History 3318-001 Course Outline U. S. Legal History II
Spring 2011 UH 02, on Tues/Thurs @ 11-12:20
Instructor: Elisabeth Cawthon Office Hours: Tues. and Thurs.
Office: 319 University Hall 9:30-11 am and by appt
email: syllabus is on Blackboard
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Shakespeare
Henry VI, Part II
Act IV, Scene ii
"God creates a miracle, now and then
Here lies a lawyer, an honest man." English tombstone
SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THE COURSE
The vast majority of United States citizens take pride in our legal system, boasting that it is the best in the world. We cherish guarantees found in the U.S. Constitution concerning justice, and affirm that there is no place on earth where we are treated more fairly in the courts. And yet we complain about our law and our justice system constantly. There are too many lawyers; the legal process works too slowly; trials are intricate; we sue too much; the Supreme Court is meddlesome; criminals go free.
How did we come to this moment, where we defend the system but gripe about how it actually works and, in particular, lampoon lawyers? This course traces the development of American law and judicial structure. We will emphasize the connections between law, public opinion, the legal profession, and the political process. The time period covered is Reconstruction to the present.
We will examine several famous cases, paying attention to the roles of attorneys, the press, and expert testimony within American courtrooms. A special focus will be on handling primary sources related to important legal episodes.
LEARNING OUTCOMES
Students will tie changes in the legal structure to developments in politics, the economy, and society. Students will identify examples of the judicial system’s responses to certain crises in modern U.S. history. Students will examine how the U.S. Constitution has been changed by amendments and judicial interpretation. Through essay exams, class discussions, and papers, students will assess changes over time concerning U.S. law, the legal system, and the legal profession.
DROP POLICY
University policy is that instructors will not drop students for excessive absences. Students are responsible for dropping a course before the cut-off date for drops. If you stop attending this class it is your responsibility to officially drop the course. If you stop attending but do not officially drop, you will receive an F.
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The University of Texas at Arlington is on record as being committed to both the spirit and letter of federal equal opportunity legislation; reference Public Law 92-112 - The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended. With the passage of federal legislation entitled Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), pursuant to section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, there is renewed focus on providing this population with the same opportunities enjoyed by all citizens.
As a faculty member, I am required by law to provide "reasonable accommodations" to students with disabilities, so as not to discriminate on the basis of that disability. Student responsibility primarily rests with informing faculty of their need for accommodation and in providing authorized documentation through designated administrative channels. Information regarding specific diagnostic criteria and policies for obtaining academic accommodations can be found at www.uta.edu/disability. You may visit the Office of Students with Disabilities in Room 102 of University Hall or call them at 817-272-3364.
If you require an accommodation based on disability, I would like to meet with you during the first week of the semester.
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
It is the philosophy of the University of Texas at Arlington that academic dishonesty is a completely unacceptable mode of conduct and will not be tolerated in any form. All persons involved in academic dishonesty will be disciplined in accordance with University regulations and procedures. Discipline may include suspension or expulsion from the University.
"Scholastic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to, cheating, plagiarism, collusion, the submission for credit of any work or materials that are attributable in whole or in part to another person, taking an examination for another person, any act designed to give unfair advantage to a student or the attempt to commit such acts." (Regents' Rules and Regulations, Series 50101, Section 2.2)
Please take special note of the fact that when you submit papers via the Blackboard system, you agree to have those papers scanned for plagiarism through the university’s software. Any amount of plagiarism on a paper will mean a grade of “0” on that paper. I also will report the plagiarism to the university through their formal system on academic dishonesty.
STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES AVAILABLE
The University of Texas at Arlington supports a variety of student success programs to help you connect with the University and achieve academic success. These programs include learning assistance, development education, advising and mentoring, admission and transition, and federally funded programs. Students requiring assistance academically, personally, or socially should contact the Office of Student Success Programs at 817-272-6107 for more information and appropriate referrals.
READINGS
Wolloch, Muller v. Oregon
Topp, The Sacco and Vanzetti Case
Moran, The Scopes Trial
Martin, Brown v. Board of Education
Friedman, Law in America
BLACKBOARD
We will be using Blackboard to communicate, along with email. My email address is . I will post details about daily readings through Blackboard—e.g. how to access links. I also will post study questions and tips on Blackboard, for many class days and for quizzes and exams. Please check both Blackboard and your official UTA email frequently.
GRADING
Listed below is a menu of choices from which you can select assignments and tests.
It is your responsibility to come up with 100 potential points for the course. If you go over the total of 100 points, then I will count the set of assignments that creates the highest grade out of 100 points.
Please note that the final exam is mandatory for all students. Also, no assignment can replace the final. All other assignments are optional; they can be replaced and made up, as described below.
If you do not complete enough assignments to make a total of 100 possible points then you still can pass the course, although your grade will suffer.
In-class objective exam #1: 33% of course total Thurs. Feb. 17
In-class objective exam #2: 33% of course total Tues. April 12
Final in-class ID exam (required for all students): 34% of course total Tues. May 10
Book quiz #1: (Muller v. Oregon) 11% of course total Tues. Feb. 15
Book quiz #2 (Sacco and Vanzetti) 11% of course total Tues. March 8
Book quiz #3 (The Scopes Trial) 11% of course total Tues. March 29
Book quiz #4 (Brown v. Board of Education) 11% of course total Thurs. April 7
Please note that you easily can skip one of the quizzes. If you take all 4 then I will count the highest three for your quiz total.
