The Faculty Lounge

ATPI Seeks Faculty Interested in Coordinating Tax/Financial Literacy Program Taught by Law Students

The American Tax Policy Institute (ATPI) invites expressions of interest from law school faculty members interested in implementing a tax literacy program taught by law students in partnership with a local secondary school during the 2025-2026 academic year. The aim of this program is to teach young people basic financial and tax concepts in a non-partisan, non-technical, interactive manner, and to increase law student engagement with their local communities. The law school faculty advisor will be responsible for recruiting, identifying and coordinating with a local secondary school partner as well as supervising the program in the law school. ATPI will provide training materials, a modifiable curriculum, and teaching materials for use by law students. ATPI is also available to provide Zoom-based training for law student volunteers, if the faculty member does not wish to personally conduct the training. ATPI Trustees, including Professor Marjorie Kornhauser, who successfully ran a similar program at Tulane Law School, are available to provide additional guidance and support to law faculty members and law students.

 

This tax literacy program is ideal for law schools interested in expanding their pro bono offerings to include activities that may be of particular interest to students interested in taxation and financial matters, as well as those interested in education and teaching. The program also provides tax professors with the opportunity to engage law students who may not think they have any interest in tax. Such students join the program because they care about pro bono work or teaching and then may discover that they are indeed interested in taxation and go on to take tax courses. It is also appropriate for tax and business-related clinics that might like to include a community outreach and teaching component.

 

ATPI is a section 501(c)(3) organization whose Trustees and members are some of the leading experts on taxation from the fields of law, accounting and economics. ATPI is a nonpartisan organization that promotes and facilitates scholarly research, analysis, examination, discussion of tax policy proposals and issues, in order to improve the tax system, and to provide assistance to governmental authorities involved in tax administration. 

 

Expressions of interest are kindly requested by April 30, 2025 to Professor Marjorie Kornhauser, [email protected]

Teaching Skill and Age

Recently, I blogged about a touching story from Mark Tushnet in We Age But Our Students Remain Young. Over at PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman provides a counterpoint:

This Atlantic piece has stuck with me since first published in 2019 (I blogged about it). The Atlantic website recirculated it in today's daily email. I will highlight the piece that captures teaching and the academic connection.

As Bach demonstrated, teaching is an ability that decays very late in life, a principal exception to the general pattern of professional decline over time. A study in The Journal of Higher Education showed that the oldest college professors in disciplines requiring a large store of fixed knowledge, specifically the humanities, tended to get evaluated most positively by students. This probably explains the professional longevity of college professors, three-quarters of whom plan to retire after age 65—more than half of them after 70, and some 15 percent of them after 80. (The average American retires at 61.) One day, during my first year as a professor, I asked a colleague in his late 60s whether he’d ever considered retiring. He laughed, and told me he was more likely to leave his office horizontally than vertically.

Our dean might have chuckled ruefully at this—college administrators complain that research productivity among tenured faculty drops off significantly in the last decades of their career. Older professors take up budget slots that could otherwise be used to hire young scholars hungry to do cutting-edge research. But perhaps therein lies an opportunity: If older faculty members can shift the balance of their work from research to teaching without loss of professional prestige, younger faculty members can take on more research.

Ironically, the move to vigorous post-tenure review since 2019 (most prominently at Florida schools) flies in the face of this six-year-old article's insight--a 60-year-old who has taught for 25 years cannot be as productive a scholar as a 40-year-old in her first decade of teaching, and schools should adjust job assignments, expectations, and evaluation accordingly. Post-tenure review potentially flattens that evolution.

Read the whole thing here. 

 

Conflict-related Sexual Violence Materials

David Eichert is collecting pedagogical material about conflict-related sexual violence. If you are willing to share, please send syllabi, lesson plans, etc to [email protected]. See the attached announcement for more information. 

 

 

🚨 Calling all politics & int'l law professors 🚨 Do you teach about conflict-related sexual violence? If so, I want to know about your approach! More info below -- please share with colleagues!

[image or embed]

— David Eichert (@davideichert.bsky.social) May 13, 2025 at 7:09 PM

George Mason Law Invites Applications for Law Prof Economics Institute

This just in:

The Law & Economics Center at George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School, invites applications for the Thirty-Fifth Economics Institute for Law Professors and the Seventeenth Law Institute for Economics Professors.

The programs will run concurrently from Sunday, June 1 to Friday, June 13, 2025. They will be held at the Grand Summit Hotel in Park City, Utah.

Upon successful completion of either institute, attendees will receive a $3,000 honorarium.

