This commentary considers the question of whether there is, or should be, a law and humanities canon by exploring the identity and value of the field and querying the concept of canon itself as an authoritative cultural technique of intellectual and social reproduction. I argue that the common trait which binds works in the field of law and humanities together is the connective “and,” which is inimical to the concept of a canon. Thinking with Barbara Hernstein Smith’s work on value and evaluation, Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht’s criticism of canons and classics, and Frantz Fanon’s understanding of personal universality, I show that the notion of an inclusive or “global” canon is an oxymoron and argue that it ought to be resisted.