A continuación aparece una instantánea de la página web tal y como aparecía en 29/06/2022 (la última vez que nuestro rastreador la visitó). Esta es la versión de la página que se usó para la clasificación de los resultados de búsqueda. Puede que la página haya cambiado desde la última vez que la guardamos en caché. Para ver lo que puede haber cambiado (sin la información destacada), ve a la página actual.
Bing no se hace responsable del contenido de esta página.
Tobias Barrington Wolff on Twitter: "@joshchafetz Sadly, we have one semester in which to do everything." / Twitter
1/ A lot of folks who teach Con Law joking/not-joking on here about having to throw out their syllabus and start over given the Supreme Court's YOLOfest.
2/ As some of you know, I teach Con Law as an APD class, starting in 1776 and proceeding chronologically. I don't get to post-WW2 until class 19 of 26, and I don't get to the 21st century until class 23 or 24 of 26. I'll hae to make a few changes, but not many.
3/ The reason I point this out is that I think it says something about why I've taken the approach I have. Not, I rush to point out, so as to avoid having to change my syllabus, but rather because it seems to me less valuable to teach the current state of doctrine than ...
4/ ... it is to teach the long arc of constitutional history. To help students think through what our constitutional order has looked like, why it has looked the way it has at various points, and what forces have caused it to look that way.
5/ The developmental approach allows us to think through what work structure does, but also what work agency and contingency -- organizing, reimagining, pressing for change--do.
6/ Some students find the approach frustrating; some find it exciting. I certainly don't think it would be a good idea if all or even a majority of their 1L courses were taught this way.
7/7 But I do think it makes sense to teach at least some courses this way, and I think the current radical shifts in doctrine across a wide range of fields points to some of the benefits. /Fin/
The ideal, of course, would be to do both. The chronological approach has much to recommend it; I spend a lot of time on doctrines that some Con Law teachers skip. But I spend almost half the course on individual rights and equal protection and could not imagine doing otherwise.
As do I! (We have a Con Law I / Con Law II structure, but I don't really find the structure/rights divide coherent, so I cover a lot of things traditionally considered rights in Con Law I.) But that material can be treated developmentally, too.