Public Discourse Project: Bringing Civil Discourse to Law Schools

Prof. JoAnn Koob at George Mason University [Antonin Scalia] School of Law told me about this project, which sounds very interesting, so I thought I'd pass it along. Here's the blurb from her:

Bringing Civil Discourse to Law Schools

As the country becomes increasingly divided, civil and thoughtful discussion about important issues is often shut down before it can get off the ground. The Public Discourse Project, which is run by the Liberty & Law Center at George Mason University, is rectifying this by bringing civil discourse to law schools across the nation. Specifically, it hosts events where students with different viewpoints and backgrounds come together and learn how to engage in civil discourse and then practice doing so through conversations about today's most pressing policy and legal issues.

In post-program surveys nearly 100% of participants want to participate again. It is common to get feedback such as:

"This was such a great experience! … I really appreciated how reasonably we were able to talk about issues that really mattered to all of us."

"We have more in common with each other than we think."

Hosting an event is easy! The Liberty & Law Center will provide a speaker/facilitator as well as event materials. Events can be done virtually or in-person and can be as short as one hour. While the program's primary focus is law students, it works with a wide variety of others. To learn more about hosting an event or about the program generally reach out to Professor JoAnn Koob at [e-mail]. Please share this information with others you think may be interested in it!

Comments

[apedad]

"As the country becomes increasingly divided . . . . "

Ugh.....I always hate when people write this.

We've ALWAYS been divided in one or more aspects, e.g., Anglophile vs Francophile, coast vs. inland, ranchers vs. farmers, North/South, women's rights/cretins, etc.

Maybe the coverage and knowledge of our divisions is better but certainly not the amount of division.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, though I do think there are some newer, more recent dividing lines, in general I think it's similar to the discussion we were having the other day about cancel culture. It's not the phenomenon per se that's recently changed as much as the always-on, global megaphone culture that allows divisions to be sliced, diced, and fomented with blissful efficiency.

[Frank Drackman]

20 years ago Moose-lums didn't tear down photos of kidnapped/murdered Israeli children, and if they did, someone would do something about it. 20 Years ago we didn't have Palestinian Terrorists serving in Congress. 20 Years ago we had a POTUS who didn't pay tribute to Moose-lum Terrorists.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

While Apedad is correct that we have always been divided, we used to share a (small "l") liberal value of the person being of greater value than the argument. Starting about 40 years ago in academia, the personal and the political became commingled and we no longer hold these liberal values. And THAT is what changed.

[Magister]

Of course, "about 40 years ago" coincides with the rise of the Christian right, who believe their political opponents are damned to hell. That's more significant in dividing the country politically than any development in academia from that time.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You don't understand Christian theology...

[Magister]

The rise of the Christian right is the significant development of "about 40 years ago", regardless of what Christian theology might justify it. Academia did not change at that time in any substantial way.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

We have to trace this back to first principles. To be a citizen , don't you need to accept that all men are created equal and we have unalienable rights such as Freedom of Religion, so that public racism or supporting the murder of someone who leaves your religion DEMANDS you be rejected as a citizen ?
Just the fact (unexpressed) that this is submitted to Reason would mean an acceptance of the LOGOS so central to all of Western Civilization and rejection of "Double Truth" claims.

[Magister]

To be a citizen , don’t you need to accept that all men are created equal

No, you don't need to.

public racism ... DEMANDS you be rejected as a citizen

Vast swaths of the country would no longer be citizens if that were true.

[Frank Drackman]

"Citizens" like Ra-shit-a Hijab? Ill-han Mullah Omar?? Gauleiter from Indiana Andre Carson? It's like if Julius Streicher served in Congress in 1942

[mydisplayname]

Another resource is https://heterodoxacademy.org/about/

[Mr. Hook]

Will Prof. Bernstein be giving a paper on the proper etiquette for attacking law students?

[Ed Grinberg]

Prof. Bernstein didn't "attack" anyone. He criticized.
Some people's actions (and statements) merit criticism. I don't see why law students should be exempt from criticism.

[SimonP]

David's "criticism" of law students is usually designed to get their names high up on any google searches, so that they can be more easily found by potential employers, and presumably no-offered/fired. He's trying to run a blacklist operation here.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Simon, the best way to do that would be to praise them as it would be repeated and hence magnified.

