can’t thought, and his off-beat style, not hour slots at conferences. Even form special relationships with, quite suited to the forensic style longer papers are usually only al- say, needy groups. It is only that we have, was also very English. lotted one hour. Part of the corpo- these must be likewise based on Amongst other things, he drew from rate encroachment on universities equality. Montaigne’s account of 16th century is the creeping acceptance of the Brazilian cannibals being able to idea that to give a paper means to The point is, however, that I hadn’t teach the French a thing or two ‘give a presentation’, the last thing thought it through. I needed an about morality ‘in spite of wearing an academic paper should be. answer to his question, and you no breeches.’ I was very sorry to can see how I was forced to pro- miss Bernard Williams, in what was For my own talk I’d argued that we vide one. Others say similar things. clearly a brilliant occasion. We had can derive one of the most funda- The ‘Dworkin treatment’ is highly a couple of immensely enjoyable, mental principles of morality from prized, and both the UCL and the knowledgeable and amusing treating others as ‘equal to our- NYU Colloquia are famous for this sessions, one on political integrity, selves’. Basing criticism of political (only in New York the speakers get another on judicial review, with

23 Jeremy Waldron. Samuel Scheffler’s It turned out he was a surgeon. Leverhulme Trust Senior Research paper was excellent in its ambitious After giving us a short lecture on Fellowship to write a book on aim of addressing in Ronnie’s the thyroid, there was no further justice and law. How is the book work the general question of what peep from him. going and could you give a small equality requires, although he failed flavour of it? to realise that equality of resources Almost half of the Colloquium is only one part of Ronnie’s theory speakers each year come from Writing jurisprudence is extremely of equality. I appreciated that US universities which produce a difficult. It is not just the abstraction paper perhaps particularly because great deal of what is called ‘Anglo- and need for articulated moral it seemed congenial to my own. American’ jurisprudence. What are judgement, it is never wholly clear Tim Scanlon’s account of a chapter the differences and similarities for what audience you are writing. of his book What We Owe to Each between American and British To some extent, I suppose, all my Other was straightforward, but with jurisprudence? writing engages with Ronnie’s work such sure and fully argued instincts one way or another. For the field that he made philosophical enquiry The intellectual problems are exactly of jurisprudence it was Ronnie who seem like no more than extremely the same, of course. But American voiced the lesson from the 60’s, my high intelligence. Seana Shiffrin jurists – like Americans in general - era: that decency, not being cruel - was a bit the same, very clear don’t go side-eyed when the subject treating people as equal to yourself and firm on the connection she of morality is raised. They are - comes absolutely first. So all our drew between freedom of thought engagingly and unembarrassedly concepts concerning politics and law and freedom of association. open about rights, democracy should be understood – interpreted What else? Gerry Cohen, who and constitutional arrangements. - that way, having no other value. is amusingly prickly, gave us an We are more diffident generally. My background was the violin and intelligent paper on the non-factual Perhaps we see difficulties and philosophy, and my father was a nature of principled arguments. The subtleties. One difference is that practising lawyer and law professor session on terrorism with Frances public concern - practicality - is and my mother an English teacher. Kamm was exploratory, with her ingrained into American political So interpretation, in accordance odd trolley routes and improbable philosophy. I like it. But Americans with general principles - whether of train journeys. For energy and can be rather po-faced. Talking to musicality, law, morality or literature performance, it was difficult to an American philosopher or lawyer - is natural to me. So my writing beat Cass Sunstein’s good-natured sometimes feels like addressing is pro-morality and pro-concepts exposition of many pages, full of a Select Committee. No time to defined by their practical value. statistics, on the question whether express a doubt or give a half-view a greater proportion of medical such as ‘it needn’t be like that’, or Is there a fine line between what resources should be spent on ‘maybe there is no reason’ or ‘is it I write and what Dworkin writes? young people rather than old really that important?’ Maybe there is. I find Dworkin’s people, given that young people idea of integrity in law a less have longer to live. It was terribly These are minor differences attractive virtue than he does. I interesting to see and listen compared with the major one which resist the personification of the to Richard Posner in the flesh. is that at the good American law community as much as I resist the Listening to John Gray express his schools the jurists don’t have the personification of corporations, the strong belief in subjectivity, while hassle we have here. Time to think latter being the most amoral beasts strongly maintaining an objective relaxedly, and write down those on the planet. ‘Integrity’, according viewpoint, was also a revelation. thoughts, and develop them, and to Dworkin, brings out consistency Ronnie’s papers were always exciting test them against others, and re- and coherency but seems to require in seeing what he was currently write. You see that more relaxed that the community have its own working on. attitude in the exploratoriness of independent moral force, acting the American papers which come on moral principle. I think that You want an incident? Fortunately, in earlier, are much longer and consistency and coherence can be there weren’t many. Watching more thoroughly engage with other explained in more workaday ways, Ronnie, in a reversal of the usual writing. In fact, the American such as certainty (a right to one’s scenario, answer his mobile phone papers are mostly twice the length reasonable expectation), or efficiency and have a conversation on it while of their English counter-parts, in decision-making (drawing on the chairing one of the sessions was always in single space, and mostly experience of previous judges) and, hilarious. And there was a man small font. Having said that, we more generally, as the treatment who came to every session and sat do pretty well – much better than of like cases alike but where the in the front row rather prominently half as well, let me say - given our fundamental principle of equality is reading a newspaper throughout. relative research conditions. doing the real work. Communities He didn’t say anything until, at must treat all their citizens as each Charles Fried’s paper, the example You are currently on research citizen must treat those citizens who of a thyroidectomy came up. This leave having been awarded the come within their personal reach. gentleman suddenly became alive. very prestigious British Academy/ There is no virtue specially attaching

