1
Rhetoric 375: Legal Rhetoric
Spring 2010
Monday-Wednesday-Friday 1:10 – 2:00
Center 300
Professor: Todd McDormanOffice: FA209
Phone: 361-6183 (O)E-mail:
361-5807 (H)—do not call after 9 p.m.
Office Hours: MWF10:00-11:00; T 11:00-Noon. I will generally be in my office much of each day (except for Thursday afternoons); you’re free to drop by.
Course Description: This course examines the law from a rhetorical perspective. While that can mean many different things, we will primarily examine the rhetoric of Supreme Court opinions, develop approaches to studying these opinions, and consider the social ramifications of Supreme Court rhetoric. We will proceed from the perspective that a legal ruling is the beginning, rather than the end, of the social life of the law, and the course is as concerned with the social repercussions that result from court decisions as the decisions themselves. The primary focus of the course is on the production of a significant rhetorical analysis of a Supreme Court decision/legal controversy of your choosing.
Objectives and Goals: This course should expand your knowledge and understanding of a range of fields and subjects, including:
- an understanding of how the law works as a rhetoric of power
- a familiarity with the conventions of legal decision making
- an expanded understanding of the Supreme Court
- an understanding of the social implications of legal decisions
- This course should also supplement skills and modes of thought you have developed in other courses at WabashCollege. Specifically you should develop critical thinking skills in relation to legal decision making, advanced ability in rhetorical criticism, and improved writing and research skills.
Course Readings are available via Moodle
Course Policies and Assignments
I hope this proves to be both a valuable and interesting course. In the scheme of society, few people actually sit down and read Supreme Court opinions—even fewer do so without a law degree. As such, I expect this to be a challenging course, but I also suspect it will give you a new perspective on “the law.” The reading in the course is sometimes heavy, but the number of assignments is relatively few. As a result, I am expecting a good deal of effort in the few assignments you do have in the course—don’t attempt to write either version of your essay in a night—or even over a weekend—that simply won’t be enough time.
Assignments:
Discussion and Attendance150 points
Appeals Case Reaction 50 points
Context Essay and
Presentation150 points
Quizzes and Exams125 points
Case Criticism Project
Proposal 50 points
Essay 1125 points
Final Essay200 points
Presentation100 points
Peer critiques 50 points
Discussion and Attendance: This is a discussion based class in which your participation and attendance are not merely encouraged but expected. For the most part, this class will not be lecture based. I will provide relevant context, some rhetorical, legal, historical, and social explanations, and questions for discussion. You will also find yourself leading class when you do your case context presentation. The class should be a forum for the discussion of a variety of issues and will not be rewarding to you or me if I am consistently forced to espouse my philosophy of law and rhetoric.
You are permitted three absences during the course of the semester. Additional absences will be excused if the proper documentation (such as a Dean’s Excuse, a note from the health center, etc.) is provided. It is much easier to address attendance issues (illnesses etc.) as they develop than it is when you return from a two week absence during which you made no effort to contact me. Stuff happens, students sometimes have to miss class, together we should be able to deal with it.
A special note on H1N1 and the seasonal flu: It is likely that we will experience another flu outbreak in the spring semester. You need to save your absences to account for this possibility and you need to be sure to not come to class if you appear to have the flu. I have an infant at home and he is more susceptible to complications from the flu. You bring the flu to me and I might take the flu home to him. If you have not already done so, I encourage you to get flu vaccinations.
Appeals Case Reaction: One of your course assignments is to write a reaction to the Indiana Court of Appeals case that will be held on campus on Thursday February 25 at 3:00. For this assignment you are asked to write a 3 paged typed (double spaced) reaction to the case. You should explain how you feel the case should be decided and why, addressing the key legal issues. This assignment must be submitted on time because it will serve as the topic of class discussion for class on Friday February 26.
Case Context Essay and Presentation: You will write a 6-8 page case context essay and make a 15 minute oral presentation about the historical/social/legal circumstances and ramifications of a Supreme Court case on the course syllabus. This will most likely be done with another member of the class.
This assignment does not ask you to summarize the legal findings of the case (which we will discuss as a group), but instead asks that you consider factors such as: the social pressures that brought the issue to light, its legal precedents, the context of the issue under review by the Court and its importance, Court dynamics in reaching a decision, and its subsequent social and legal implications. The presentation is a way of orienting the class to the important legal and social dimensions of the issue and will lead us into discussion. You also might consider emailing discussion questions to the class in advance of your presentation, and subsequent to your presentation you will be expected to help lead the class discussion.
I encourage you to submit a preliminary essay one week prior to the presentation so that I may review it and provide suggestions for revision and for the presentation. The essay and oral presentation should use at least 5-7 sources that go beyond those used in the course (although you are welcome to draw on course materials as well)—and I note that the Internet is generally a poor source for this assignment. You want to visit the library (book) catalogue, particularly since the library has acquired a number of books on course topics since I began teaching this class.
Ultimately this assignment should give everyone in the class additional insight into the circumstances of each case and controversy. This material may appear on course quizzes and exams.
