Writing in the Legal Academy: A Dangerous Supplement?
Writing in the Legal Academy: A Dangerous Supplement?
复制标题
在法律学院写作：危险的补充？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1998
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Lisa A. Eichhorn
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lisa A. Eichhorn
本文探讨了在法律的学术通过一个古老的，嵌入式的等级制度，有利于言论比写作的透镜的写作和言论的关系。文章借用了“危险补充”的哲学概念来描述写作在这一层次结构中的作用，并认为法学院长期以来只看到了这一作用的一个方面，将写作视为“危险”的课程补充，但未能看到为什么它是必要的课程的其余部分的存在。本文探讨了法律的学术界对写作的潜在不信任。本文的第一部分追溯了演讲/写作等级制度的历史根源及其对法律的课程的暗示。第二部分讨论了美国法学院的院长和教师如何在对待法律的写作课程时回应和加强这种等级制度。这一部分然后使用的概念“危险的补充”，批评等级制度的基础上，在这一领域的机构的决定。第三部分分析了演讲/写作等级对写作教学的影响，特别是在法律的学院学生经历的法律的写作的常见批评。第四部分展望未来，评估打破等级制度的可能性和后果。总的来说，本文试图通过揭露等级制度中的欺骗，解释为什么法律的学术需要法律的写作的危险补充。
This article explores the relationship of writing and speech in the legal academy through the lens of an ancient, embedded hierarchy that favors speech over writing. The article borrows the philosophical notion of the "dangerous supplement" to describe the role of writing in this hierarchy and argues that law schools have long seen only one aspect of this role, viewing writing as a "dangerous" curricular supplement, but failing to see why it is necessary to the existence of the remainder of the curriculum. This article examines the lurking distrust that surrounds writing in the legal academy. Part I of this article traces the historical roots of the speech/writing hierarchy and its insinuation into the legal curriculum. Part II discusses how deans and faculty in United States law schools have responded to and reinforced this hierarchy in their treatment of legal writing programs. This Part then uses the notion of the "dangerous supplement" to critique the hierarchy upon which institutional decisions in this area have been based. Part III analyzes the effect of the speech/writing hierarchy on writing pedagogy, specifically addressing common criticisms of legal writing as students experience it in the legal academy. Part IV looks to the future, assessing the possibility and ramifications of breaking out of the hierarchy. Overall, by exposing the deception embedded in the hierarchy, this article attempts to explain why the legal academy needs the dangerous supplement of legal writing.