Adding to the conversation about teaching and testing on controversial or emotionally charged subjects, here is Jeannie Suk (Harvard) this week in The New Yorker. (H/T: My FIU colleague Eric Carpenter). Of course, sexual assault fits into the first category, in that the subject itself is emotionally charged regardless of the context in which it is presented or tested. Obviously, I share Suk’s conclusion that it is too bad that we are moving in this direction–and that it is bad not only for law students, but also for law and legal reform.
Posted by Howard Wasserman on December 17, 2014 at 09:24 AM
Comments
I thought that Corey Yung’s post over at the co-op on this topic was very good:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2014/12/jeannie-suk-on-teaching-rape.html
He casts some doubt on whether Suk’s example is completely representative or typical, though I can’t say anything on that myself.
Posted by: Matt | Dec 17, 2014 7:13:26 PM
I found the article interesting partially because it seemed to state the obvious (so maybe I’m missing something?). Suk writes:
“When I teach rape law, I don’t dwell on cases in which everyone will agree that the defendant is guilty. Instead, I focus on cases that test the limits of the rules, and that fall near the rapidly shifting line separating criminal conduct from legal sex.”
But isn’t that what all law professors should do? The point of law school is to teach these borders, not teach that rape–or any other crime–is bad. I should think we all already know that.
Posted by: Steven R. Morrison | Dec 17, 2014 2:52:14 PM