Quizzes and Examswill account for 125 points (12.5%) of the course grade. There will be one exam, while a quiz (or quizzes) is possible depending on my perceptions of your care in reading course material. The quiz or quizzes will primarily contain short answer and fact-based questions drawn from the Supreme Court opinions and rhetorical analyses we read, lectures, discussions, and student presentations. The exact form of such quizzes is uncertain—they may be announced in advance and taken in class or they may be “pop” quizzes. While the course exam is likely to include similarly formatted questions, it is more likely to have an essay focus.
Case Criticism Project: The bulk of your energy in the course will be devoted to developing a substantial rhetorical critique of a Supreme Court case. As you read the case analyses during the course, you will find that there are a variety of approaches and perspectives you might apply (you might also draw from rhetorical perspectives or methods you have learned in other rhetoric courses). This will be a research essay and will require you to draw from Supreme Court cases, communication journals, historical studies, and law review articles. The project consists of four parts:
Proposal: The first aspect of the project is a proposal. The proposal will likely be arranged as follows: (1) a one paragraph explanation of the case you wish to select and why it interests you; (2) a paragraph explanation of the case’s legal-social importance; (3) an approximately two-paragraph explanation of rhetorical theory, methods, or concepts that appear relevant for your critique; (4) an approximately three paragraph explanation of features of the rhetoric in the ruling that are worth examining (specific arguments, terminology, and vocabulary for instance). It seems obvious to me but, you must read your case prior to writing the proposal and then write the proposal with specific references to the text. You will also be required to turn in a copy of the case with your proposal (I will keep this copy and use it while evaluating the entirety of your project). NOTE: Only one student may critique each case—I will approve selections on a first-come-first-served basis. The proposal is due FridayFebruary 19.
Essay 1: On MondayMarch 15your first critique of your selected case is due. This is not a rough draft. This is expected to be a complete and polished essay. In this essay you will offer a rhetorical analysis of a case. There is not one set formula to use in approaching the project—the perspective you adopt will vary depending on the case and your interest. Again, several of the essays we read in class will be good models. You might critique a certain language technique in the case, you might critique the argument in various opinions, you might critique the use of history/precedent etc. but regardless this critique must be rooted in rhetorical theory. In general your essay will consist of:
Introduction and statement of thesis/argument
Context of case and explanation of rhetorical method
Application of rhetorical perspective and critique of case
Conclusion
The essay should be 10 to 15 pages in length. It will require outside research to support your rhetorical, legal, and historical contentions although I am not specifying a specific number of sources. The essay should be well written and conform to an accepted style manual [If you fail to use a style such as MLA, APA, or Chicago, you will receive a one letter grade deduction on your essay]. You are expected to make an argument in this essay as to how the case can and should be read—and any good argument needs support (it cannot simply be asserted).
Final Essay: Your final essay is due MondayApril 26. It should represent a significant revision, extension, and development of your original essay. In argument, research, and writing it should be worthy of convention presentation. The format will likely closely resemble your first essay, with one notable exception. This essay must explicitly consider the social implications of the ruling. That is it must reflect on what sort of world is created by the ruling and, perhaps, even how the public responded to the ruling. This reflection will likely be included as an additional section between the case critique and the conclusion.
The essay should be 20 to 25 pages in length and composed in a clear, engaging style. Both the writing and the research should be advanced from the original essay, particularly in terms of the social/legal implications of the case.
Presentation: The semester will conclude with a presentation of your research. This will be a 15 minute presentation in which you will make an argument about the case under review. That argument, rooted in rhetorical analysis, will likely focus on one particularly important aspect of your essay (you obviously can’t present a 20-25 page paper in 15 minutes). The criteria for the speech:
Clarity of argument/interpretation of case
Support/Evidence for Interpretation
Clear and accurate use of rhetorical concepts
Organization
Extemporaneous delivery—not read! (Maximum of “C” if you read your presentation)
Eye contact
Effectiveness in managing discussion/questions after the speech
Do not use your essay as a manuscript when delivering your presentation.
Presentations will occur during the last two weeks of the semester. Two presentations will be made in each class session. One week in advance of your presentation, you should provide the class with approximately 10 pages of reading relevant to the presentation—case syllabus, portion of the Court’s opinion, or some other document of your choosing. This material will provide relevant context and help spark questions and discussion. Students are expected to read the material provided by speakers and it may be used in the final exam.
Late assignments: It is expected that assignments will be completed on time; this is particularly important for your first essays given when they are due and the peer critiques that follow. You are, of course, always welcome to turn your essays in early! I will work with you on problems—but you must work with me. If a problem arises contact me as soon as possible—it is much easier to correct a situation in advance than to attempt to devise a solution after the fact. If it is an appropriate hour, call me; you can always send me an email. Late papers will be assessed a penalty of 10% for each day late. It is critical that your “case context presentation” be presented on the day assigned because otherwise it disrupts the class schedule.
