A Distinctive Approach to Teaching
By Frances Presma
Professor Thomas Metzloff's Documentaries take students deep into Supreme Court cases
We light it not to desecrate it; we light it to signify to everyone that Christ is alive, and Christ is well, even if it’s just in our hearts and not in yours. We do not burn the cross. We light the cross.
The documentary ends with a review of the Supreme Court arguments, but without any summation of the Court's April 2003 ruling. Instead, Professor Stuart Benjamin opens a lively discussion, asking for reaction and then sharing the Court's decision–eight justices found the statute, which presumed an intent to intimidate others in the very act of cross burning, to be unconstitutional as a regulation of speech. One member of the audience questioned the decision, based on facts that had come out in the documentary–a speaker at the Klan rally had advocated shooting minorities right before the cross was lit, why didn't the justices find the statute constitutional in that context? Another posed hypothetical questions about how other forms of speech, such as calls for jihad , or holy war, might be controlled.
Premiered during Duke Law School's 2005 reunion weekend, Virginia v. Black is one of seven recent Supreme Court cases given unique treatment in the ongoing "Distinctive Aspects of American Law" documentary series produced by Professor Thomas Metzloff. Innovative teaching tools, the documentaries enhance the traditional case method by allowing law students and other viewers–even attorneys steeped in practice–to explore precedent-setting cases with a depth and rigor unavailable by a simple reading of the decision.
"Most people learn better when they have multiple sources of information," says Sarah Wood ‘03, a producer on the series. "You read the case, and you get something out of that. You see the case, and you get something out of that. Because of the way that people learn, you get something visually that you don't get from reading."
"Video is a powerful medium," adds Metzloff, who is known for his creative and engaging approaches to his civil procedure and ethics classes.
Law school is based on the case method – the facts matter. But sometimes there are small details that really make a difference. Video lets you pull those details out.
Having secured funding from The Atlantic Philanthropies, Metzloff spent the summer of 2003 conducting interviews for his first documentary about the case of BMW v. Gore . The leading precedent on punitive damages and how judges should control them, the case arose from an Alabama doctor's dissatisfaction with the paint job on his new BMW sedan. In addition to interviewing Dr. Gore, his lawyers, and the attorney for BMW, Metzloff gathered footage and a detailed explanation of BMW's different painting processes–total immersion in a paint bath, contrasted with touch-ups by hand.
"By learning exactly what was wrong with the car, I came to understand BMW's policy in a better context. I came to understand the legal arguments and how they fit together, and what was actually at stake in the case. I figured that if I'm learning something having taught the case 20 times, there's something to it."
When he taught BMW v. Gore in his civil procedure class last fall, Metzloff made the documentary available to half the class, and then gave his students a pop quiz that included both factual and legal questions. He describes the educational impact of the documentary as surprisingly profound.
"The students who had seen the video scored significantly higher on the factual questions. You can't see the car being repainted and not understand what's wrong. If you just read it, you might miss that. But the students who saw the video scored significantly higher–10 to 20 percent higher–on every single question, including those about the legal significance of the case. That shows they got interested, they read it, and they understood it better in all respects."
On the more subjective questions, Metzloff continues, the students showed a greater willingness to question the Court's decision. "There is a tendency, among all students, to read an opinion, and say, ‘that's right.' The courts are writing in ways that are meant to be persuasive. What this questionnaire showed us is that people were much more willing to say ‘Hey, the Court didn't address this,' or, "on this part, I have a different view.' It gave them an independent basis to assess the Court's logic and rationale, which is one of our goals. We're trying to create analytical, legal thinkers."