Academy Forum puts teaching in context

If the true purpose of a liberal education is to put the knowledge gained into context, Tuesday’s Academy Forum made strides to that effect.

The differing perspectives of law and political science merged at the forum presented by SMU’s Center for Teaching Excellence.

Law school professor Ellen Pryor and political science professor Joe Kobylka brought the study of law in undergraduate classes, such as history and political science. The professors compared and contrasted the manner in which the subjects are presented by the law school for law students.

“The thing that makes you intelligent is working at it [analysis] from different perspectives,” Kobylka said. “[It is not] in the memorization of trivia.”

Kobylka used an analogy of masonry. With the same bricks, a great number of different walls can be built.

“You have to have in your toolkit the things you need to best complete your job,” Kobylka said.

Using a Supreme Court case, New York Times vs. Sullivan, Kobylka discussed the changing times and context in which the landmark case was decided.

“It’s not an arid elementary analysis,” SMU law professor William Bridge said.

A much better sense of analysis and a consideration of the differing perspectives of overlapping disciplines is needed.

Progressive decisions of the Warren court – nationalization of the Bill of Rights, criminal law and the right to privacy – began legislation regarding civil rights. Brown vs. the Board of Education was a green light for the civil rights movement.

The social unrest of the movement, catalyzed by the G.I. Bill, the raised expectations of more highly educated African-American World War II veterans and the growing division over American participation in Vietnam, was also part of the context.

The case set several legal precedents concerning First Amendment rights. It introduced a new concept of injury.

“A line has to be drawn, but where that line is, is contestable,” Pryor said.

The case involved a full-page advertisement, entitled ‘Heed Their Rising Voices,’ ran in The New York Times on March 29, 1960.

650,000 copies of The Times were distributed, 359 to Alabama – 35 of which made it to Montgomery County.

L. B. Sullivan was one of the three elected commissioners of the City of Montgomery, Ala. He brought a civil libel action based on accusation that erroneous statements were aimed at him in reference to the Montgomery police.

A jury in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County awarded him the full amount claimed – damages of $500,000. The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the lower court decision.

One precedent of the Supreme Court ruling was that erroneous statements were inevitable in a lively debate. It also set the test for libel.

The court held “that the Constitution delimits a State’s power to award damages for libel in actions brought by public officials against critics of their official conduct. Since this is such an action, the rule requiring proof of actual malice is applicable.”

The plaintiff now carried the burden of proof to recover punitive damages. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Alabama was reversed.

More than 55 students attended the forum to discuss the approaches of the complementary disciplines.

“We are not looking at mutually exclusive courses of study,” said Pryor. “Law comes into political science and political science comes into law.”

The New York Times vs. Sullivan was a landmark case both socially and legally. The Academy Forum, Pryor and Kobylka, chose the case to demonstrate its importance.

“We are trained to be advocates,” said Gabe Vazquez, third year law student. “So our focus is on the facts of the case and not the social context.”

Kelly Rentzel, a third year law student, added “It would be good to have a broader perspective.”