LAW PROFESSORS:

Thirty-Fifth Economics Institute for Law Professors

The goal of the Economics Institute for Law Professors is to help participants enhance their understanding of economics and broaden their analytical tools in order to introduce greater economic sophistication and policy relevance to their professional work. The time-tested program that launched the LEC in 1974 counts many of today’s leading scholars in law and economics among its five decades of alumni. More than 830 law professors worldwide have attended the LEC’s Economics Institutes. Alumni routinely credit the Institute with providing creative insights into research and teaching, and with facilitating collegial associations.

 

Call Me J.D., Destroyer of Dreams: Some Thoughts on Preventive Lawyering

Like many readers of this blog, I sit on several non-profit boards of directors. For decades, pro bono service activities of this nature have been a steady and rewarding presence in my professional life, connecting my interests as a law professor with service to organizations that are working to effect positive change.

Many of the groups that I have affiliated with are of the more grassroots varieties. In contrast to larger, more well-funded entities, these organizations often survive on shoestring budgets and have limited staffing. Although it’s not unusual for the big non-profits to have their own lawyers to handle various legal matters and to be watchful for potential liability issues, the smaller groups cannot afford in-house counsel and generally retain legal advice and representation only when specific matters require doing so.

Consequently, on frequent occasion, these smaller groups may ask board members who are lawyers to serve as initial issue spotters for situations that raise liability concerns. This is especially the case when the organization’s activities may have created legal exposure that had gone unnoticed during the more creative and enthusiastic phases of work done by staff.

When information about such activities is brought to the board’s attention, perhaps via a discussion preceding a vote for approval, this is when a J.D.-holding board member may raise their hand and say…

“This is a great idea, but I have a concern….”

It’s probably a healthy thing when folks thinking about how to do their jobs imaginatively and inventively aren’t always asking about liability exposure at every step of the process.

But one of the most valuable roles that lawyers can play is to look at a new program or idea and ask, what could go wrong, what is the liability exposure, and is it possible to minimize that exposure without closing or substantially limiting a useful activity?

During my years of service on non-profit boards, I have sometimes found myself playing this role. The standard setting is a board meeting where a new idea or program is shared and receives an enthusiastic reception on its merits. But as folks are expressing their excitement, I’m quietly asking myself what could go wrong and speculating on how that scenario might implicate potential liability. (This may be the special curse of someone who teaches employment law and once taught torts.)

If I can imagine plausible scenarios raising legitimate concerns about unintended risks and legal exposure, then I will raise my hand and explain what I see as the attendant liability risks. In some cases, I will urge caution before adopting or implementing an idea until these concerns are addressed.

In somewhat self-conscious fashion, I have sometimes quipped that my board role is to be the “destroyer of dreams,” i.e., serving as the legal wet blanket who holds up the works because of liability concerns. Sometimes the line gets a chuckle.

Fostering Professional Identities: Ikigai, Tolstoy, and Therapeutic Jurisprudence

Recently I’ve had several conversations with fellow law professors about the American Bar Association’s new Accreditation Standard 303(b)(3), which holds that law schools “should provide substantial opportunities to students” for the “development of a professional identity.” The ABA’s Interpretation 303-5 of that Standard states that:

…(P)rofessional identity focuses on what it means to be a lawyer and the special obligations lawyers have to their clients and society. The development of a professional identity should involve an intentional exploration of the values, guiding principles, and well-being practices considered foundational to successful legal practice. Because developing a professional identity requires reflection and growth over time, students should have frequent opportunities for such development during each year of law school and in a variety of courses and co-curricular and professional development activities.

I confess my skepticism towards ABA requirements that can easily prompt somewhat ham-handed attempts to treat topics about values and personal qualities as content to be covered -- in this case, shoehorning professional identity formation into enough courses to claim regulatory compliance. Rather, I see professional identity formation as something that develops organically and depends a lot on (1) the social, emotional, and intellectual maturity of individual students, and (2) legal educators and lawyers being aware of openings to weave potentially teachable moments into conversations and discussions.

Nevertheless, the topic itself is important for our students' professional development. As my Suffolk Law colleague Harmony Decosimo points out in her insightful taxonomy of factors contributing to professional identity formation, values, wellness, and professional competencies are all part of the mix. As I see it, opportunities to highlight these elements may occur at any time and in unscripted ways, such as a student’s response to a simulation exercise or clinical assignment, a professor’s reference to some aspect of practice, or an attorney’s account about representing a client in an important case.