Take home essay #1: 33% of course total due Thurs. March 24
Take home essay #2: 33% of course total due: Tues. April 19
Therefore you will notice that in effect there is an independent study option “built in” to the course. You can complete 2/3 of the coursework through essays that you write outside of class, as long as you take the final exam at the regularly scheduled time.
Also, you will see that you can take the 3 quizzes and replace one in-class exam with them. You also can mix and match—e.g. use 3 quizzes+ one take-home essay + the final exam.
This set of options is designed to showcase your best work! It is not supposed to be confusing, so please let me know ASAP if you do not understand it. You do not have to do all of these assignments—and you will not get extra credit if you complete more of them than you need. But if you wish to do more than necessary, then that will give you flexibility at the end of the course to drop grades that you don’t want to use.
Please note that you will be able to make up all of the in-class ID exams and quizzes on the makeup day at the end of the semester, so that gives still greater flexibility.
The 1st in-class objective exam will consist of 33 fill-in-the-blanks questions.
The second in-class exam will consist of 22 fill-in-the-blanks questions plus one short-
answer ID question, on which you will write a long paragraph-- about one page. This serves as a preview of the IDs that will appear on the final exam.
The book quizzes each will contain 11 multiple-choice questions.
The final exam will consist of 10 terms that you will identify. Each identification answer will be a mini-essay about the term, and ought to run about 1 blue book page in length. On the exam sheet I will list 15 terms; you will choose the 11 terms on which you wish to write—i.e. you can eliminate 4 terms. Prior to the end of the semester I will hand out a study guide that will include all possible ID terms, so you can look up the terms in your notes and the readings. The final exam stresses material since exam #2, but it also goes back to the start of the course. That is, the final exam is partially comprehensive.
The book essays are each 6-8 page typed papers on topics that I have set, revolving around our assigned readings. Please see the end of the syllabus for specifications on the papers.
MAKEUP DAY
On Thursday, April 28, you will be able to make up or re-take any of the previous quizzes or exams. You do not have to present an excuse to do this. Just be at the makeup exam session! The final, though, cannot be taken early.
TAKE-HOME ESSAYS (optional)
Take-home essay #1: A legendary American lawyer
(33% of course grade, due on Thurs. March 24)
This assignment calls for you to compare and contrast different types of accounts about Clarence Darrow. The assignment has three components:
(a). Read at least one biography of Clarence Darrow.
Choose, for example, one book from this list:
Richard J. Jensen, Clarence Darrow: The Creation of an American Myth
John C. Livingston, Clarence Darrow: the Mind of a Sentimental Rebel
Kevin Tierney, Darrow: A Biography
Arthur Weinburg, ed., Attorney for the Damned
(b) Read the following case study about a trial in which Darrow represented the defense—One Man’s Castle –Clarence Darrow in Defense of the American Dream, by Phyllis Vine.
(c ) Watch one film portrayal of Darrow, such as that in the movie Inherit the Wind, or the one-man show by Henry Fonda.
Describe the picture that emerges from each of the sources you have selected, of Darrow as a person as well as a lawyer. What are the strengths and weaknesses of Darrow as described in each account? Pay special attention to Darrow’s legal career. How does each writer or filmmaker differ from one another in conveying Darrow?
Is it possible to discuss Darrow without reference to the law? Why or why not?
Take-home essay #2: Political radicals and U.S. justice
(33% of course grade, due on Tuesday April 19)
Consider three major episodes in modern U.S. history: the Haymarket trials, the Sacco-Vanzetti controversy, and the Rosenberg case. Without providing a full review of all three incidents, spend about the first one-quarter of your essay noting key similarities and differences among the cases.
Locate and read one historical study (a book for each case) concerning each case. These books should have been written within the last 10 years. For about one-half of your essay, address these questions:
How does each historian propose to reexamine such a well-known story?
That is, what is each scholar saying that is new about each incident?
Is this scholar using newly discovered materials? Or perhaps is s/he reinterpreting older
sources?
Focus particularly on the legal aspects of the occurrences, such as the trials or the
forensic evidence, and how historians recently have reevaluated the historical
record. Be sure to include a bibliography with the publication dates listed.
In the concluding one-fourth of your essay, explain the current state of scholarship concerning the three episodes taken together. You will have to create such a conclusion yourself; you probably will not find all three of these cases pulled together in such a way.
SYLLABUS
Overview
Tues. Jan. 18: Introduction to course
Thurs. Jan. 20: methods and materials
Segregation and discrimination
Tues. Jan. 25: Native Americans Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903)
African Americans Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Asian Americans Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
Latinos and Hispanics Cal. ex rel Kimberly v. Guerra (1870)
Individuals and the law
Thurs. Jan. 27: law and the family Reynolds v. U.S. (1879)
Waldron v. Waldron (Cal. 1890)
Tues. Feb. 1 women’s suffrage U.S. v. Susan B. Anthony (1873)
Thurs. Feb. 3 mental illness U.S. v. Guiteau (1882)
Regulation of the economy
Tues.. Feb. 8 Trust-busting Sherman Anti-Trust Act (18900
the commerce power The Interstate Commerce Act (1887)
U.S. v. E.C. Knight (1895)
Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust (1895)
Thurs. Feb. 10 job health Muller v. Oregon (Wolloch book)
Tues. Feb. 15 workplace safety The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/Trianglefire/