Hazard: Your quotes too long for me to insert it, but...
I really like what you said about how professors teach. I think it's fine, natural, and even desirable for professors to have normativistic (is that a word?) views, but I think positivism is appropriate for the classroom. Even though, as I stated above, I would consider law & econ a somewhat conservative approach because of the underlying economic assumptions (non-compensation in potential Pareto improvements, giving a dollar to Bill Gates is as “beneficial” as giving a dollar to the poor, it is possible to place a monetary value on health and the environment, etc.), I would still consider law & econ a positivist approach (feel free to disagree, I will probably still attend U of C even if some current student trashes my arguments
). However, philosophers of science are currently debating whether true positivism can exist, so I think it’s important to recognize the underlying assumptions of any method.
It does seem there is more room for interpretation in the law than in other subjects like the natural/physical sciences, econ, etc. (Isn’t that what Critical Legal Studies is all about? – I just remember reading about CLS on an LSAT reading comprehension prompt.
) How much do professors’ political slants come through as they teach?