To the extent that professional identity is tagged as a topic for classroom discussion, the approach should be engaging and contemplative, rather than directive or pedantic. Towards that end, I’d like to look at three items: (1) a Japanese concept for examining life purpose; (2) a novella by Leo Tolstoy that invites big questions about life and work; and, (3) a school of theory and practice that can serve as a useful lens for creating a life in the law.

Ikigai

Ikigai, explains Wikipedia, “is a Japanese concept referring to something that gives a person a sense of purpose, a reason for living.” It is usually captured via some version of the diagram reproduced here. Being at the intersecting center of all four circles is the state of ikigai.

Laura Oliver, writing for the World Economic Forum, says that the philosophy and practice of ikigai is “a way to live longer and better.” She explains:

While there is no direct English translation, ikigai is thought to combine the Japanese words ikiru, meaning “to live,” and kai, meaning “the realization of what one hopes for.” Together these definitions create the concept of “a reason to live” or the idea of having a purpose in life.

Oliver adds that those who have studied ikigai raise four key questions to start us down the path toward an ideal state:

• “What do you love?”
• “What are you good at?”
• “What does the world need from you?”
• “What can you get paid for?”

Hmm, this sounds like an invitation to law students to consider professional identity formation.

Pace Law Seeks Spring 2023 Visitor in Business Law and/or Con Law

Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University invites applications for a Visiting Professor for Spring 2023 

The Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University is currently seeking applicants for a podium-fill visitor to teach during the Spring 2023 semester. We are particularly interested in applicants who can teach Constitutional Law and/or Corporations and other courses in the business law area.

All applicants should have excellent academic credentials as well as demonstrated skill and experience in teaching.  The position is a temporary, non-tenure-track appointment.

Applicants should be willing and available to teach using in-person or hybrid formats, depending on changing circumstances and the needs of the particular classes.

Applications are encouraged from people of color, individuals of varied sexual and affectional orientations, individuals who are differently-abled, veterans of the armed forces or national service, and anyone whose background and experience will contribute to the diversity of the law school.  Pace University is committed to achieving completely equal opportunity in all aspects of University life.

Please apply via https://careers.pace.edu/postings/22602. Applications will be considered on a rolling basis.

Pace University’s Elisabeth Haub School of Law offers J.D. degrees, Masters of Law degrees in both Environmental and International Law, and a series of joint degree programs including a Doctor of Juridical Science (SJD) in Environmental Law. The school, housed on the University’s campus in White Plains, NY, opened its doors in 1976 and has over 8,000 alumni around the world. The school maintains a unique philosophy and approach to legal education that strikes an important balance between practice and theory. For more information, visit http://law.pace.edu.

Please direct any questions via email to Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Law Operations, Professor Jill Gross, at [email protected].

Assistant Dean of Legal Information Services and Professor of Practice (2021) Washington and Lee University: Law School

The listing is here https://apply.interfolio.com/93228

Location
Lexington, Virginia
Open Date
Aug 26, 2021
Description
Reporting to the Dean of the Law School, the Assistant Dean of Legal Information Services manages all aspects of the operation of the Wilbur C. Hall Law Library in a manner that supports the mission of the Law School. While this is a 12-month administrative appointment, the Assistant Dean will also hold faculty rank (non-tenure track) and the title of Professor of Practice, teaching one or more legal research courses annually as needed.

Washington and Lee University promotes a dynamic and inclusive environment that allows students and employees of multiple backgrounds, cultures, and perspectives to learn, work, and thrive together. Successful candidates will contribute to that environment and exhibit potential for excellence in teaching and for vigorous scholarship. In keeping with the University Strategic Plan, we welcome applications from underrepresented minority candidates and members of other communities that are traditionally underrepresented in academia.

Status: Full-Time, 12 Month, With Benefits
Position Type: Administrator with Faculty Rank
Work Hours: 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Monday - Friday
FLSA: Exempt
Minimum Pay: $127,652

Essential and Related Functions

The Assistant Dean of Legal Information Services manages all aspects of the operation of the Wilbur C. Hall Law Library in a manner that supports the mission of the Law School. Specific responsibilities include the following:

Works with the Dean to establish objectives of the Law Library that best support the research, teaching, and programmatic needs of the Law School community.
Promotes a positive and creative work environment while undertaking supervisory functions relating to hiring, performance review, and professional development.
Establishes budgetary priorities for the Law Library in a manner that maximizes the benefit of library resources.
Creates and maintains print and digital collections appropriate to the mission of the Law School.
Oversees the management and development of innovative digital initiatives, including an institutional repository and the widely recognized W&L Law Journal Rankings.
Manages the Law Library’s physical space to maximize the benefit of this resource for the Law Library and the Law School more broadly.
Collaborates with the University librarian on a range of administrative matters to leverage University resources and to promote efficiency in the delivery of library services across the entire University.
In addition to managing the Wilbur C. Hall Law Library, the Assistant Dean of Legal Information Services will hold the title of Professor of Practice. In this capacity, the Assistant Dean will teach one or more legal research courses, including the first-year legal research course and advanced legal research, as needed. Additionally, the Assistant Dean may teach a doctrinal course in an area of expertise subject to need and feasibility.
Required Competencies

