Our Discussion makes news.
Eric M. Freedman
lawemf at MAIL1.HOFSTRA.EDU
Tue Aug 8 15:16:13 PDT 2000
-For whatever it may be worth, I think there would be nothing wrong with
saying in class, "A member of the conlaw profs. list has suggested X,
and advanced arguments A, B, and C in support of the position." I think
that, without permission, it would be inappropriate to go beyond that -
either to attach a name to the argument (since the result will quickly
be, "Tribe's position is X") or to hand out a copy of the post. -E.
>>> Leslie Goldstein <lesl at UDEL.EDU> 08/08/00 08:44AM >>>
I wish to ask bluntly:
Is it the consensus of group members that to distribute to an
conlaw class a copy of a post from this list (for instance Hartnett's
interesting one on Cong.law re: "inhabitant") for purposes of
discussion--i.e. NOT as formally researched scholarship--would be a
violation of courtesy to other members of the list? I had been
about doing this but will refrain if consensus so dictates.
Leslie F. Goldstein, Unidel Professor of Political Science and
International Relations, Univesity of Delaware
"Eric M. Freedman" wrote:
> -I support Professor Tribe's position. But in any event, I would
> we could come to
> a consensus on this and get our journalist members to agree
> affirmatively to abide by it. -E.
> Prof. Eric M. Freedman
> Hofstra Law School
> Hempstead, NY 11550
> LAWEMF at Hofstra.edu
> Tel. 516-463-5167
> Fax 516-463-5129
> Home Office: Tel. 212-665-2717
> Fax 212-665-2714
> >>> Larry Tribe <larry at TRIBELAW.COM> 08/04/00 04:26PM >>>
> I sure would be troubled -- and am troubled right now by the
> the Rocky Mountain News.
> I've assumed that the ground rules under which journalists are
> "listen in" on our e-conversation is that they not quote from it,
> certainly not attribute views to any one of us, without specific
> If that isn't the clear understanding, I'd suggest it ought to be.
> us might choose not to participate in the list at all unless the
> who are listening in affirm that understanding of the rules of this
> particular game.
> At the same time, I have assumed that, in teaching our students, and
> handing out materials to help guide class discussion, we should feel
> free to
> refer generally to views expressed on the list, and even to say that
> Professor X of the ABC Law School has suggested that Y, where Y is
> (accurate) condensation/paraphrase of what X posted on the list. Is
> that the
> general view?
> And how do others feel about going further still and directly
> someone on the list, by name, in class discussion or in materials
> handed out
> for class (which we obviously can't prevent students from
> -- Larry Tribe
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John C. Eastman [mailto:jeastman at CHAPMAN.EDU]
> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 3:40 PM
> To: CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
> Subject: Our Discussion makes news.
> "Keith E. Whittington" wrote:
> (I might note that the Rocky Mountain News recently published a
> amused editorial about our discussion on this list.)
> Complete with block quotations, I might add. The URL is
> <http://www.insidedenver.com/seebach/0730seeb.shtml> , in case
> interested. Is anyone troubled by seeing their posts to this list
> papers? Should we be?
> --John Eastman
More information about the Conlawprof