30 Oct What the Right Thinks of Harvard’s New 1L Curriculum
30.10.06
|
6 Comments
See this report from a “Focus on the Family” site, which frets that the new focus on international law is “lessening [future lawyers] respect for the Constitution.”
Peter,
This is just silly of Focus on the Family and I would emphasize that that organization does not fairly represent what “the right” thinks about international law. In particular, there is a huge movement on the right toward embracing human rights, as I wrote in February. See details here.
Roger Alford
Instead of establishing American basics of law like contracts and the Constitution, the schools are offering courses on global-law systems — in some cases before students are told about American law.
When did Harvard stop teaching Contracts and Con Law? I can confirm that Stanford still requires 1Ls to take these courses.
Roger.
Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I think Peter admitted as much in his post on Oct. 8: ‘Building a Constituency for Internationl Law,’ citing, by way of example, those evangelicals concerned about Darfur who have been ‘pushing for more interventionist policies along of course with traditional human rights advocates.’
That said, claiming ‘there is a huge [emphasis added] movement on the right toward embracing human rights’ strikes me as hyperbole, but it’s possible that reflects ignorance on my part.
Patrick,
I think you are right in quantitative terms. It is inaccurate to say there is a huge movement by conservatives in this respect. But there is undoubtedly a paradigm shift among many of the religious right toward doing justice in the world, and that includes international human rights. I know many in the Christian right who are emphasizing human rights as part of their understanding of a religious mandate to “do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with God. (Micah 6:8). That is essentially what IJM President Gary Haugen’s book, Good News About Injustice is about.
I wasn’t suggesting Peter was being insensitive to this, just offering a fuller picture.
Roger Alford
I agree with Roger that Focus on the Family’s views on the teaching of international law are “silly” – and perhaps so even with respect to the achievement of positions that a quick review of their website suggests they advocate. International law includes human rights, of course, where one finds norms that appeal to both the left and to the (religious) right (again as Roger notes). But international law remains deeply committed to sovereignty (despite claims of sovereignty’s demise) – and it is in the continued recognition of sovereignty (counterposed at times to human rights) that some nation-state’s lawfully maintain “family-friendly” policies on abortion, gay marriage, abstinence, pornography etc. The international system currently resembles a Roe-less Constitution (with respect to more issues than just abortion) – with nations exercising policy discretion in areas foreclosed in the United States. This too can be learned from a study of international law.
Jeff Atik
Roger,
Thanks for the clarification and information. It appears to me as if those on the Christian right who are taking seriously the quote you cite are more in line with the minority Christian tradition of ‘exemplary atonement’ (Abelard) rather than historically dominant theory of ‘substitutionary atonement’ (Anselm), a development which, if true, I think is a healthy one (I would not rule out some sort of reconciliation between these two notions in the life and thought of any Christian).