Recommended: At Balls and Strikes, G.S. Hans writes that a "very persistent question has bubbled up among the law professor commentariat: How the hell are we going to teach all this?"
The same joke questions proliferated on social media, attempting to find gallows humor in syllabus planning. Should we remove Administrative Law from the curriculum after the death of Chevron? What does it mean to teach Constitutional Law in a world in which presidents can violate the law with impunity? Does stare decisis even exist anymore? And among my community: Who will shed a tear for us as we throw out our syllabi and redo our mouldering lesson plans? Wonât someone think of the law professors? [...]
So now what? In a few weeks, weâll start another school year in the midst of a chaotic election and massive uncertainty regarding the future of American democracy. Two years ago I observed that, post-Dobbs, law professors need not abandon their commitment to law as a nominally somewhat predictable system, even given the Supreme Courtâs aggressive, unprincipled actions. I am less sure of this now. I think we have a responsibility to emphasize to our students that law is something less: a system, manipulable like any other, for achieving political and policy ends. It employs reason, except when it doesnât.
Read it at Balls and Strikes.
Law Professors Canât Keep Carrying Water For the Supreme Court
Students arenât buying the traditional academic narratives about courts and the law anymore. Law professors who donât adapt are doing their students a disservice.
Madiba Dennie
Fellow Travelers highlights the best ideas and writing from across the web, with an emphasis on independent journalism and outside-the-beltway takes. Some links may require subscriptions.
Comments
We want Uncharted Blue to be a welcoming and progressive space.
Before commenting, make sure you've read our Community Guidelines.