Strategic Thinking - Actively develops and aligns the departmental strategy with the University's vision, mission and values. Able to rally others behind the University's mission and create commitment to achieving long-term goals. Looks beyond the surface of problems, connects unrelated information and integrates it when making decisions. Able to quickly assess changing situations and recognize key risks involved in order to handle the problem or opportunity efficiently.
Change Adaptability - Champions change initiatives in own department, communicates rationale and provides updates throughout the change process to help others deal with ambiguity. Anticipates and addresses staff concerns throughout the change process, creating and maintaining open dialogue to obtain commitment and buy-in. Supports the practical utilization of new ideas that show promise and encourages diversity of thought in own department and others.
Communication and Networking - Adapts own style to deliver persuasive messages by understanding the audience, communication objectives and intended outcome. Serves as a role model by advocating a culture of openness and two-way communication across departments. Develops and maintains knowledge of key areas, persons in the University or larger community and uses social networks to build support for common purposes.
Drive for Results - Champions continuous improvement of work methods, policies and practices by providing resources and sharing success stories and lessons learned. Engages department in setting challenging goals and targets, encourages others to overcome obstacles and holds people accountable for results. Guides establishment of customer service processes to standardize a culture of customer service and sensitivity.
Talent Development - Supports processes to identify and reward talent by creating development opportunities, mentoring and coaching others to develop the next line of leaders. Proactively identifies and ensures development of critical future skills and capabilities for talent across the University and not just within a department. Takes time to actively build individual relationships on a formal and informal basis with University employees. Leads by example, by supporting the implementation of a sustainable performance development system (e.g., encouraging participation in goal setting activities, final year review, etc.).
The university requires employees to become fully vaccinated for COVID-19 and new employees must provide proof of at least their first shot prior to the first day of employment. Individuals may seek a medical or a religious exemption to the vaccination requirement.

Qualifications
The Assistant Dean will hold a J.D. degree from an ABA-accredited law school and a M.L.S. or equivalent degree from an ALA-accredited institution. Additionally, the Assistant Dean will have considerable experience in law library administration, including personnel management and management of financial resources.

In addition to possessing strong supervisory, communication, and leadership skills, preferred candidates will have an appreciation for the changing roles of law libraries in legal education and a willingness to continue the Law Library’s record of innovation in deploying resources in a manner that best serves the needs of the students, faculty, and other members of the Law School community.

Physical Requirements

Fingering: Picking, pinching, typing or otherwise working, primarily with fingers rather than with whole hand or arm as in handling.
Grasping: Applying pressure to an object with the fingers and palm.
Repetitive motions: Making substantial movements (motions) of the wrists, hands, and/or fingers.
Working Conditions

The worker is not substantially exposed to adverse environmental conditions (as in typical office or administrative work).
Sedentary work: Exerting up to 10 pounds of force occasionally and/or a negligible amount of force frequently or constantly to lift, carry, push, pull or otherwise move objects, including the human body. Sedentary work involves sitting most of the time. Jobs are sedentary if walking and standing are required only occasionally and all other sedentary criteria are met.
Application Instructions
To be considered, applicants should submit the following materials through the Interfolio portal: http://apply.interfolio.com/93228

CV
Personal statement
Contact information for three professional references
Review of applications will begin immediately and continue until the position is filled. For more information please contact Brian Murchison, chair of the search committee, at [email protected].

institution logo
Application Process
This institution is using Interfolio's Faculty Search to conduct this search. Applicants to this position receive a free Dossier account and can send all application materials, including confidential letters of recommendation, free of charge.
Apply Now
Powered by
Interfolio Opens in new window
Equal Employment Opportunity Statement
Washington and Lee is an Equal Opportunity Employer. As such, we are interested in candidates who are committed to high standards of scholarship, performance and professionalism and to the development of a campus climate that supports equality and diversity in our faculty, staff and student body. Job description requirements are representative, but not all‐inclusive of the knowledge, skill, and abilities needed to successfully perform this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable qualified individuals with disabilities to perform essential functions.

