by Helena Handbasket

Created on: February 04, 2009   Last Updated: March 17, 2009

I teach Constitutional Law. But my joke, that in 2009 any Con Law professor can become President, falls flat. Students would rather memorize D.C. v. Heller and Gonzalez v. Carhart than regard every offhand sentence of a professor's lecture as an intentional invitation to an environment of academic discipline.

Welcome to an apparently typical Master's in Criminal Justice program.

Postgraduates usually enter this track enthusiastically. Professional law enforcement, criminology and sociology, and public defense are lofty goals, proudly achieved. The Warren Court's exploration of criminal justice and our absorbing the social discipline of criminology really enlivened the program. And when "CSI" became popular, watch out: we could reliably measure increases in enrollment and retention.

But I must disabuse students of the notions that criminal justice is either an exact science, or a warm one. It requires both left and right brain. "Exceptions to exceptions" are exciting for memorizers, but must be nuanced by extant persuasive dicta. Was shoplifting intent proven, or not? Then too, the "CSI: Miami" lifestyle of seeing rewarding justice done relies on extreme unsung gruntwork that requires professional distance from the all-too-human subjects of study. Usually seekers of corrections careers understand this; but regular policing and bar activities still hold a false glamor in many eyes, which ignores the underlying virtuous drudgery.

Instead, we generally see idealists turning into pragmatists: just as surely as seminaries create doubters. Occasionally a bright student can observably maintain both an ideal justice and a practical effectiveness. Our awarding such a master's is always invigorating; it tells me the program has succeeded.

When students and professor reach mutual goals early, lectures flow quickly. That frees me up to open the floor to participatory discussion. Subtleties of standard statutory construction can be worked out to everyone's satisfaction. The tawdry truth is that many laws have just enough ambiguity to allow compromise among mixed interests, but just enough apparent clarity to escape "void for vagueness" doctrine. Which precedent rules: Brushaber, or Glenshaw Glass? I don't know! I have strong opinions, but with untested laws one only opines and suggests. The opportunity for lawyerly exploitation should be understood by all; and all should strive for best judgments rather than partisan interpretations.

In the end, keeping that communication stream open with your professors is your security. In grading proposed journal articles on Constitutional interpretation, persuasiveness rules. And your classtime demeanor unconsciously affects the persuasive force of your argument. Resolve to conduct yourself every day with the virtue embodied in the words "master of justice".

Learn more about this author, Helena Handbasket.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.