For all of you folks hollering about the education cuts in Raleigh, take a look at what DID get funded by the state at the UNC-Chapel Hill School of Law:
Critical Legal Thought/Critical Lawyering
|Course Number:||Law 464|
|Writing Requirement:||Rigorous Writing Experience (RWE)|
|This course introduces students to social justice critiques of our current legal system and explores strategies for moving the law toward more socially just outcomes. The first half of the course considers perspectives on law that question its underlying normative premises, the fairness of the process, and the social justice of its results. In this part of the course, we will consider critiques that include Critical Legal Studies, Feminist Theory, Critical Race Theory, Queer Theory and Gay and Lesbian Studies, and critiques that the law pervasively neglects the interests of the poor.The second half of the course considers strategies for moving the law toward more socially just ends. In addition to reading material about the relationship between law and social change, and about cause lawyering, students will hear from lawyers implementing sophisticated strategies of legal reform, potentially including those who have worked in the civil rights movement, on death penaly reform in North Caorlina, gay and lesbian rights, access to healthcare, poverty law and consumer protection, using a combination of litigation, legislative reform, and public relations strategies.|
One of our frequent readers — an insider in North Carolina’s legal community — points out to me that professor Maxine Eichner is (1) a top “expert” whose “insight” is cited frequently by foes of the NC Marriage Amendment and (2) a frequent “authority” cited by the media covering the debate on the NC Marriage Amendment.
The first two sentences (bolded) of each paragraph in the course description perfectly exemplify what marriage amendment supporters are trying to stamp out. (Queer Theory? What kind of job does THAT qualify you for?)
The law is about comparing legislation with what the constitution says. It is NOT about twisting it to fit your political ideology. It is a true shame that the people training our next generation of jurists are teaching JUST THAT.