A short clip, of Bill Buckner throwing out the first pitch, recording redemption-in-action. This might be particularly challenging for Boston Red Sox fans.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Redemption!
Law Schools and Institutional Pluralism
Madisonian.net is hosting a blog-symposium, "What Kind of Institution Should a Law School Be?" Many people have posted lots of interesting thoughts. Here is my own contribution:
I have probably spent more time thinking about what kind of institution my law school — Notre Dame Law School, a Catholic law school — should be than about what kind of institution “the law school” should be. This is probably one reason why I welcomed, and was provoked by, Dean John Garvey’s speech – “Institutional Pluralism” — at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the AALS. (I have not yet found a link to the full remarks, which were published in the March issue of ”aalsnews”, but here is a report on the talk.)
Dean Garvey said, “My wife and I have sent our children to Catholic colleges because we want them to be able to integrate their faith with their understanding of art, literature, philosophy, politics, and science. I think there is a place for this kind of comprehensive wisdom in legal education, too.” I agree.
Now, this might not be the forum for thinking-out-loud about what a “Catholic law school” should be, what precisely should be its distinguishing features, etc. In my view, the project of building such a law school — an engaged, open, critical, and distinctively Catholic law school — is not an exercise in nostalgia, reaction, or retrieval. The project is, in my view, a new one.
It’s also, I think, an exciting and worthy one, and I’m inclined to think that it should be regarded as such by the legal academy generally, not just by co-religionists and the like. It is not just “not a bad thing”, it is a good thing, that there be distinctive law schools. Our commitments to diversity need not, and should not, lead us to insist on homogenization at the level of institutions. Quite the contrary — the same commitments that push us to respect and learn from diversity in many academic settings might also push us — and the AALS, and the ABA — to stay our hand from requiring that each institution look and act in precisely the same way.
Garvey fleshes out a number of reasons — reasons that I find persuasive — why we might think that institutional pluralism in the academy is a good thing. It seems to me that we ought not to resist, but instead should welcome, not only law schools that have focused on serving underserved populations, or law schools with a particular strength in a specific subject-matter area (for example, Lewis & Clark in environmental law), or even law schools with a particular animating point-of-view (Law & Economics at George Mason?), but also law schools that are distinctive in being meaningfully animated by a shared — even if contested — religious tradition.
Can There Really Be "Free Speech" in Public Schools?
I suggest, in this contribution to a just-published symposium on the Supreme Court's recent Morse decision (i.e., the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case), that the answer is "no":
The Supreme Court's decision in Morse v. Frederick leaves unresolved many interesting and difficult problems about the authority of public-school officials to regulate public-school students' speech. Perhaps the most intriguing question posed by the litigation, decision, and opinions in Morse is one that the various Justices who wrote in the case never squarely addressed: What is the basic educational mission of public schools, and what are the implications of this mission for officials' authority and students' free-speech rights? Given what we have come to think the Free Speech Clause means, and considering the values it is thought to enshrine and the dangers against which it is thought to protect, is it really possible for the freedom of speech to co-exist with the mission of the public schools? We all recall Justice Jackson's stirring rhetoric in the West Virginia flag-salute case: If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, he proclaimed, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion[.] But, is this really true - could it be true? - in public schools?
Thoughts?
The Conscience of the Pro-life Doctor (and others): Oxymorons?
I thank Rick for his April 9th posting on the contribution to the First Things web log recently authored by Chris Kaczor. While his invitation was primarily directed to Rob, I should like take this opportunity to offer a few thoughts on this matter of conscience that I have addressed in this web blog over the past several years. Should readers and contributors be interested in my past ruminations, they might click on my name under the categories menu and search for the word “conscience.”
The essence of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in its published Committee Opinion N. 385, at best, pays lip service to conscience. In reality, it sacrifices the conscience of physicians who choose not to associate themselves in any manner with abortion in the nominal “balancing” of interests. Ultimately, their balancing of interests protects without question or limitation “the safe, timely, and financially feasible access to reproductive health care that all women deserve.” The ACOG opinion, in essence, only protects abortion rights while it dismisses the vital right of conscience that confers several crucial protections: the first is to the doctor; the second is to the unborn child whose fate is eclipsed by the reproductive health “rights” of the mother. In short, there is, in fact, no meaningful balancing in spite of the ACOG’s assertion to the contrary.
