Leo wrote:
 
>        I do not know if Robert Lamb is wrong when he states
>
>        ". . . [I]t is important to set the context of law in our lives.
>To ensure that students develop a philosophy of the purpose that law
>plays in their individual lives is perhaps one of the most important
>things we can do in teaching the law."
>
>        But I would like to hear him or another explain *why* that is
>so.  Why is it more important, as the recent discussion suggests, to learn
>the "context" of law, than the laws themselves?
 
***How can anything be truly learned out of context? On one level we teach
rules in a factual context (the facts of the case); but, how can the law (a
rule of law) itself be  truly understood, appreciated, criticized, or
accurately and fairly applied without an understanding of the rule's
intended purpose as found in the historical context out of which it grew?
For example, I submit that the dismal state of the Bill of Rights in the
minds of a disturbing number of Americans is because many have lost their
sense of history and have little understanding or even an awareness of the
higher moral principles on which our rights are based. (Because they have
not been taught the historical and moral context.) The result in my opinion
is that short-sightedness has replaced thinking about long-term
consequences, and egoism has replaced a more principled style of moral
reasoning which considers others as important, especially the "least
advantaged" among us (I try to be a Rawlsian!).  Understanding the
historical, social, economic, and moral context of who we are and what we
do is a sine qua non of being educated and being a good citizen.
Unfortunately, it is all to often ignored in professional education--not to
mention K-12.
 
I guess, Leo, that I do not understand the concept of "the laws themselves"
as even being possible.
 
>        Regarding the Hooters example Bob gives, rather than for
>perpetuating discrimination, isn't the law (and not, I add, the context of law)
>being used to *end* a discriminatory practice at Hooters?
 
***Again, in my view, "law" is a rule in its context, not a rule alone. How
can we be sure the rule against discrimination protects WASP males unless
we know something about what Congress intended when they passed Title VII?
Most of my students believe the CRA protects only women and minorities
because they have a *wrong* idea of the law's purpose (context) obtained
from the popular media. And of course, how can any morally principled
thinker believe that race or gender discrimination against any human-being
is justified? (I don't define discrimination as including the Aff.Action
concept of "all-other-things- being-equal" preferences, another victim of a
misunderstood context--at least by Governor Pete "Flip" Wilson and certain
other Republicans!) As law teachers I submit we have an *obligation* to
teach context if for no other reason than to correct the misunderstandings
which our students bring with them into our classrooms.
 
My "wit" grows thin, so 'nuf said.
 
Keith
 
Prof. Keith A. Maxwell                |  Voice:    206 756 3703
Legal and Ethical Studies in Business |  Fax:      206 756 3500
1500 N. Warner                        |  Internet: [log in to unmask]
University of Puget Sound             |---------------------------------------
Tacoma, WA 98416                      |  "Brevity is the soul of wit."
                                      |
                                      |