Perils and Pontifications: Reflections on the Failures and Joys of a Law Teacher

Next to fatherhood and my faith, teaching is what matters most to me, and yet it has been filled with failures as well as undeniable fulfillment and joy. I hope to enrich the lives of teachers who will replace me behind the podium, and that this article will serve as both an inspiration and a warning to new professors and those contemplating life in academics. I offer the following guidance. Look outside yourself so you can look within yourself and then share what you find with the world. Actively seek the friendship and guidance of others, especially those from different tribes and traditions. Spend time in the legal trenches, doing “real” law, to develop your skills, identify your interests, and sprout that special empathy that comes only with getting your buttocks trounced in court. And once you enter teaching, remember that writing what you know is fine for starters, but writing what you seek to discover, both within yourself and externally, is the surest route toward self-fulfillment and professional growth

Eastern Visions, Western Voices: A Sermon on Love in the Valley of Law

This is an appeal to your generation, the generation struggling to make the prolonged and stressful transition from law student to seasoned attorney. This evolution can be painfully despiriting, and I hope that my little sermon will provide ideas on how to transform a potentially grueling struggle for sustenance into a genuine labor of love. My sources stem from divergent roots, both Eastern—Buddhist with pinches of Hindu—and Western— ranging from Platonic to perhaps the moronic. I make no pretense of being an expert in any philosophical school, and I have no desire to indoctrinate others. To the contrary, I aspire merely for my reflections on Eastern visions and Western voices to be a catalyst in spawning your own ideas on creating joy and fulfillment in the valley of law

Dueling Democracies: Protecting Labor Representation Elections from Governmental Interference

Public officials should be free to support or oppose unionization, but we must prevent their electioneering from undermining the industrial democracy of labor representative elections. Such elections are designed to be freely held; workers decide whether they wish to be represented by a union for purposes of collective bargaining. This choice of whether to unionize is for the workers alone without any governmental favoritism or coercion. Government officials however have repeatedly jeopardized laboratory conditions by campaigning in labor representation elections. The Board should reassure workers of their right to cast uncoerced ballots, clarify that the political officials are not declaring governmental policy, and emphasize that the Board is both impartial in the election and committed to protecting the workers\u27 freedom of decision. In this manner, dueling democracies might evolve into dynamic democracies, where workers can critically appraise the opinions of government representatives yet remain confident of their power to vote as they choose

The New Thought Police: Inside the Left’s Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds (book review)

Attacks on political correctness have grown both plentiful and rather tiresome. Such tomes occasionally score valid ideological points, but one grows weary of the bitter repetitiveness of it all. The New Thought Police might seem to offer a little novelty to the litany. Bruce is undeniably bright, impassioned, and edgy. Her book, however, is decidedly a mixed bag. The best parts center on her controversial role as a feminist spokeswoman during the O.J. Simpson murder trial. Bruce cogently emphasized that the case was a tragic paradigm of domestic violence rather than a racist conspiracy against a black cultural icon. Bruce’s anger is both the strength and the failing of The New Thought Police. Her indignation propels the book’s intensity, but goads her into mudslinging that sounds all too familiar. The writing, moreover, ranges from the witty and incisive to the annoying jejune. All in all, The New Thought Police resembles a keen from a wounded heart rather than a serious analysis of legal and cultural issues

The Daishonin’s Path: Applying Nichiren’s Buddhist Principles to American Legal Education

The fundamental aspects of Nichiren Daishonin\u27s teachings merit modern attention. The Daishonin was a tireless mentor for his disciples, and his call for compassion, critique, courage, and wisdom are essential for law students and teachers alike. A remarkable man, the Daishonin\u27s perceptions ought to inform the way professors teach and advise their students, and encourage others to reflect on their own sources of spiritual sustenance and examine the contributions they can make toward deepening the relevance, meaning, and joy of legal education. The Daishonin emphasized the primacy of The Lotus Sutra, which declares that all living beings inherently possess the Buddha nature and its accompanying virtues of wisdom, courage, compassion, and life force. Regardless of gender, social class, or previous life condition, all have an equal opportunity to attain enlightenment. The steps toward enlightenment may be small, but it is their very slightness that enriches one’s understanding of life\u27s beauty. Lawyers, students, and those privileged to teach can do no better than to be the challenging teacher and nurturing friend who realizes that her enlightenment depends on heartfelt efforts to enlighten others. By following the Daishonin\u27s path, both mentors and disciples will be searchers who do not begrudge their lives

