Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 


advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Denial of tenure case at Georgetown raises thorny issues .  LAC

NYT editorial quotes Dan Solove likening NSA snooping to Seurat art: one small dot seems trivial, but together a portrait emerges. Here. (LAC)

Warren Buffett never negotiates on price, always makes his highest offer first.  LAC

An elite decline? (kw)

Unanswered Questions (kw)

Most under-appreciated thing about Warren Buffett: he built Berkshire to last well beyond him.  (LAC, at BRK annual meeting via Motley Fool, here.)

University governance as a new topic of public discussion.

An unusual profile of Mary Anne Franks (kw)

Aggressive copyright litigation run amok. (fp)

USA Today's Matt Krantz quoting me on Warren Buffett joining Twitter.  (LAC)


Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • Aaron Zelinsky on Grading Lessons from Cognitive Psychology

    • Brett Bellmore on Google Challenges Gag Orders Relating to Surveillance Programs, Citing First Amendment

    • Steph Tai on Grading Lessons from Cognitive Psychology

    • Aaron Zelinsky on Grading Lessons from Cognitive Psychology

    • Steph Tai on Grading Lessons from Cognitive Psychology

    • Aaron Zelinsky on Grading Lessons from Cognitive Psychology

    • Steph Tai on Grading Lessons from Cognitive Psychology

    • Charlie Naegle on Google Challenges Gag Orders Relating to Surveillance Programs, Citing First Amendment

    • Michael Dorff on Questioning Performance Pay

    • Sandra Sperino on Sole Motives and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar

    • Michal Zapendowski on What Should a Judge's Reversal Rate Be?

    • Orin Kerr on Grading Lessons from Cognitive Psychology

    • AP on Unintended Consequences of Scholarship

    • Howard Wasserman on Grading Lessons from Cognitive Psychology

    • Lawrence Cunningham on Unintended Consequences of Scholarship
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

Teaching Criminal Procedure “Objectively”

posted by Erica Goldberg

The new semester is a little over a month away, and I have begun reflecting on whether I’d like to change certain teaching techniques from last year to this year. One of my main objectives as a professor is to foster a classroom environment where students feel free to disagree respectfully with each other and with me. One of the main ways to achieve this objective, I had believed, was to express my own personal opinions as little as possible.

This proved to be a difficult task, especially when teaching Criminal Procedure. Criminal Procedure is designed around assertions of constitutional rights based in the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. The Court’s most impassioned (and possibly compelling) language usually focuses on fears of an oppressive government and the importance of privacy rights. From Katz to Miranda to Brown v. Mississippi, students are exposed to police abuses and the need to prevent them. Of course, the importance of effective law enforcement is also highlighted, and the goals of law enforcement and the protections of the Constitution are not always in tension, but the course is very individual-rights centric.

I attempted, nonetheless, to be objective. I critiqued both majorities and dissents. I exposed vulnerable logic regardless of the outcome of the case. Students debated issues, and many took controversial positions. Often, a student’s views on a particular case were refreshingly unpredictable. Yet, two of my former students bumped into me in town after class was over and grades were in.  During our discussion of the class, they were able to pinpoint some of my views about criminal procedure.

I realized that, even if I try to keep my politics and my views about a particular case out of the classroom, my approach to the law will seep in, either deliberately or unconsciously. Moreover, isn’t this what I’m being paid for? Students ostensibly felt free to express contrary views, so perhaps the fact that my own biases were more transparent than I realized wasn’t as corrosive to the learning experience as I feared. Or perhaps I should try harder next time, and see how that goes.

I know blogs in the past have confronted the topic of how neutral professors should be, but I think these issues are particularly salient in criminal law and constitutional law, where policy is often incorporated into legal analysis and where philosophies of jurisprudence (the most abstract approach to the law), views about particular amendments, and personal politics (the crassest form of opinion about cases) are strongly held. I may decide on a balance where it’s more acceptable to reveal my views about and approach to the law the more abstract they are. I’d love to hear any thoughts.

