Yesterday, I noticed a new law journal at Harvard, Unbound: The Harvard Journal of the Legal Left. Like Three Years of Hell (Anthony Rickey), I also first discovered it from the Yin Blog post announcing it. I looked at the journal's website briefly, but did not read carefully enough to take in this sentence on their "About" page until it was quoted by Anthony:

In today's legal world, conservatives have convinced many that legal decisions must be made on the basis of "original understanding" or "economic efficiency," terms which are not facially invalid but which often mask more nefarious goals. (emphasis added)

Now, I'm all for lively disagreement and discussion, even very direct attacks, so long as they remain respectful and reasoned. But to call the other side nefarious? Let's recall exactly what the word means: "Infamous by way of being extremely wicked." Wow. Pretty strong statement, eh? Maybe alright in a political debate, but in what is supposed to be a reasoned, academic "discussion [that] must include both systemic critique and productive self-interrogation" (also from the About page)? These students, along with their faculty advisors, have thus quite literally accused their conservative colleagues - student and faculty alike, at Harvard and elsewhere - of being "extremely wicked." How self-interrogative is that?

UPDATE: Professor Bainbridge describes the new journal as "a very plausible new contender for the title" of "the least necessary organization in the law school world." This would displace, in his view, the American Constitutional Society's claim to this title.