When Omission Matters: Diverse Perspectives on the Legal History of the Administrative State

Last week we noted Mike Konczal's recent essay, "Hail to the Pencil Pusher," which appeared in the Boston Review. Konczal, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, admirably synthesizes academic work by Bill Novak, Jerry Mashaw, Dan Ernst, Anuj Desai, Jeremy Kessler, William Eskridge, Jr., John Ferejohn, and Sophia Lee to demonstrate "American bureaucracy's long and useful history." Konczal also explains clearly and concisely why this research ought to matter to the general public. Most notably, in his view, it challenges an alternative history, popular among some contemporary conservatives, in which American bureaucracy is a recent and generally harmful invention.

I was delighted to see someone outside of academia place a spotlight on some of our field's most exciting work. I could say many more good things, both about the essay and the research that informed it. (Read it! All of it!) Instead -- and without appearing ungrateful, I hope -- I am going to use Konczal’s essay to provoke some conversations that I think legal historians should be having. Specifically, I want to talk about omission and gender. Of the authors discussed, only one (Lee) is a woman. Does that matter? If so, why? Review essays needn't be comprehensive, of course, especially in this type of venue, but as I explain after the jump, I think we would do well to at least reflect on gender disparities when we spot them.
Read more »

Posted by Unknown

Tweet