A new study shows the number of women enrolled in law school has been declining steadily since 2002, a disparity that shows particularly at the top 10 law schools. At The Volokh Conspiracy , Kenneth Anderson rightly, I think, brings up the possibility that the increasing cost of law school might be at play here. From there Anderson wonders if women are choosing not to go to law schools because they know that being a mother and having children will cut into the rewards that make attending a top law school worth the cost: If it is the case that many young women looking at the law school decision are also thinking about marriage, family, and children, if law school tuition and attached debts rise high enough, they might conclude that despite the professional opportunities (which have shrunk considerably since 2002), the debt is not worth it in terms of family cost. Rising tuition costs and the breakdown of family responsibility are important, but this hypothesis mistakes cause and effect...

In February, Shirley Sherrod filed a complaint against Andrew Breitbart , initiating a defamation lawsuit over the release of an edited video that portrayed her as racist and caused her to lose her job. When the full video was released, it became apparent that her speech was actually about racial tolerance, and the administration apologized to her for the error. In April, Breitbart officially responded, predictably, with a motion to dismiss the case. What's surprising is one of the arguments Breitbart used to get the case thrown out. In the suit, Sherrod must prove that Breitbart released an edited video of her with "actual malice," legalese for knowingly promoting false information or recklessly disregarding whether something was true. One line of defense for Breitbart could be, for example, to claim ignorance that the video had been edited. Instead, Breitbart and his lawyer Larry O'Connor filed a complaint using a surprising strategy: They argue that their video was wholly...