Statement of Commitment to Diversity

Washington and Lee affirms that diverse perspectives and backgrounds enhance our community. We are committed to the recruitment, enrichment, and retention of students, faculty, and staff who embody many experiences, cultures, points of view, interests, and identities. As engaged citizens in a global and diverse society, we seek to advance a positive learning and working environment for all through open and substantive dialogue.

Future Business Law Professors Conference @Villanova_Law

Future Business Law Professors Conference

Presented by the John F. Scarpa Center for Entrepreneurship and Law

Friday, September 10, 2021 9:00 a.m.–3:00 p.m. Virtual Event

The John F. Scarpa Center for Entrepreneurship and Law will host the second Future Business Law Professors Conference on Friday, September 10. All visiting assistant professors, fellows, researchers, law clerks, practitioners and others who are considering entering the higher education academic teaching market in business law—including business associations, securities regulation, corporate finance and business ethics—are invited to attend. This year’s conference will be virtual.

Participants will learn more about the business law teaching market, receive advice on how to be a successful candidate and meet future colleagues. Attendees will have the opportunity to participate in mock interviews and get a sneak-peak into the hiring process from current business law faculty. Some will be able to present their job talk paper to leaders in the field and receive feedback.

Faculty from University of Colorado Law School, Georgetown University Law Center, George Washington University Law School, University of Michigan Law School, University of Nebraska College of Law, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, University of Pittsburgh School of Law, Rutgers Law School, Temple University Beasley School of Law and Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law are scheduled to participate.

Please note registration is required. Attendees will receive an email from Eventbrite with the Zoom link on the day of the event. Registration is here.

Survey Anyone? Participate in a poll of legal academics

Kevin Tobia is conducting an anonymous survey, with a graduate student collaborator, to learn more about the legal academy and legal theory. Anyone who self-identifies as a member of the “legal academy” is invited to participate. Participants might include, among others: law professors, fellows, and students; legal practitioners; and scholars from adjacent fields.

The survey has three parts: 1. Demographics; 2. Your views about which areas of law are most “central” in the legal academy; 3. Your views about substantive questions in legal theory. You are invited to take all parts of the study and are welcome to skip any questions, for any reason. The survey has obtained ethical approval and no identifying information will be retained. Details about the survey construction can be found here. The survey will close on September 1, 2021. Thank you for your help!

To take the survey, follow this link.

Using Rewritten Judicial Opinions to Teach CRT While Reinforcing Doctrinal Lessons

These are certainly interesting times to teach and write about critical race theory. As CRT becomes the new political scapegoat, US law schools are (finally) beginning to explore how to teach students law while also teaching them about the racism (and misogyny and homophobia) embedded in the law.

The question, of course, is always how to integrate CRT. Standalone courses are great, but they reach only a handful of students. And law professors often feel like they cannot add lengthy critical scholarship readings to already overpacked doctrinal courses.

One answer to the dilemma is to use rewritten judicial opinions. The Feminist Judgments series offers opinions that look like “real” judicial opinions but include critical race reasoning (as well as other critical legal perspectives). These rewritten opinions are shorter than most scholarly articles and can be a quick and effective way to incorporate CRT into your class. Because they are relatively short, they can be assigned ahead of time along with the original opinion or can be read as part of an in-class exercise as described by Bridget Crawford in this book chapter.

Teaching sexual harassment law? Dean Angela Onwuachi-Willig’s rewritten opinion in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson uncovers the racial dynamics of sexual harassment that were obscured in the original opinion. Or maybe you are teaching employer appearance codes in your employment law class. Consider assigning Professor Wendy Greene’s rewrite of EEOC v. Catastrophe Management Solutions, in which she reveals the racism and misogyny underlying what US law considers professional or appropriate for the workplace.

Teaching battery in Torts and want to stimulate a critical discussion of the bias inherent in determinations of intent or damages? Consider Professor Alena Allen’s rewrite of Robinson v. Cutchin, in which she criticizes the argument that an African American woman subjected to an unwanted tubal ligation during her C-section had suffered “no additional physical pain, injury or illness.” Professor Allen’s opinion is the perfect vehicle to teach students about the dangers of an ahistorical approach to doctrine because it places the concept of informed consent in the context of the history of involuntary sterilization of poor African American women in the United States.

