The New York City Bar Association is holding a “Rally for the Rule of Law” on Thursday in front of the federal courthouse at Foley Square. The rally is supposedly non-partisan, cloaked in the language of neutral principle. But make no mistake: This event, like so many others in mainstream legal culture, is an act of political theatre. And it is just the latest piece of evidence that the legal profession has been ideologically captured.

The City Bar’s “facts and resources” on the Rule of Law link to the association’s amicus briefs in support of law firms sanctioned by the Trump administration. Also included are criticisms of various executive orders, notably on immigration and citizenship, and statements defending the federal judiciary against the president’s criticisms. All cloaked in high-minded “Rule of Law” rhetoric.

Please. Where were the briefs supporting President Trump when he was forced to defend preposterous lawsuits and prosecutions brought against him by New York state and the federal government, not to mention the two impeachments? Where was the hand-wringing over the obvious asymmetry in prosecuting those involved in the January 6 riots to the fullest extent of the law (and then some) while giving a pass to the George Floyd rioters? Where was the concern for the federal judiciary when Senator Schumer threatened to “release the whirlwind” against Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch and mobs gathered outside the homes of conservative justices?

It’s not just hypocrisy, though it is that. It’s the manipulation of meaning. The legal profession’s finest trick is using abstract, morally elevated language to do the dirty work of politics. “Rule of Law” does now what “Follow the Science” did during Covid. It shuts down disagreement and delegitimizes dissent.

The City Bar also cites the letters written by law professors decrying recent actions of the president. There’s the “constitutional crisis” letter signed by 1,000 teachers of law. Letters from supermajorities of the Harvard and Yale faculties. And a statement signed by the deans of 79 American law schools. Each one cloaked in the language of neutral principle.

Law professors should know better. Their job is to teach students to see through manipulative rhetoric, not to deploy it against them. But law schools have become temples of groupthink that serve no one, except perhaps the professors themselves. Conservative students bite their tongues, worried that honesty could cost them grades, friendships, or careers. Progressive students, coddled by consensus, miss the chance to test their arguments in the crucible of serious disagreement. The result? An echo chamber, not a proving ground.

These are the unmistakable signs of a professional monoculture — one that punishes dissent and rewards ideological conformity. Advocates cover partisan acts with high-minded rhetoric while professors teach critical theory instead of critical thinking. These are political actors in barristers’ robes. The lesson: Rule of Law for me, but not for thee.

The good news is that people are starting to see through it. The public sees the legal profession as a corrupt elite that works against the interests of the people. And the people are beginning to ask: Why are we paying for this?

But a danger also looms. The public may soon conclude that the “Rule of Law” itself is a mere sham, without meaning, just another partisan weapon. That’s not a view I share — but it’s one I can readily understand. If that idea spreads, its consequences should be feared by both left and right.

We can avert this not through rallies and letter-writing campaigns, but by doing our actual job. By grappling with the most serious arguments on the other side, not covering our tracks with sanctimony, and teaching our students how to reason, even when we find particular ideas personally distasteful.

If we can’t do that, we’re the ones subverting the Rule of Law.