[Magister]

How would that work? Because Bernstein is such a hack that his praise must indicate a flaw in the people he praises? Or it would lead to widespread condemnation by people who reflexively attack anyone that Bernstein praises? If either were true, then Bernstein would be widely reviled far more than I've ever seen. In any case, the praise might be amplified but the source lost, and then you just have widespread praise for the people Bernstein wants to blacklist.

[Life of Brian]

Is this a day/topic/targeted group where applying market pressure to the private sector is a bad thing after all? It's so hard to keep up.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Will Prof. Bernstein be giving a paper on the proper etiquette for attacking law students?

It is precisely this sort of disingenuous bullshit that makes civil discourse nigh impossible.

[YepThatGuy]

I have wondered for a while if simply invovling more practicing attorneys in the law school experience would help. I have been in absolute knock-down-drag-out brawls on the record in very contentious cases, and still maintained not just a professional demeanor but an actual friendship with opposing counsel. That was my experience in both criminal and civil practice. Some of what seems to pass for "debate" in law school these days seems more akin to anonymous commenting on the internet than anything resembling informed discourse.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“Yo, I got yer civil discourse right *here*!”

Sincerely,
The Comment Section

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspiracy: Official Legal Blog For People Who Don't Care About Legal Developments Or Legal Issues*

* but never tire of discussing transgender rest rooms, Muslims, racial slurs, lesbians, Black crime, transgender parenting, drag queens, white grievance, transgender sorority drama, more racial slurs . . .

[Dr. Ed 2]

Those aren't legal issues?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Those aren’t legal issues?

They seem to be all of the legal issues -- from the disaffected, bigot-friendly, faux libertarian perspective.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The rev tends to be short on details about what constitutes progress, but apparently it includes Rolling Stone being considered as a reputable news source.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You doubt the report that Sidney Powell has pled guilty, you bigoted, worthless, right-wing rube?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Mostly, I’m making fun of you.

As to Rolling Stone, the article seems like news analysis discussing the alleged implications of the plea, not a brief item announcing the plea itself, which is what you would have people believe.

In any case, if Rolling Stone ran an article saying that water is wet, or that rev. kirkland is a jerkoff, I would wonder whether maybe water was dry, or whether the rev is a pleasant, even-tempered guy.

[Magister]

Rolling Stone has a fairly credible reputation as a news source, despite being left leaning. Rather than knee-jerk disbelief of anything Rolling Stone publishes, maybe you could examine what in their reporting you think is wrong.

[Commenter_XY]

LOL, LMFAO = Rolling Stone has a fairly credible reputation as a news source, despite being left leaning.

I didn't know that being left of marxists was left leaning....

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Rolling Stone has a fairly credible reputation as a news source

Once upon a time. But they flushed that reputation a long time ago. The mag's founder is still publicly defending the "Jackie"/UVA rape story (and by "story" I mean complete and utter fabrication) that blew up in their collective faces so badly. When you just can't bring yourself to admit that your magazine screwed up on something that egregious then you're not to be trusted about anything.

[Frank Drackman]

Again, go to fucking Ramallah-ding-dong, Damn-ass-kiss, Be-ruit(al body odor), Terror-Ann if you want to die for Moe-hammad, we'll be happy to oblige you.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

If all of that were true, they'd all be dead.
QED. it isn't.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Enough is enough...

"that will not have ended until Palestinians return to their homes, property, villages, and country,"

I seem to remember some six million Jews that were quite unable to return to their homes, property, villages, and countries....

Has Auschwitz II been built in Tel Aviv? Are cattle cars full of Palestinians rolling through the gates day and night?

That's what a "genocide" is like. What you are talking about are a bunch of bellicose people who have spent 75 years killing their peaceable neighbors, neighbors who only want to live in peace, and now the neighbors have finally had enough.

Even if they have to kill all 2.1 million of them, it is still a justifiable military response, not a genocide.

[Jonathan Affleck]

quod erat demonstrandum

[Frank Drackman]

Credat Judaeus apella, non ego

[Frank Drackman]

I just always thought it was a cool line from “Tombstone” and after Baruch, Doc Holliday is my favorite “Doc” (sure he wasn’t Jewish? Kirk Douglas played him in “Gunfight at the OK Corral) and I am 1/2 Jewish through my Mutti (just the “Good 1/2” HT H. Hill) so go blow Dr. Basher Ali Ass-Sad (NOT one of my favorite Docs)

Frank