These are just a few examples. Others include Professor Marley Weiss’s rewrite of Ricci v. Distefano in the Employment Discrimination volume, Professor Jennifer Wriggins and Professor Sara Cressey’s rewrite of G.M.M. v. Kimpson in Torts, Professor David Brennen’s rewrite of Bob Jones University v. United States in the Tax volume, and Dean Browne Lewis’ rewrite of O’Neal v. Wilkes in the Trusts & Estates volume, and Professor Teri McMurtry-Chubb’s rewrite of Loving v. Virginia in the Supreme Court volume, to name just a few. Go to the Feminist Judgments website for resources about how to teach using alternative judgments.

The best part is that if your library subscribes to the electronic versions of the volumes on Cambridge Core, students and faculty can read and download individual opinions via their library websites with no extra charge. Right now, Cambridge University Press is running a promotion where readers can access free chapters and libraries (and others) can get a discount on purchases of volumes in the series.

If we are going to be criticized for teaching CRT anyway, we might as well run with it.

-Kathryn M. Stanchi

Teaching the Breonna Taylor Grand Jury Announcement in Real Time

"Justice failed us today. It failed us in a way that's been failing us for generations."

-Kentucky State Rep. Charles Booker

The Breonna Taylor grand jury announcement started immediately before my criminal adjudication class this past Wednesday, and while I knew the announcement would be disappointing and painful, I also knew I couldn’t ignore it. Rather than moving forward with class as usual, I decided to livestream the announcement of the grand jury’s decision as well as the Kentucky State Attorney General’s press conference with my class.

I was shocked and angered: By the grand jury’s decision to indict only one of the LMPD officers, Brett Hankinson, with three counts of first degree wanton endangerment, not for killing Ms. Taylor or endangering her or her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, but for endangering their neighbors in surrounding apartments. By Daniel Cameron’s press conference, which made it plain that prosecutors presented exculpatory evidence to the grand jury, which prosecutors only ever seem to do for cops. By Cameron’s continuing defense of the officers and of law enforcement in general. By his suggestion that many of the ills in the execution of search warrants could somehow be remedied by the formation of a new task force, likely to be headed by police officers and to accomplish nothing. 

My students were just as angry, confused, and heartbroken as I was. I let my students ask whatever questions or express whatever thoughts they felt comfortable sharing. They had astute questions about the operation of the grand jury, about the types of evidence allowed, about the meaning of “wanton endangerment,” and about whether grand jury transcripts would be released. A student remarked that, for the first time, they were having to confront the fact that “the law” and “justice” are not one and the same. Another asked, “Why do we keep using the grand jury when it seems fundamentally broken?”

I was honored and grateful to be able to discuss the grand jury’s decision, in real time, with my students. I’ve recently adopted a more thematic and problem-centered approach to my criminal procedure teaching as advocated by Lanni and Steiker in A Thematic Approach to Teaching Criminal Adjudication, rather than the traditional, strictly chronological approach. The class is more flexible and more immediately relevant to my students by incorporating more supplemental readings and materials outside of our traditional casebook, reflecting more recent developments in the field. This adaptability made it easier for us as a class to depart from the syllabus altogether to focus on the Taylor case, yet another important chapter in the story of criminal law, procedure, and police violence that unfolded that day before us. 

With the upcoming fight over the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, Election Day only a few weeks away, and the COVID-19 pandemic wearing on, we as law professors should be mindful not just that our students may feel spread thin, but that their law school experience--oftentimes tons of reading and discussion of often fusty old cases and other materials--may feel completely disconnected from their everyday lives. All our students likely have strong feelings about much of the recent news. Using current events in the law school classroom gives students the opportunity to connect what they’re learning with the world around them in concrete fashion, and can help to illustrate the importance of what they’re studying in a much more immediate and relatable way. Students have so many important questions and observations about the current political and legal environment; giving them the opportunity to voice them provides important opportunities for them to learn from each other anad for us, as professors, to teach and learn from them, even if doing so pushes us outside our pedagogical comfort zones.

Rosenblum: Our Shared Duty Now: Law Professors Must Bring Racial Equity into Each Course

The following is a guest post by Professor Darren Rosenblum (Pace).

The killing of George Floyd this summer has exposed, for a far broader (largely white) population, the endemic nature of racism and the urgent need to fix the vast inequities it creates throughout our legal system, but especially in criminal law. Recent data reveals how people of color are twice as likely to die from COVID-19 than whites. As with allowing anti-Black police violence, our public health choices reflect deliberate decisions by governments and companies as to whose lives matter.

As legal educators, we cannot repair the world. But as Edward Hale said “I am only one, but I am one. I can't do everything, but I can do something. The something I ought to do, I can do.” The urgent nature of the crisis obligates us to do something, and it must be now.

