Anyone working in legal philosophy who has spent time in Europe or other civil law countries (especially) is aware that most law faculties there typically have entire departments of jurisprudence, with multiple faculty. The historical explanation for this enviable state of affairs is no doubt complex, although the huge influence of Hans Kelsen, the Austrian legal positivist (who is the other major figure in 20th-century legal philosophy, along with H.L.A. Hart), is part of that story. (Oxford has a large group of legal philosophers, as well, since jurisprudence is a required subject, although coverage of general jurisprudence is, alas, in decline. Other leading common law faculties–like National University of Singapore, the leading law school in Asia–have large groups in legal philosophy as well, including general jurisprudence.)

By contrast, elite American law schools barely cover the core of the subject, “general jurisprudence,” i.e., inquiry into the nature of law and legal reasoning and the relationship between law and morality. Only one top law school has two tenure-stream faculty members working primarily on this subject, namely, Cornell. Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, Columbia, Virginia, Duke, Georgetown, and Northwestern have no one. Chicago, Yale, Penn, NYU, Michigan, Texas, and UCLA have one full-time faculty member now working primarily in general jurisprudence. Outside the top law schools, only a handful of schools have a strong investment in general jurisprudence (most notably, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign).

Part of the explanation, of course, has to do with course requirements. Most law students in civil law countries must study jurisprudence in their first or second year. That is not the case in U.S. law schools, nor do I think it should be the case. Contra Dworkin–whose malign influence in American law schools continues, alas–students can turn into very good lawyers without ever studying general jurisprudence. On the other hand, it seems a shame for members of a “learned profession” to not have the opportunity to learn about the nature of the subject they are studying.