"Academic abstention is the doctrine (never formally promulgated) that courts should defer to colleges and universities when it comes to matters like promotions, curricula, admission policies, grading, tenure, etc. The reasoning is that courts lack the competence to monitor academic behavior; they should get out of the way and let the professionals do the job....In 2009, courts still pay lip service to this doctrine but in practice, Amy Gajda tells us in her terrific new book, “The Trials of Academe,” they now boldly go where their predecessors feared to tread... “litigation and ‘rights talk’ have permeated every crease and wrinkle of academic life.”" - Hilary

Has the increasing willingness of courts to rule on cases involving the ivory tower/s led to an increasing reliance by academics on a legal framework to navigate and frame academic disputes (e.g. use of contracts in academic work and the rise of explicit university IP policies), perhaps as an attempt to preempt legal problems? Or has the increasing use of contracts encouraged court rulings by providing a clear legal framework for the courts work with? Or is this a self-reinforcing cycle? I haven't read Amy Gajda's book (yet :) but wonder how this affects research sharing. - Hilary