My commitment to Law Review has two components this year: I must check cites, and I must write my own comment (essay/article), which requires me to do a three-credit independent study under the guidance of a professor. Currently, I am most concerned with finding a good topic and adviser. I am almost two months behind the non-transfer students in these two areas.

I am taking this opportunity to do research in the areas of international human rights and environmental law. I have been conducting preliminary research in climate change, water issues, and the environmental jurisprudence of regional human rights systems. I have (happily) discovered that the area of human rights and the environment has been covered more thoroughly by commentators than I had expected. As a result, I am having a difficult time finding a legitimate, timely, and innovative topic.

If you have any suggestions that you would like to share for research in the areas of international human rights and the environment, please post them here.

My wife and I discussed the matter and decided that we would study Spanish together this summer. We figured that if we were diligent we could speak Spanish with one another in the home — a mini-immersion experience. I began scanning the web for the best language learning program for us. There are an incredible number of programs out there and many online reviews highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each (as well as a number of fraudulent reviews, obviously pushing a particular program). I narrowed my choices down to Rosetta Stone, Learning Spanish Like Crazy, Pimsleur Spanish, Barron’s Mastering Spanish, and FSI Programmatic Spanish.

I considered three factors when determining which program to purchase. First, I wanted the program that was best structured for my learning style. For me, this meant that the program must contain an audio element as well as some kind of text book, so that I can study the grammar. Second, I wanted a program that would fit my needs so that I could study at home and while on the road where I might not have access to the internet. Third, I wanted something that wasn’t going to cost an arm and a leg. With these considerations in mind, I determined that FSI Programmatic Spanish would be the best all around program for me.

FSI Programmatic Spanish was developed by the Foreign Service Institute of the U.S. Department of State to teach diplomats, FBI agents, and other government personnel. The course is praised for being one of the most effective ways to learn Spanish. It is criticized for lacking some of the more dynamic elements of other programs, and for being a very demanding course, requiring serious dedication.

A number of different publishers offer the full suite of FSI Programmatic Spanish courses on CD or by download. Prices vary significantly. The best price I found was through amazon.com, which offers the full set of courses for under $190.

$190 still seemed a little steep to me, so I continued to search for a better deal. I quickly learned that FSI Programmatic Spanish as well as many other FSI foreign language programs are either in the public domain or under a creative commons license. In other words, these programs are available for free!

At least two websites offer free access to and/or downloads of FSI materials. The best site is FreeLanguageCourses.com. They offer many of the language courses for quick download in a zipped file. All of the text files are in PDF, and all audio files are in MP3 format. This means that you can put the audio files on your iPod and listen to them in a plain, train, or automobile. So far, FreeLanguageCourses.com provides access to courses in Arabic, Cambodian, Standard Chinese, French, German, Hebrew, Hungarian, Khmer, Spanish, Swedish, and Thai. They also provide free downloads of other possibly helpful sources.

Another site, FSI Language Courses, offers access to even more of the FSI courses. However, the audio files are not easily downloadable, and their server seems to have some intermittent problems.

So, now that you know how to obtain quality language resources for free, all you have to do is set aside an hour or two everyday to study, find a speaking partner, and get to it.

Completing the first year of law school has been the most difficult and challenging thing I have ever done. At the end of the semester, one of my professors sent our class off with the words, “Be proud of yourselves; you have accomplished something of great consequence.” I admit that I let this puffery affect me for an hour or two. On the one hand, I am proud of making it through this year, having performed decently in a strong program. I know that this is an intellectual achievement and a testament to one’s willpower. On the other hand, I instinctively question whether such an accomplishment, in itself, is truly one of consequence. I think a law degree, or any degree, is theologically significant as a forum for the expression and acquisition of the virtue and character that it takes to complete and do well. This is true only insofar as one expresses and acquires virtue and character consistent with the nature of God. As you can imagine, law school is a hotbed for negative character development. A law student can certainly, and often does, succeed through the inculcation and exhibition of greed, pride, and cut-throat competitiveness. To the degree that one makes his or her way through law school on the strength of these and similar expressions of character, that person has accomplished something no consequence, or only of negative consequence.

The basic structure of my thesis is three-part, and it is something like what follows.

(1) Like all power structures, the legal system is corrupt or fallen from both the inside-out and the outside-in. The outer manifestations of this corruption are easy enough to see, but the inner aspect of the legal system — its ethos or spirituality — is often ignored. Powers theory, as articulated by Walter Wink, sheds significant light on the nature of the ethos of the legal system. Wink’s theory helps us to see the broader picture of how and why the legal system is corrupt.

(2) Following Alasdair MacIntyre, the American legal system may be understood as a tradition. The legal system is corrupt, in part, because it has not evolved properly, which is the result of its strict observance of tradition. In other words, when a legal tradition encounters epistemological crises it does not adequately adapt to or process these crises because of the inflexibility and rigidity built into the system. The legal system repeatedly exhibits what I have come to call a stare decisis crisis. The rigidity of the legal tradition does not permit positive countervailing forces, from within and outside of the tradition, to act. Therefore, the legal system is restricted from positive change; its negative ethos is static. A negative feedback loop is created, and the tradition stagnates. The fallen powers of the legal system are not challenged.