The Gentleman’s Rule is in effect in this class. Its relevance is two-fold. First, you should treat all those in our classroom with gentlemanly respect. People in this class obviously have differing beliefs and views; your comments should engage but not demean those views. Second, all work you produce should be both your own and original for this class. You should be familiar with the meaning of plagiarism and academic dishonesty. Copying material without appropriate citation, cheating during a quiz/exam, submitting material you previously did for another course, and submitting an essay which does not represent your own original work are four examples of which you should be aware. If you have any questions or doubts about the permissibility of a practice or conduct please discuss it with me.
Cell phones and other electronic devices: Your cell phone should be off during class. Setting your phone on vibrate does not constitute it being off—some vibration settings are easily noticed and if the phone vibrates across the desk it is a distraction. If your cell phone rings during class, I will be unhappy; if it rings while a student is giving a presentation you will lose one letter grade off of your own presentation of the given assignment. You should not read or send text messages during class. If you are doing so there will be a repercussion ranging from a loss of attendance points to being asked to read the message for the class to having to bring in candy for the class. Cell phones and other electronic devices must be turned off and put away (i.e. they cannot be on your desk or in a place where they are visible to you or others) during any quizzes and the course exam.
Organization: Essentially, the course is organized in four units. The first unit orients you to the study of legal rhetoric. The middleunits examine cases related to specific areas of legal/social/rhetorical concern: race/civil rights and personal liberty or freedoms. The final unit is a discussion of student research.
This is a tight but flexible schedule—sometimes we will linger on a topic; and it is possible that we will elect not to cover a topic. It is crucial that you listen carefully each class for what the topic and reading will be for the following class session.
Preliminary Schedule of Classes
DateTopicReading/Due
I. The Supreme Court and the Rhetoric of Law
M Jan. 18Course IntroductionSyllabus
U.S. Constitution
W Jan. 20The History of the Supreme CourtIrons
Discuss Case Context Assignment
F Jan. 22The Work of the Supreme CourtO’Brien
McLauchlan
M Jan. 25Legal Perspectives on Prentice, “Supreme Ct Rhetoric” [pp. 85-102]
Legal RhetoricWhite, “Law as Rhetoric"
White, “Judicial Criticism”
W Jan. 27Rhetorical Perspectives onLucaites, “Between Rhetoric . . .”
Legal RhetoricScallen, “Judgment, Justification”
Hasian, “Critical Legal Rhetorics”
F Jan. 29No Class: Student Research Celebration
M Feb. 1Rhetorical Persp. Continued
Project Introduction
II. Rhetoric and Race in the Law
W Feb. 3Context of Dred Scott (1857)Taney Opinion
Discussion
F Feb. 5ContinueDred ScottNelson and Curtis Opinions
M Feb. 8Conclude Dred ScottMcDorman, "History, Collective Memory and
the Supreme Court"
W Feb. 10Context of Plessy (1896)Plessy v. Ferguson
Discussion
DateTopicReading/Due
F Feb. 12Continue Plessy Hasian, Condit, Lucaites, “Rhetorical Boundaries”
M Feb. 15Conclude Plessy
Discussion of Project Proposals
W Feb. 17Context of BrownBrown I (1954) and Brown II (1955)
Discussion
F Feb. 19Continue Brown I & II Prentice, “Supreme Ct. Rhetoric” [pp. 102-22]
Project Proposals Due
M Feb. 22Context of Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)Case Syllabus and O’Connor Opinion
Discussion
W Feb. 24Continue Grutter Excerpts from Scalia and Thomas dissents
Thursday February 25 at 3:00 in Goodrich Room of Lilly Library
Indiana Court of Appeals Oral Argument
F Feb. 26Discussion of Oral ArgumentAppeals Court Reaction
III. The Law and the Personal Freedoms
M Mar. 1Context of Korematsu v. U.S. (1944)Opinions from Black and Frankfurter
Discussion
W Mar. 3Continue KorematsuRoberts, Murphy, and Jackson dissents
F Mar. 5Conclude KorematsuRountree, "Instantiating 'The Law'"
Spring Break
M Mar. 15Context of Buck v. Bell (1927)Buck v. Bell
DiscussionEssay 1 Due
W Mar. 17Continue Buck v. Bell Hasian & Croasmun, “Legitimizing Function”
F Mar. 19Peer Critique Meetings
M Mar. 22Context of Cruzan Cruzan v. Missouri Dept. of Health (1990)
DiscussionRehnquist majority, Scalia concurrence
W Mar. 24Continue CruzanBrennan and Stevens dissents
F Mar. 26Analysis of the Right-to-DieMcDorman, “Controlling Death”
DateTopicReading/Due
M Mar. 29Tentative:Baxter v. MontanaBaxter (Montana Supreme Court, 2009)
W Mar 31Context of Roe v. Wade (1973)Syllabus and Blackmun Opinion
Discussion
F Apr. 2Continue RoeRehnquist dissent
M Apr. 5Context of CaseyPlanned Parenthood v Casey (1992):
DiscussionO'Connor, Kennedy, Souter Opinion