We law professors have seen how these exclusions play out within our institutions and our profession: Black students don’t advance as other students do. They don’t participate as much in class and in school governance. They join a legal profession that reflects a profound structural racism. Many Black associates join firms, but only a tiny number make partner.

It is our duty to begin to rectify this shocking inequality. We law professors share this responsibility, individually and collectively, to make law schools deliberately inclusive places for our students to learn. We must do this to make our Black students feel welcome so that they learn and become full members of our profession. We must also do it for all our students to model for them what our profession should look like.

Just as we labor over our first year curricula with fine-toothed combs to get the balance just right, we must endeavor to realize greater inclusion in our institutions. Many important conversations have happened this summer to evaluate these challenges, and the conclusions have been clear: we must do much more to include racial equity in our schools and classrooms.

I want to make a much more pointed intervention. While the conversations about racial equity should happen everywhere and in greater depth, here, I want to make a discrete challenge to my colleagues: each and every one of us – at my home institution and every other law school – should include one class in each course on racial equality issues.

 

 

Law Teaching During the Pandemic: What Profs Want Their Deans (and Other Administrators) to Know

Today I close out my 5-part series of blog posts reporting my very unscientific survey of law faculty experiences during the pandemic. I asked colleagues an open-ended question: Reflecting about your personal experience or about the experience of faculty generally during the pandemic, are there things you would like your law school dean/administration to know?

Representative responses after the fold.

80.5% of Law Professors Prefer In-Person Instruction

According to a National Student Survey (April Replication) by Simpson Scarborough (here), 70% of surveyed college students say that online education is "worse" than in-person instruction. The survey does not drill down on what respondents meant by "worse;" no doubt that those law profs teaching during this pandemic have plenty of anecdotal data about what "worse" has meant for our students.

In my unscientific survey of law professors' experiences teaching during the pandemic, I asked this question:

In terms of your personal preferences, how do you like teaching on-line sessions compared to teaching in the traditional, in-class environment?

Details after the fold.

Law Teaching During the Pandemic: What Profs Want Their Colleagues to Know

In my (unscientific) survey of law teaching during the pandemic (see here and here), I asked colleagues an open-ended question: Reflecting about your personal experience or about the experience of faculty generally during the pandemic, are there things you would like your faculty colleagues in general to know?

Representative responses after the fold.

Law Teaching During the Pandemic: Home Life and Access to Technology

As part of my (utterly unscientific) survey (described here), I asked law faculty to indicate whether several statements accurately described their situations. Of the 37 respondents, here are the percentages agreeing with each of the following statements:

I personally know someone who became sick from COVID-19.	60%
I faced increasing childcare or eldercare responsibilities.	45.7%
I faced food insecurity.	2.9%
I have a family member who is an essential worker.	20%
I have an immediate family member who has become unemployed or is worried about job security.	37.1%
I have more people living at home with me now than I usually do.	25.7%

The survey was administered from May 4 through May 11.  At different points in the pandemic, the results might vary. I had not asked my students the identical question when I surveyed them several weeks prior, so I cannot say how the faculty responses compare to student responses (see here). Anecdotally, though, it seems that faculty and students alike are facing many of the same concerns: increased family responsibilities and economic worries close to home.

Where faculty and student experience diverge seems to be on availability of home-based technology. I asked faculty respondents whether they had access to these items:

Reliable internet	97.3% yes
A reliable computing device (laptop, desktop, handheld device)	91.9% yes
A printer	78.4% yes
A quiet place at home for online teaching and course preparation	83.8% yes

Again anecdotally, because I did not pose the question to the students in the same way (I wasn't intending to do a comparative series of blog posts), many of my students this semester seemed to struggle with access to internet service, printers, and a quiet work space. What did surprise me in these survey results is the percentage of faculty (21.6%) without access to a printer. Based on the relative seniority of the faculty surveyed (see here) and my own stereotypes about students being more digitally intense than professors, I would have thought that more professors would have printers at home. It may be that professors are not as tied to paper as I thought, that they are tied to paper but do most of their printing at the office, or some other factor is at work.

What Law Faculty Want Students to Know

Shortly after the switch to online legal education, I surveyed the 99 students in my Corporations & Partnerships class about how they were doing generally and how they were experiencing online education. I included an open-ended question, "Is there anything you would like your professors generally to know?" Those results are here.

I recently surveyed an unrepresentative, unscientifically-selected group of U.S. law professors about their experiences of teaching in the pandemic. I solicited participants by emailing 61 local and national colleagues who I thought might be willing to respond. The colleagues taught at proverbial "T14" schools and schools of other ranks (measured by whatever conventional, if problematic, metric). I collected responses anonymously.

