Legal Education: A More Optimistic View

While few would disagree with Dean Forrester\u27s statement that America is now in the midst of an attempted revolution, several questions naturally arise. Dean Forrester does not identify the nature and goals of the attempted revolution, but the inference is that he disapproves. One wonders whether he objects to change because it challenges the status quo; whether he disagrees with the direction of the proposed change; or whether he opposes the method, particularly the abruptness, with which change is being forced upon us. Each possibility merits response. Change Versus the Status Quo. It would be unfair to Dean Forrester to suggest that he opposes change for the sake of preserving the status quo. Assuredly he favors change that advances approved objectives and resists change only when it is mindless. The proper question thus goes to the merits. We must inquire as to the nature of proposed change and the methods by which its accomplishment is sought. Change as Revolution. Dean Forrester never describes exactly the direction of the revolutionary changes that he sees on the horizon, other than campus disruption; but it is entirely clear that he finds the prospect alarming. And so do we all. Since the former stability of the educational world is being increasingly challenged, those of us who were the beneficiaries of the unrocked boat must of course be concerned. But that does not make us automatically right and the challengers necessarily wrong

Dean John O. Mudd

Dean John O. Mud

The Right of Privacy: Emanations and Intimations

When Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren wrote in 1890 of The Right to Privacy, they sought a means of protecting against unwelcome newspaper attention to social activities in the Warren household. Addressing their argument to the private law of torts, they presumably did not anticipate constitutional protection for other rights under the claim of privacy. Nevertheless, seventy· five years later that concept, now called the right of privacy, was used by the Supreme Court of the United States in Griswold v. Connecticut to describe a constitutional right. Some members of the Court said the new right was within the penumbra formed by emanations from specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights, while others emphasized that it was an always present, but previously undiscovered, right of the people preserved in the almost forgotten ninth amendment