 


 July 18, 2012 at 11:41 am   Posted in: Law School (Teaching)   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (7)

  1. Andrew MacKie-Mason - July 18, 2012 at 12:37 pm

    I can’t offer you anything specific to the law school context. But I can say that, in general, the classes I’ve been in that felt both useful and open to varying points of view weren’t ones where the professor pretended not to have an opinion. Rather, the best professors I’ve had were open about their opinions, but treated differing opinions with genuine engagement and respect.

    Of course, that requires being able to distinguish crap ideas from well thought out ideas, whether they disagree with you or not. There’s always tendency to give more credit to students who reach the same result as you, even if they haven’t thought it through well at. Revealing your views makes it more likely that you’ll feel the need to overcompensate by dealing seriously with even the most ridiculous opposing view.

    But who said good teaching is easy? :)

  2. nidefatt - July 18, 2012 at 11:24 pm

    You’re better off keeping your ideas out of it. My criminal procedure professor is a dyed in the wool liberal, but in the classroom he was vicious to any student that voiced an opinion, and since it was Boston, most were liberal. It made you think, you learned the material and you learned a little about arguing your point.

    I think if you go in making it clear what your views are, you will have a group of very unhappy students. The law is the law. You don’t have to give your view, the supreme court isn’t final because its right after all.

  3. Orin Kerr - July 19, 2012 at 2:05 am

    The most important concern is which approach will help the students master the material best.

    In general, I think making your views unimportant is the best way to do that. When students know that you have strong views, and you make your views an important part of the course, a lot of students will shut off their brains and only learn the stuff to know what you think so they can parrot it back to you on the exam. We all had professors like that in law school: They had such strong views that they thought their views were truth and other views were ignorant. To get an A, you had to play their game. That’s not a very good way to learn the law, in my view.

    This doesn’t mean that students can’t know what you think. Rather, it just means that if you introduce your views, you need to find a way to do it while making clear that your views are completely irrelevant to them. And especially that you’re not going to give students one iota of credit if they parrot back your views to them on the exam.

  4. Orin Kerr - July 19, 2012 at 2:06 am

    Errata: “To you on the exam.”

  5. Logan - July 19, 2012 at 8:53 pm

    I can’t seem to find the law review article but a law prof did a line by line analysis of Jay-Z’s “99 Problems” song. It’s about the most engaging overview of criminal procedure I’ve ever seen.

  6. Nikka - July 22, 2012 at 5:09 am

    I can relate

  7. Mina Black - July 22, 2012 at 5:16 am

    Being a teacher myself, I can tell you that it can be pretty difficult at times to be unbiased regarding certain topics. I often hold debates between my students regarding current events and so on just to hear their perspective on different things. I really can’t help but share what I feel regarding these events but I also say that what I state are my own opinions. And, yes there are those students that would think very differently regarding a certain point that you wouldn’t think about.

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Kelli A. Alces
Andrew Blair-Stanek
Ryan Calo
Katie Eyer
Stephen Galoob
Woodrow Hartzog
Claire Hill
William McGeveran
David L. Schwartz
Babak Siavoshy
Charles K. Whitehead
Aaron Zelinsky


















Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Derek Bambauer
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ann Bartow
Steven Bellovin
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Josh Blackman
Joseph Blocher
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Khiara Bridges
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Gabriella Coleman
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
andré douglas pond cummings
Allison Danner
Laura DeNardis
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
Maxine Eichner
Jessica Erickson
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Joshua Fairfield
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Mary Anne Franks
Susan Freiwald
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Vivian E. Hamilton
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Angela Harris
Jeffrey Harrison
Hosea Harvey
Erica Hashimoto
Jennifer Hendricks
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Gilbert A. Holmes
Nicole Huberfeld
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Shavar Jeffries
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Jeff Jonas
Courtney Joslin
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Alicia Kelly
Orin Kerr
Jay Kesten
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Margaret Lewis
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Matthew Lister
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Tayyab Mahmud
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Janai Nelson
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
David Opderback
David Orentlicher
Michael O'Shea
Kristen Osenga
Mary-Rose Papandrea
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Meredith Render
William Reynolds
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Brishen Rogers
Sasha Romanosky
Aaron Saiger
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schleicher
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Lea Shaver
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Peter Swire
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Joseph Turow
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Elizabeth A. Wilson
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
Access to Justice
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Just Books
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
Privacy and Security Training
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
TeachPrivacy Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress