Option I: review the two new articles, (1) “Brown as a Cold War Case” and (2) “The Little Rock Crisis and Foreign Affairs,” in light of Klarman’s “How Brown Changed Race Relations.”
Option II: review the three new articles, (i) “Originalism and the Law of the Past,” (ii) “Outsourcing the Law”, and (iii) “Method and Dialogue in History and Originalism,” in light of Bork’s speech “Tradition and Morality in Constitutional Law”
Articles referenced in Option I:
Dudziak, Mary. “Brown as a Cold War Case.” The Journal of American History 91, no. 1 (2004): 32–42.
———. “The Little Rock Crisis and Foreign Affairs: Race, Resistance, and the Image of American Democracy.” Southern California Law Review 70, no. 6 (1997): 1641–1716.
Articles referenced in Option II:
Baude, William, and Stephen Sachs. “Originalism and the Law of the Past.” Law and History Review 37, no. 3 (2019): 809­–820.
Irving, Helen. “Outsourcing the Law: History and the Disciplinary Limits of Constitutional Reasoning.” Fordham Law Review 84, no. 3 (2015): 957–967.
Sawyer, Logan. “Method and Dialogue in History and Originalism.” Law and History Review 37, no. 3 (2019): 847­–86
Like Essay #1, the Final Essay is also an assignment asking students to compose a reviewing essay. Please be sure to balance the big picture and supportive specifics. In the big picture, identify the reviewed articles’ central claims, their contributions to the scholarship, and the significance of their contributions. Since all three options ask students to review more than one article, please make sure to engage all articles on their key crossovers and differences: how they are related to each other, and on exactly what issues the argumentations become apart. All questions above are big picture questions, which require support from specifics. After all, a reviewing essay is also an analytical essay and should observe all structural requirements for analytical essays.
Unlike Essay #1, in this Final Essay, all students are required to experiment a new thing: review articles in light of something the class has read and discussed in details together. In the real world, academic reviews discuss articles in light of the field an article (or articles are) is in; PhD programs train students to know the “field” well enough (so that PhD graduates can teach). For you, senior undergraduates, you can safely equate Klarman’s backlash thesis, Judge Bork’s speech, or a judicial opinion of your choice, as a drastically simplified version of the “field,” and then review how the journal articles assigned to you react to, comment on, and attempt to advance the field.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.