I'll be in DC Friday and Saturday of this week to attend the Federalist Society national convention. On Saturday, I'll be one of the presenters at the Corporate and Securities Practice Group program on Delaware's New Competition: The Creeping Federalization of American Corporate Law. We have a great panel:
- Prof. Stephen M. Bainbridge, William D. Warren Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles School of Law
- Mr. Cornish F. Hitchcock, Hitchcock Law Firm PLLC
- Mr. David A. Katz, Partner, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
- Prof. Roberta Romano, Oscar M. Ruebhausen Professor of Law and Director, Yale Law School Center for the Study of Corporate Law
- Moderator: Hon. Thomas M. Hardiman, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
In the meanwhile, perhaps you'd care to offer some advice on the question of the moment: Now that I'm committed to remaining a Bruin and a Californian until retirement, is there any professional necessity for me to continue wearing a tie when I attend these sort of events?
You see, a while back, I wrote that:
I ditched ties, suits, sports coats, and all that nonsense when I moved from Illinois to UCLA. After all, while I've never seen one of my colleagues teach in flip-flops, I have seen more than one teach in Teva sandals.
Last year, I had occasion to update my formal and semi-formal wardrobe. In order to get my money out of the new suits, I started wearing them again. But I quickly concluded that it's just not me. I'm a comfort guy. I was grunge before anybody had ever heard of Kurt Cobain. If I thought I could get away with it, I [would] teach in sweatpants and a vintage Redskins jersey. Indeed, as I told Jonathan Adler the last time this issue came up, I only wear "ties East of the Mississippi, and even then under some amount of duress."
So I retired my new suits to the back of the closet to await a professional trip back east, a funeral, certain weddings, and the like. My golf shirts and khakis came back to the front of the closet. In sum, back to business casual.
The question I'd like to put before the house tonight is, why should "a professional trip back east" -- duress or no -- remain an exception to my no tie rule?
The need to impress prospective employers is off the table.
Just because everybody else is wearing a tie isn't a valid reason. After all, I'm not a lemming. I wouldn't jump off a cliff just because everybody else did.
The probability that wearing a tie might be a social norm in the setting in question doesn't persuade me either. Fight the power! Question authority! And all that stuff.
In other words, no one who would take offense at my lack of neckwear has the power to make my life less fun and/or profitable. So where's the duress? (And, even if there were duress, shouldn't I resist it?)
So why should I be uncomfortable for the sake of silly conformity to an outdated mode of dress?
Frankly, I'm stumped.
Hell, maybe I should just wear that Redskins jersey in which I keep threatening to teach.