24 to communities as abstract in London you get the measure a significantly greater proportion personifications. Or, let’s say we of the enormous number of high of graduate and research student can talk that way and describe profile events throughout the week, essays. I therefore foresee in- integrity as a special virtue of law every week. In the years of the creased concentration on gradu- or of political communities living Colloquium, students not only had ates and research students, and under law but this virtue is second the various speakers, they had, in the consequent stimulation of re- to the virtue of justice, which is addition to the best judges, lawyers search. If we manage to appoint also a personal virtue. Justice is and politicians, other philosophers, a Quain reasonably soon, this can the first virtue of law that, to my too, such as Tom Nagel, John only be good for the high stand- mind, provides the ideal for legal Rawls, Jürgen Habermas and many ards to which we have been so argument, and seems to me easily others from time to time speaking fortunately exposed for these last compatible with deference to the in London somewhere. few excellent years. legislature, judicial precedent and, particularly, novel decisions. Ronald Dworkin announced last

term that this year’s Colloquium Oxford - UCL Colloquium A number of our doctoral students was his last one at UCL. Is there in Legal and Political at UCL are working in the field of a future for the Colloquium as we Philosophy Jurisprudence and an equally large know it or was this the end of number have recently completed an era? These events are held from 5 - 8pm successfully their theses under at either Oxford (venue tbc) or UCL your supervision: Octavio Ferraz, I feel it is the end of a golden era, Laws (Moot Court) Eva Pils, Emmanuel Voyiakis and a wonderful decade for me. We me, to mention a few. What is shall continue with the Colloquium Tuesday 23 October 2007 it that makes UCL so strong in some form, perhaps changing Leslie Green (Oxford) and so special for students who the format. It was very demanding Venue: UCL Laws undertake doctoral research in for those of us who had teaching Jurisprudence? and administrative loads. We are Tuesday 6 November 2007 not in America… I think, too, the Michael Otsuka (UCL) One factor may be a professor format was particularly appropriate Venue: Oxford of legal philosophy who takes his for Ronnie and brought out the PhD students more seriously than best in him. I’m a little worried, Tuesday 13 November 2007 the requirements of the RAE! I however. We go into the next year Scott Hershovitz (Michigan) mentioned before the critical mass without a Quain Professorship, as Venue: Oxford that had just about accumulated that Chair has proved immensely by the start of the Colloquium in hard to fill, and also without Tuesday 20 November 2007 1999. There is a lot of intellectual Ronnie, our Jeremy Bentham Chair Stephen Perry (Pennsylvania) talent here and our frequent of Jurisprudence. Not to have Venue: Moot Court, UCL Laws seminar work in Jurisprudence – these named chairs is a great giving an account of work and loss. It will mean an increase in Tuesday 27 November 2007 being able to discuss and defend the work-load for the rest of us as A J. Julius (UCLA) it – is essential to research in we have a lot of undergraduates Venue: Moot Court, UCL Laws Jurisprudence. Philosophy of to satisfy. value, which includes law, morality UCL Colloquium in Legal and politics, is a discussion The future holds some promise, and Social Philosophy subject. It is not a science, nor though. Two developments are is it a fact-gathering discipline, significant. The recent move to The Colloquium is held in the Moot nor can it be done in a back- five subjects per year in the LLB Court at UCL Laws from 4 - 7pm room. At the Colloquium sessions, meant being realistic and dropping people from all over would drop the compulsory undergraduate es- Wednesday 23 January 2008 in, as they have for many years say in Jurisprudence. The Faculty Ronald Dworkin (NYU) to our LLM/MA classes – visiting also recently decided to make Ju- professors, odd bods, students risprudence optional for our four- Wednesday 30 January 2008 from other departments – and all year Law with foreign law students. Sally Haslanger (MIT) this contributes. And of course These moves, although in my view having Ronnie’s presence was detrimental to the undergraduate Wednesday 6 February 2008 tremendously important. Finally, learning experience, mean there G.A. Cohen (Oxford) there is the great asset that is will be some reduction in teach- London. The judges and barristers ing pressure. Further, since our Wednesday 27 February 2008 are here. It is here the politicians very successful UCL Jurisprudence Joseph Raz (Oxford) make their decisions. There is a Review has so far largely drawn gigantic academic base. If you on undergraduates, it means that check the websites of what is on we should now be able to publish

25