Why is this so? Organizations such as the ACOG are able to convince the state (which is also the licensing authority of physicians) that the important exercise of conscience which will maximize the protection of human life is no more important than the exaggerated autonomy of persons who elect to terminate human life other than their own. The conscience that is being sacrificed here is not one that is subjectively determined (like the autonomy intrinsic to “reproductive health rights”) but one that is designed to advance an objectively determined moral order. The ACOG perspective relies on the shaky foundation of the infamous Casey decision that the personal liberty of reproductive health rights is premised on “the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning of the universe, and the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.” With tragic consequences, the ACOG opinion rests on questionable jurisprudence that threatens the lives of the unborn—the posterity of the human family.
If our society would approve of the doctor who, in the exercise of his conscience, refused to conduct some scientific experiment upon an unwilling subject that is encouraged or required by the law of the state, why would that same society disapprove of the doctor who, also in the exercise of conscience, refused to terminate a human life in its early stages? Put simply, the action of this society would be guided by subjective whim and caprice. It would, notwithstanding its democratic claims, be a totalitarian society. As Pope John Paul II said in his encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae, “the value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes.” What values are being promoted by the ACOG “balancing” effort? Are the values advanced by ACOG truly consistent with the principle of the right to conscience? If some are prepared to cheer the physician depicted in the film “The Cider House Rules” who, in the exercise of his ether-molded “conscience,” would abort the babies of young, unwed mothers who came to him for “help,” why could they not also commend the physician who, in the exercise of her conscience, refuses to associate herself with such actions?
Perhaps because, as Dr. Edmund Pellegrino has cautioned, the first context offers an “immediate utopianism of a man-made heaven on earth” where there is nothing beyond the present moment. In his view, the approach of this utopianism determines the material society’s choices about what is permitted and what is not. In the context of abortion and reproductive health care, there are physicians willing to comply with the expectations for services to which other doctors object based on their formation of well-formed conscience that is objectively based. There is no need to coerce all physicians with state sanction (imprisonment, denial of licenses, or fines) to perform acts to which they object in good conscience, based not on “feeling” but on sound and reasoned views of rightness and wrongness. For those who may be interested in a more detailed explanation of my views on these issues, they may wish to read my recent article Conscience, Totalitarianism and the Positivist Mind just published in volume 77 of the Mississippi Law Journal (2008). RJA sj
David Skeel on "Good and Bad Pro-Life Arguments"
Another interesting post, here.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
2008 Conference on Catholic Legal Thought in Seattle
Conference on Catholic Legal Thought
2008 Summer Institute
May 28, 29 & 30, 2008
Seattle University School of Law, Seattle, Washington
Last June, at the University of St. Thomas School of Law and the previous year at Fordham University School of Law, Catholic law professors from all over the country met for three days to explore ways to foster the development of the emerging body of “Catholic Legal Thought” (“CLT”), rooted in Catholic social thought and teaching.The law schools represented at those meetings included Ave Maria, Boston College, Catholic University, Campbell University, Duquesne University, Fordham University, Loyola University Chicago, Loyola University Los Angeles, Notre Dame, University of Oklahoma, St. John’s University, Seattle University, Seton Hall University, Texas Wesleyan University, the University of St. Thomas and Villanova University. At the initial Fordham meeting, we named our coalition of scholars the “Conference on Catholic Legal Thought.” We decided to organize annual meetings to support the development of CLT, to be hosted on a rotating basis by different law schools around the country. These annual meetings are directed both at those who are just beginning the enterprise of integrating Catholic thought into their teaching and scholarship and at those who are more experienced. This year’s meeting will be hosted by the Seattle University School of Law in Seattle, Washington. The first day will include an introduction to basic aspects of Catholic social teachings and begin a deeper discussion of authority, led by Fr. Frank Sullivan, one of the preeminent authorities on magisterial authority. The second and third days will consist of interactive workshops exploring particular topics through the lens of CLT, or the application of fundamental principles of Catholic thought to the development of CLT in general. The workshops will offer combinations of lectures, debates, and discussions by members of the Conference, as well as outside experts from other disciplines and other faith traditions. The four topics for this year will be:
- Teaching and Our Pastoral Role. Teaching CLT in a law school setting presents myriad occasions to make our own "the joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties" of the students of our times. This panel discussion will explore some of the pastoral issues that may arise in the course of our teaching, and will explore some practical ideas for a faith-informed response. Questions will include how to present CLT when students lack formation in Catholic or Christian traditions and teaching; and how to approach CLT topics such as abortion, divorce, and sexual identity knowing that for some students these issues have been a source of "grief or anxiety" for themselves, family members or close friends.