Teaching Tips from the Lotus Sutra

The Lotus Sutra reveals that everyone has the potential for unlimited spiritual growth and each of us should aspire to be a bodhisattva; one who assists others on the road to enlightenment. Applying ancient Buddhist tenets to the law school classroom, the Lotus Sutra exhorts professors to challenge and befriend their students through the use of “expedient means” inspired by Buddhist thought. The poetic beauty and idealism of the Lotus Sutra transcend denominational differences to inspire the way we conceptualize legal education and the professorial mission

Between the Buttons: Employer Distribution of Antiunion Insignia

Employers should be forbidden from offering antiunion insignia to their workers. This is not contrary to current labor rules that allow employers and their supervisors to wear insignia. The workers\u27 rights would still be safeguarded because employees would remain free to buy or create their own antiunion insignia. The goal is to protect the right of workers to debate, campaign, and vote on unionization with no harm to legitimate needs for self expression. Generally, workers are entitled to wear campaign insignia regardless of whether it supports or decries unionization. In this manner, workers can openly proclaim their beliefs and seek to influence their peers. However, the central issue arises when an employer distributes antiunion insignia to its workforce: the employer’s intrusion raises the possible specter of coercion. This obviously could undermine a worker\u27s self-esteem, offend the commitment to industrial democracy, and permit the employer to paint a misleading picture of support for its antiunion position. The National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) recognizes the issue but has wavered in its response yielding three lines of case authority. First, the “prohibitory” school, the Board is quick to recognize coercion when an employer distributes antiunion emblems. Second, the “permissive” school, gives employers broad latitude to distribute antiunion emblems. The third, “moderate” school, permits the employer to distribute antiunion emblems under certain conditions. Under these confusing and inadequate rules, the Board should consistently maintain a strict prohibition on employer distribution of antiunion insignia. Prohibiting employer distribution of antiunion insignia would merely help assure that workers are treated with the dignity they deserve. Workers can speak and act for themselves; they do not need management to stand between the buttons and freedom of choice

Keeping the Faith: The Problem of Apparent Bias in Labor Representation Elections

Any procedure requiring a “fair” election must honor the rights of both those who oppose and those who favor a union. The National Labor Relations Act (“Act”) is wholly neutral when it comes to that choice. Under the terms of the Act, employees have the right to form unions but also have the right to refrain from such activities. The National Labor Relations Board’s (“Board”) role in representation elections is to ascertain the employee\u27s’ wishes concerning unionization, and not to influence that fundamental choice. The Board’s appearance of neutrality may be undermined through fraternization, the delegation of duties, and allegedly partisan statements or actions. In Athbro Precision Engineering Corp., the Board stated that elections could be set aside whenever a Board agent\u27s misconduct destroyed confidence in the election process or could be interpreted as impugning the Board\u27s election standards. Yet, despite this decision, the Board has been reluctant to invalidate elections despite highly questionable associations between its agents and parties to representation elections. Thus, it has frequently been left to the circuit courts to uphold the Board’s earlier concern for maintaining the integrity of the Board’s election standards. As a result, it remains uncertain when and why the elections will be invalidated due to the appearance of Board partisanship. Even in the face of these issues, there is a greater need to preserve faith in the sanctity of representation elections. Therefore, the Board and federal courts should move vigorously to nurture the Athbro standard and keep faith with the workers’ rightful expectations that their freedom of choice shall remain unfettered