Program in Public Law offers wide-ranging debate
|
| Christopher Schroeder |
“9/11 has forced a re-prioritizing of what we do,” notes Professor Christopher Schroeder, director of the Program in Public Law (“the Program”). “Whenever the country gets an exogenous shock of the kind it got on 9/11, it tends to rethink the question of the appropriate balance between civil liberties and national security, so that’s what we are currently doing.”
It’s by no means everything the Program is doing. By its nature public law, embracing both constitutional and the law that governs public officials, is both broad and foundational, as are the contributions the Program makes to the intellectual life of the Law School through its sponsorship and co-sponsorship of a wide range of significant events. In addition to those related to 9/11, recent events have included a debate between former Solicitor-Generals Charles Fried and Walter Dellinger (co-sponsored by the Federalist Society), lunchtime talks featuring Securities and Exchange Commissioner Roel Campos and Deputy Solicitor General Patricia Millet, and a continuation of the “Great Lives in the Law” conversations with renowned historian John Hope Franklin and Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. That series was inaugurated in 2002 by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, and has included conversations with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and South African Justice Richard Goldstone, as well as lectures by American Bar Association President Dennis Archer, and civil rights activist and attorney Julius Chambers.
These events and speakers all support Schroeder’s mission of promoting public law as a career option for Duke Law students.
“These are people who have had significant public law careers, so they inevitably end up modeling a kind of legal career that I try to encourage our students to consider.”
Schroeder has taken that path himself. A former chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, he also served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration, offering legal advice to the executive branch. He feels this practical background, and the like experience of many of his faculty colleagues, enhances their scholarship and teaching.
“We have people here who have a good, practical, working knowledge of how the institutions of government work. Whenever you combine scholarship with experience you are going to be better off as a professional, educating faculty than you are if you’re just operating on the basis of theoretical information alone.”
Another goal of the Program is to help the larger public gain a better understanding of the workings of public institutions and constitutional issues. In addition to the lunchtime programs, which are open to all, the Program’s Web site and “Supreme Court Online” service make developments in public law and Supreme Court decisions–along with certiorari petitions, and commentary–widely and speedily available. (For more on “Supreme Court Online” see story, page 55.)
With a commitment, above else, to addressing public law issues of moment, Schroeder is committed to bringing all the Program’s many resources and minds to issues relating to 9/11.
“National security has always been a public law issue, but now it’s a major issue of active investigation, litigation, and attention. As a result, the Program spends much more time on national security and civil liberties issues related to national security than I would have predicted if you had talked to me on September 10, 2001.”
The current emphasis on 9/11 is fine with Rick Horvitz ’78, who has underwritten the Program in Public Law since 1998.
“Post 9/11, constitutional issues are becoming ever more critical in this country–how we balance the social needs of our society against individual rights. It’s one thing to talk about rights in the absence of a threat, but quite another when we talk of individual rights balanced against an imminent threat. If we get this wrong by going too far in either way, there could be terrible repercussions. The press and the public need to approach these issues in a very thoughtful manner.”
|
| Rick Horvitz '78 |
Horvitz’s personal passion for constitutional law is what initially spurred both he and his late wife, Marcy, to start the Program. This passion was reinforced by his friendship with and enormous admiration for the renowned scholar William Van Alstyne.
“When I was in law school, constitutional law was the most elevating of all the areas of law–I felt it was the ‘crown jewel’ of my legal education.”
While not a practicing attorney, Horvitz is happy to expound on such things as his passion for the First Amendment, and his wariness of inconsistencies in constitutional interpretation.
“For instance, look at the difference in how people generally approach First and Second Amendment issues. Regardless of one’s personal feelings about guns, how can one, with credibility, both argue for an expansive interpretation of First Amendment language and a narrow interpretation of the Second Amendment’s language–it’s just not intellectually honest. They are just ‘gaming’ the Constitution.”
Horvitz is delighted that the Program is helping the Law School to attract “great people,” such as Erwin Chemerinsky and Curtis Bradley, and by the mix of scholarly excellence and high-level practical experience he sees in the constitutional and public law faculty.
“It’s like any other field of endeavor: If you just stay in the ivory tower, you are cut off. There has to be a link between the theoretical and practical sides, and with public service, you learn about the real issues you are dealing with and how to convey the reasons behind them. The more Duke Law faculty are doing public service, the better off we’ll be.”
In addition to fostering involvement and engagement by both students and faculty, Horvitz is pleased that the Program is reaching beyond the walls of the Law School with its many open programs and through “Supreme Court Online.”
“With issues as complicated as they are in today’s world, we simply can’t afford to have an uneducated electorate. Whether they like it or not, people need to understand, for example, that we have an electoral college system, not direct, popular vote, that the role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution and that, consequently, some really stupid, unfair laws have to be supported and enforced.
“I think the Program is doing great. I’ve attended some of the conferences and some of the ‘Great Lives in the Law’ lectures. When I hear the buzz, when I hear the excitement, I’m very pleased. I continue to write the checks, and continue to enjoy doing so.”