- Catholic Thought and Legal Theory. The body of CLT that has been developed over the last century-plus defies easy categorization; it is neither "liberal" nor "conservative." This session will focus on several of the concepts/judgments that set CLT apart from other social theories; it will also focus on the question of what concepts/judgments give CLT an internal unity and make it a coherent body of thought.
- Scholarly Career Planning as a Christian. This panel will discuss scholarship in CLT from both theoretical and practical perspectives with the hopes of encouraging a discussion of the ways in which conference participants may contribute to the developing body of scholarship in this field. Speakers will discuss those areas in CLT that deserve additional attention, the gaps that exist in current scholarship and the contributions that law professors (often not theologically-trained) can make to this field. More practically, this panel will also offer the opportunity to discuss how junior faculty may develop a scholarly agenda in this area, how scholarship on religious themes may be received in the tenure process (especially at secular schools), how to find mentors in the field, and how to combine this scholarship with more traditional legal scholarship.
- Works in Progress. This session provides an opportunity for presenting new scholarship related to CLT. Contact Russ Powell if you are interested in presenting.
The conference will also offer time for communal prayer and reflection, a field trip to the famous Pike Place Market, and plenty of opportunity for fellowship with like-minded legal scholars. There will be no fee to attend any of these events, but participants will be responsible for their own travel, lodging, and expenses.
If you are interested in attending or would like more information, please fill out the attached registration form and e-mail it to: Russ Powell: [email protected] (http://www.law.seattleu.edu will eventually provide updates.)
Detail, Schedule, and Registration form are included below.
Heartwarming Update
The rainstorm is turning to sleet right now in Minneapolis, and they're predicting a major winter storm overnight. It's been a long, long winter..... So here's a heartwarming update to a heartwarming story I shared about a year ago about a struggling urban Catholic school.
CL Statement on the (Italian) Election
Here is a link to a statement issued by Communion and Liberation, called "What is dearest to us", regarding the 2008 elections in Italy. A bit:
2) We do not ask for salvation from politics. We cannot expect politics to do this either for us or for others.
The tradition of the Church has always indicated two ideal criteria for judging every civil authority and every political platform:a) libertas Ecclesiae. A power that respects the freedom of a phenomenon so sui generis as the Church is for that very reason tolerant towards every other form of authentic human aggregation. The recognition of the role of faith, including its public role, and the contribution it can make to man’s journey is, therefore, a guarantee of freedom for all, not only for Christians.
Yes!
Resource on Marriage Law
This new publication, described by Maggie Gallagher, looks like a good resource:
This month iMAPP, in conjunction with the Marriage Law Foundation, is announcing a new monthly e-publication, the "Marriage Law Digest."Edited by Bill Duncan, the Marriage Law Digest aims to provide readable summaries of key legal opinions affecting marriage and family life in the U.S., with links to the opinions themselves where possible.
Tom
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
RALS Conference
I just returned from Boston College Law School, which hosted the 2008 Spring Conference of Religiously Affilated Law Schools. It was a wonderful two days of discussion. The conference opened with a panel entitled Teaching Through the Lens of Faith, in which the speakers (which included MOJ'er Amy Uelmen) talked about different ways of engaging religious issues in the classroom. It is fair to say that the panelists expressed very different views of the role of religion in public policy discourse and therefore on how religious views are presented in the classroom. The second panel addressed Student Vocational Discernment and featured discussion of the different ways that institutions address the spiritual, moral and professional formation of young adults. I spoke during this panel about some of the retreats and other programs of spiritual formation I have been giving here at St. Thomas over the past year. Other panels included Scholarship Through the Lens of Faith, The Challenge of Inclusion, and Hiring (and Admitting) for Mission. The hiring and admitting panel was the only one I was a bit disappointed with, largely becuase I think it tried to address too many different issues in too short a period of time. I'd like to say a little more about the other panels - especially the one on the Challenge of Inclusion, which raised - well - the most challenging issues, and I will try to come back and say some more on that (after I finish playing catch-up. I'm hoping Mark Sargent or Amy Uelmen will chime in as well.
As is always the case at these gatherings, the meals and fellowship outside of the formal sessions were as valuable as the sessions themselves and allowed for more extended and informal discussion of the issues that came up during the day. It is always good to spend time with old friends and make new ones. And having Greg Kalscheur say mass for the Catholics among us every morning was also a wonderful part of the experience.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