(3) Moral formation, through a process of inculcating practices and building a certain kind of virtue, takes place within the legal system, just as in any tradition. However, moral formation in the legal system is inadequate because the tradition lacks proper moral sources. Moral sources are lacking in the tradition because it is corrupt, stagnant, and relatively impervious to outside influence. Moral formation in the legal system is rooted in the education provided by law schools. Law schools repeatedly fail at this task.

These are my rudimentary thoughts and need much work. I will continue to flesh out these ideas and tighten up the reasoning and associations in future posts.

The white clergymen essentially accused King and his nonviolent direct action of being extreme. King responded thus.

“But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” Was not Amos an extremist for justice: “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.” Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: “I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.” Was not Martin Luther an extremist: “Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God.” And John Bunyan: “I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience.” And Abraham Lincoln: “This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.” And Thomas Jefferson: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, than all men are created equal…” So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremist for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary’s hill three me were crucified. We must never forget tat all three were crucified for the same crime – the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth, and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.”

The world is still in need of creative extremists.

I am taking my ques from Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue and Whose Justice? Which Rationality?. According to MacIntyre, public discussions of justice are incoherent because that one word or concept has a multiplicity of meanings. These meanings are mediated by one’s specific tradition and narrative. In the end, discussions of justice break down when outside of a particular tradition. In short, the word ‘justice’ has too many meanings to truly make sense when spoken in public. Because of its size and multiculturalism, talk of justice in law school suffers from the same difficulties as talk of justice in public.

This problem became most apparent during class discussions. One student would find a court decision perfectly just, while another student would comment that her sense of justice was completely offended by the court’s holding. Further discussion over the court decision would then stagnate; the students would simply agreed to disagree. Students and professors re-enacted this scenario every day of the semester.

Another typical manifestation of the problem is the law student who takes inconsistent positions throughout a course: one day the student argues that someone guilty of negligent vehicular homicide deserves life in prison; the next day the same student argues that a serial rapist should be let off easy.

These kinds of break downs and inconsistencies could be avoided if students were alerted to the fact that we all employ various concepts of justice in everyday thinking and in class. I imagine that some hold more tightly to one view of justice, while others employ varying views depending on the situation they encounter. Nonetheless, we would all benefit if we were able to articulate the various theories of justice with which we are operating. Being able to perceive and name theories of justice will help us to avoid the break downs and inconsistencies briefly mentioned above. Plus, a better understanding of justice will inevitably make law students into better practitioners of law.

This missing understanding of justice is not just present in law schools, it is endemic in American law. For one very simple example, look to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the set of rules that govern the processes of civil lawsuits). Rule 8(f) has to do with the construction of pleadings; it states, “All pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.” What does “substantial justice” mean in this context? How one interprets this phrase will vary tremendously depending on the theory of justice employed. For example, one who sees little difference between substantive and procedural justice will interpret this phrase differently from one who understands substantive justice as aid and advocacy for the orphan and widow.

Before going too far, I must admit that discussion of theories of punishment is common is criminal law classes. Some may argue that this replaces the need to discuss theories of justice, for these two are aligned in many respects. Theories of punishment include retributive theories, utilitarian theories (deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation), and even restorative theories (rarely). While these theories of punishment point to underlying theories of justice, one cannot equate punishment with justice. To assume the necessity of some form of punishment is to already assume a particular view of justice. The two are often interdependent, but they are distinct. Discussion of punishment in law school should not preclude discussion of justice.

The solution to the overarching problem mentioned herein is simply to discuss theories of justice. Law professors must point out to students that theories of justice differ greatly and we all have latent ideas about justice that we articulate without even knowing it. While our ideas of justice may remain incommensurable, at least we will know where our fellow students and practitioners are coming from.

When studying for finals, one enters into a different world — a different country, if you will. It is a country where all reality revolves around a few (ultimately insignificant) exams. While in this place one is apt to lose hope and to abandon those things in life that bring joy. It is so easy in this place to be overcome by a kind of deterministic thinking in which the slightest mistake on an exam can be seen to influence the future course of your life. This is a dark country.

After finals are over, coming back to reality is a relief, but I have often found it difficult to re-enter my old life. It takes me days to recuperate and become my old self. I think this experience is analogous to the culture shock that one has when returning from a long trip or stay in another country (not to mention “jet-lag” experienced because of the time differnce between my normal and finals schedule).

Three days have passed since my last exam of the semester, and I am finally starting to actually feel the relief of being done, and my sense of guilt from not studying is slowly eroding. I have four weeks of holiday celebration and general relaxation ahead of me. I sure am happy to be back from Law-land!