First Assignment
Class time change. If you haven’t already, please e-mail me (at william.rhee@mail.wvu.edu) to confirm that you know that the class time has changed to Mondays and Wednesdays from 1-2:20 PM (in Room 161). Dean Bowman asked me to get written confirmation from every enrolled student that you agree with the time change.
Required coursebooks. Please purchase the required coursebooks. They are all worth keeping after law school. We’ll start with TLAW.
Stephen V. Armstrong & Timothy P. Terrell, Thinking Like a Writer: A Lawyer’s Guide to Effective Writing and Editing (Practicing Law Institute 3d ed. 2009) (also available online through Bloomberg Law) (“TLAW”).
Wayne C. Booth et al., The Craft of Research (3d ed. 2008) (also available online for free through WVU Libraries Ebary Academic Complete Subscription Service) (“COR”).
Joseph W. Williams & Gregory G. Columb, The Craft of Argument (3d ed. 2007) (“COA”).
Joseph W. Williams & Gregory G. Columb, Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace (10th ed. 2010) (“Style”).
Paper topic. E-mail me your paper topic for approval BEFORE the first day of class. In your e-mail, you should provide me with a working paper title and answer these five questions about your paper topic (COA, pp. 32-34):
Claim. What’s your point? What are you claiming that I should do or believe?
Reasons. Why should I agree? What reasons can you offer to support your claim?
Evidence. How do I know those are good reasons? On what facts do you base them? What evidence do you have to back them up?
Acknowledgement and Response. But have you considered . . . ? But what would you say to someone who said/objected/argued/claimed . . . ? Do you acknowledge this alternative to your position, and how would you respond?
Warrant. What’s your logic? What principle (or warrant) makes your reasons relevant to your claim? We’ll discuss this in class but basically it is what assumption or value must you and your reader share for your reader logically to agree with you.
It’s okay to answer some of these questions with “I don’t know” or “I’m not sure.”
During the entire class, I’ll be working on my own new paper. Like you, I’m also at the beginning stages. Here are my very rough answers to these questions as an example. Please feel free to e-mail me with any questions.
Working title: Locational Prejudice
Claim. What’s your point? What are you claiming that I should do or believe? I define “locational prejudice” as where people intentionally discriminate against other people because of where those other people live, where they are from, or where they work. I restrict my inquiry to the United States. For example, national origin is a protected class, so I would not examine discrimination against immigrants because of their national origin (because it is outside the United States) but I would examine discrimination against immigrants who live in a particular neighborhood (because it is within the United States). I hypothesize that in the United States locational prejudice remains politically correct without legal consequences. Furthermore, locational prejudice is worthy of study because it accurately reflects the complexity of intersecting identity categories.
Reasons. Why should I agree? What reasons can you offer to support your claim? If real people are being denied benefits or freedoms because of where they live, where they are from, or where they work, then they are suffering real injury. There should be a legal remedy for such injustice. But at the same time, where you live, where you work, and where you are from are often relevant facts and can fairly justify differential treatment. Distinguishing the former from the latter is one of locational prejudice’s challenges.
Evidence. How do I know those are good reasons? On what facts do you base them? What evidence do you have to back them up? Psychological studies, empirical studies, surveys, specific examples involving West Virginia? In particular, I plan to be guided by Lisa Pruitt’s seminal work on legal ruralism.
Acknowledgement and Response. But have you considered . . . ? But what would you say to someone who said/objected/argued/claimed . . . ? Do you acknowledge this alternative to your position, and how would you respond? Where we live, where we work, and where we are from are also often proxies for other identities such as race and socioeconomic class. Locational identity can intersect with other forms of identity. This makes analysis more complicated.
Warrant. What’s your logic? What principle (or warrant) makes your reasons relevant to your claim? As far as legally and humanly possible, all people should be treated equally. A person shouldn’t experience discrimination because of where she lives, where she works, or where she’s from unless these facts rationally relate to the disparate treatment.
Enroll in the TWEN course webpage. Please enroll in “Little Red Schoolhouse: The Scholarly Research and Writing Process (Rhee)” under Fall 2013 TWENcourse webpages. Enter the e-mail address you want me to use.
E-mail me your LRRW, Appellate Advocacy, or other previous writing instructors’ names. If you haven’t already, please e-mail me the names of any legal writing faculty who have already taught you. I shall contact them for tips and advice on how you can improve your writing.
Bring writing samples to the first class. If you haven’t already, please bring some past LRRW/Appellate Advocacy/Law Review/other seminar writing samples to class. I can make copies and return the originals to you. Samples with your instructor’s comments and mark-up would be most helpful. This exercise’s sole purpose is to diagnose your writing and attempt to identify areas where you could use help.
When you can make a weekly one-hour accountability conference call. Please let me know during the first class which of the following proposed times conflict with your schedule: (1) Mondays, 3-4 PM; (2) Mondays, 4:30-5:30 PM; (3) Mondays, 7:30-8:30 PM; (4) Mondays, 9-10 PM; (5) Tuesdays, 7-8 PM; (6) Tuesdays, 8:30-9:30 PM. If none of these times fit your schedule, please let me know during class when you would be available for a weekly conference call. I shall use your availability to assign your four-person writing accountability/editing group.
Reading assignment for the first class. Read TLAW, pp. 1-173 (the subject of the workshop during the first week), 421-27 (summary of the entire book). It is an easy read. Try to do the examples. If you must skim the examples, you can but make sure to read the principles and explanations carefully. In my opinion, this is one of the best legal writing reference books around. We shall spend the first two weeks of class time completing the Thinking Like a Writer workshop. The authors have kindly allowed me to use their workshop materials for free. This highly popular CLE course normally costs over $500 per lawyer.