I received 37 responses from colleagues who taught in states on the West coast, East coast, and not-coasts. 36 respondents had recently finished teaching online during the Spring 2020 semester. One was scheduled to teach online this coming summer, but had not taught during the Spring 2020 semester.  Respondents' levels of experienced varied, perhaps skewed toward more senior faculty. Respondents included those with experience teaching 0-3 years (5.4%) and 35+ years (5.4%), with instructors having 25-35 years of teaching experience (29.7%) and 15-25 years of teaching experience (27%) well represented. Those with 3-7 years of teaching experience (10.8%) and 7-15 years of teaching experience (21.6%) rounded out the group.

Without making any claims about generalizability (the results decidedly are not generalizable), the responses are subjective snapshots of this particular time in American legal education.

Mirroring the question I had asked my students, I asked the (anonymous) faculty colleagues this open-ended question: "Reflecting about your personal experience or about the experience of faculty generally during the pandemic, are there things you would like your students in general to know?"  Representative responses appear after the fold.

SLU Law Journal Call for Papers: Special Issue on Teaching Law Online

From colleagues at SLU:

 

The Saint Louis University Law Journal is proud to announce the twenty-second installment of the Journal’s Teaching series, Teaching Law Online.

 

The Journal created the Teaching series in 2000 as a forum for scholars, judges, and practitioners to discuss key topics and methods of teaching legal subjects.  Since then, the Journal has published a teaching issue annually, such as Teaching Civil Procedure (47:1), Teaching Constitutional Law (49:3), Teaching Federal Courts (53:3), and our forthcoming issue, Teaching Property (64:3). 

 

Our Teaching Law Online issue, in line with our past issues, will include articles by prominent scholars and practitioners, sharing their thoughts on teaching legal subjects remotely, a topic that is especially relevant in the rapid transition to remote learning that has occurred this semester in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.  We hope to represent teachers with all levels of experience teaching legal subjects online, and we welcome submissions on any subject matter within the context of remote and online learning. 

 

Articles for our Teaching Series are usually between 3000–4000 words (approximately 12–15 double-spaced pages) long, although we regularly publish articles as long as 30 pages and as short as 10 pages.  Because the articles focus on the author’s own thoughts on teaching, only limited reference to outside sources is needed. We anticipate publishing this issue in the spring of 2021, and therefore ask that you submit your article for review via e-mail by August 1, 2020.  If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Michael McMahon, the Managing Editor of the Teaching Issue at [email protected]. 

Best Practices for Law Students Before, During, After Online Sessions

Over at the ABA's Before the Bar blog here, here and here, I have some tips for law students on how best to prepare for and digest material covered in online sessions. The posts have click-baity titles, but I am responsible only for the first title:

• I Don’t Care What You Wear to an Online Class (but Sitting at a Desk is a Good Choice
• 4 Keys to Staying Focused and Active During Online Courses
• 7 Things to Do After an Online Class Session Ends

 

What Our Students Want Us to Know

This semester, I'm teaching 99 students in Corporations & Partnerships. The shift to online teaching has not been without its hiccups. Last week, I send out a survey asking my students how they are doing generally and how they are experiencing online education.

I included in the survey an open-ended question: "Is there anything you would like your professors generally to know?"  I reprint representative responses below. No law professor in this time of crisis will be surprised by any of the substantive comments, but they ground my perspective as I look at the calendar that includes four more weeks of teaching.

• It's extremely nerve wracking knowing that I will likely be graduating into a recession with $150K+ in student loan debt, and now I don't even know if I will still have a job this summer.

• Mental health-wise, my anxiety has been pretty bad but I have been doing my best to complete my school work and push through. I just wanted to point this out as it might not be seen as an extreme circumstance, it still has slightly disrupted how I normally am able to study in a library or have separation of school and home. 

• I live with an individual that suffers from various mental disorders. This means there are times that I have to tend to them because they have unpredictable outbursts. This may factor into my learning or the final exam.

• I would say mostly that it is difficult to learn from home especially that my wife is home as well. We live in a one bedroom with our two pets so not much space for me to be alone. It is hard for me to get quiet time. 

• I have a very limited study space at home and no ideal place to take exams - only a very small kitchen table in a shared apartment.

• When being home, there is more distraction especially since my younger siblings have begun online schooling as well. Being closer to school years than my parents (and more technology savvy) I feel responsible for helping my younger siblings and finding it harder to put my studies first.

• Student anxiety is much higher than usual. Having to worry about your family and loved ones during all of this makes it that much harder to focus on school. It is tough.