Friday, March 23, 2007

Learning Our Lessons: Part 2 of Series

URGENT ALERT!

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION/ MINISTRY OF TRUTH JOINT TASK FORCE: DIRECTIVE FFF* 1984-032307-002

Do not mention the following article, or the topic it discusses, in your classes. It may contribute to cultural stereotyping.

This topic goes WAY BEYOND merely sensitive or controversial and should also not be mentioned on law school or university property, on letterhead, or in retrievable email communications.

This message will self destruct in 30 seconds.

THE NEW YORK TIMES

INTERNATIONAL / EUROPE | March 23, 2007
German Judge Cites Koran, Stirring Up Cultural Storm
By MARK LANDLER
A judge turned down a German Muslim woman’s request for a fast-track divorce on the ground that her husband beat her.

1 comment:

Alan Jay Weisbard said...

Here is Peter's letter in its original form:
Alan (for you alone without factalk),

But for your sensitive character, I would respond to your postings on factalk this evening that the issue in the news reports you have shared with us is not whether a faculty member can or should present the information, but rather the thought that goes into the presentation and any adeverse consequences that follow from such a presentation.
Before a class, a teacher needs to think through the implications and likely response that sharing the information (assuming it is presented in the belief that it is an accurate statement of facts) may have and be clear about why it is being done. If the faculty member is teaching about corporate law, neither of your examples is apparently relevant, But if the class is one on family law (the role of convential or customary rules would be highly relevant and complicated) or first amendment issues (when can/should the law intervene to limit or forbid knowingly false statements about religious groups), then it is plausible that the faculty member would want to use the current event to focus class discussion of important legal issues. As you heard on Tuesday, the key for being a competent teacher is to think about the presentation of controversial information ahead of time, including verifying its accuracy, and reflect on how to bring this information to a class in a way that encourages rather than discourages discussion.
Second, if despite the teacher's best plans, students are troubled by the manner of presentation or the implicit or express assumption of the teacher that the infromation presented is factually correct (e.g;. suppose the statement were that all German's believe in the Koran and so second and third generation German imigrants are potential terrorists), then the teacher, when questioned by students concerned by such arguable false statements, has an obligation both to explain why the example was relevant and to justify its use/accuracy (not demand that the students disprove its validity especially if the teacher also subsequently denies making the statement that the students believe the teacher made).

As a torts scholar you will recognize that I am speaking to basic issues of due care in instruction and the framework set forth is one that focuses on avoiding educational malpractice.

However, because you would see such comments as a hostile and negative response to your sarcasm, I would never consider saying anything of this sort to you.

Peter