Mirror Sites:
CSUDH - Habermas - UWP

California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Soka University Japan - Transcend Art and Peace
Created: January 31, 2002
Latest Update: February 4, 2002
Faculty:
jeannecurran@habermas.org
takata@uwp.edu

Lecture 1: Planning
Wednesday, February 6, 2002

Copyright: Jeanne Curran and Susan R. Takata and Individaul Authors, February 2002.
"Fair use" encouraged.

1. Introduction

   The Stanley Mosk Undergraduate Moot Court has evolved from an undergraduate version of the law school oral exercise and competition to a collaborative exercise and performance in civil discourse. collaborative - important that we switch to learning that emphasizes collaborative work. Obsessive adversarialism breeds greed and a loss of the sense of community. exercise and performance - we do not mean to present polished performance. we mean to present actual learning, in a performance which permits others to see that learning take place. civil discourse - instead of arguing the traditional law school case, we argue issues of social justice with the intent of creating actual models of discourse in which students are afforded practice for that long neglected activity

2. Choosing a topic

   Because learning is enhanced by the study of topics that command our interest, we want you to choose your own topic. At the same time we want the topic to represent a broad social interest, afford present instances of concern over validity claims, and offer solid opportunity for you to explore the complexities of the topic theoretically.

   To that end, I present a list of possible topics for which we can glean the theoretical information from the Dear Habermas site. One of the dilemmas of real world civil discourse is that most of us have difficulty keeping up with the many developments. Dear Habermas has attempted to offer a basic foundation of information that will permit us to discuss a variety of present social issues. This list is chosen from that database.

   If some of you would like to propose other topics from which we can choose, you are welcome to do so. My only caveat is that you will need to help me prepare adequate information for the site, which can be time consuming.

   A quick and tentative list of topics from which we will choose topics for civil discourse:

   • The war against terrorism.
     • Origins - what caused animosities on both sides?
     • A "Just" War - Is there such a thing?
     • What about the killing of innocents?
     • What about "evil" incarnate? Is turning the other cheek sufficient?

   • The injustice of history
     • "Don't we all bleed the same?"
     • Race or religion or ethnicity or gender or all of the above?
     • Local narrative or the broader worldview?
       • Do we focus on the pain of the death of an individual? - local narrative? or do we focus on the broad picture? Consider the problems of how to compensate victims from the WTC and victims from the Oklahoma bombing. What is fairness? What is compensation? Reparations to African Americans?
     • Postcolonialism?

   • Education for the new century
     • What should the goal of a good education be?
     • Who should receive a good education, and how can we provide it?
     • What is the educational hierarchy about which Duncan Kennedy complains?
     • What role does equality play in education? Are we teaching greed? Consider the competitiveness of today's education and Fellman's adversarialism.
     • How do citizens learn to think?

   Basic learning modules:

   • Advocacy
     • The principle that truth will become clear to the trier of fact if each of two sides presents the best arguments in favor of its position. The problem with limiting it to two sides. This forces people into a yes/no categorization when, in fact, few problems are so clear cut.
     • The possibility of the creation of a new kind of truth. This kind of truth is represented by people who would convict a person because he is accused, on the grounds that if he was arrested and ended up in court he must be guilty. Such people grant maximum authority to the police. They neglect the possiblity that the prosecution is just one of the sides argued. So there are problems with advocacy.

   • Legal reasoning
     • Precedent. Relying on earlier examples as a guide to uniform justice. The danger of continuing with a bad decision because that's what we've always done in the past. But the guarantee that justice won't take wild swings with popular sentiment.
     • Evidence and rational argument.
     • The problems with "rational" argument. Jonathan Lear.
     • The inflexibility of categorical thinking. Martha Minow.

   • Expressing validity claims, including alternative means of expression
     • Using art and music as alternative means of expression. Ricky Jones' Fall 2002.

   • Applying the legal model to civil discourse:
     • Permitting many perspectives, not limiting to two. The issue in Afghanistan is no longer the categorical choice between Taliban and not-Tabliban. Now we must consider a whole range of warlords, some of whom may be evil incarnate, some of who may be tolerable, and some of whom may be wonderful leaders.
     • Good faith hearing of validity claims. Must include helping those who lack the training to express their validity claims in a way others can understand them.
     • Not instrumental reasoning.Understanding, not answers, is the goal. Consider the current debate on the Hab list: communicative action, strategic action, or instrumental action?
     • Understanding in this case means trying to see the Other's viewpoint. It does not necessarily mean agreeing with the Other. It does not mean consensus. It means recognizing that consensus is not always necessary as long as tolerance of difference is adhered to.

   Mechanics:

   • The listserv
   • The site
   • Individual study
   • Oral practice
     • Face-to-face
     • E-mail connection
     • Workshop practice
     • Performance practice
   • Preparing the written brief

   Performance Planning

   • Roles
   • Place
   • Tasks
     • Invitation
     • Confirmation
     • Day before re-confirmation
     • Reception, someone to meet them, parking, etc.
     • Printed materials: brief, program, certificate of participation

   ---

   ---