Compelling Orthodoxy: Myth and Mystique in the Marketing of Legal Education

[Excerpt] “In many ways, the story of modern legal education reads like a grim fairy tale, whose moral dénouement is no less compelling, and perhaps more consequential, than its fabulist forbearers. In this regard the marketing of legal education may aptly be illustrated by fable, such as that of The Trees and the Bramble Bush, which concerns the folly of electing a king. When some beautiful trees decide to look for a leader, they offer the throne to the olive, the fig and the vine; each in turn refuses, preferring to keep to its own fruitful role. The bramble steps in and accepts, soon making threats of what will happen to those that do not accept him. The result is perhaps the law of unintended consequences at play, but it has implications for both the quality of legal education and the treasured concept of academic freedom. Certainly, the realm of scholarship has been invaded by the image-seekers and image-makers. Legal scholarship is unique in ways that are both interesting and problematic. It has become a phenomenon of epic proportions; the bulk of what we know of such writing emanates from the 190-plus law schools approved by the American Bar Association, which collectively produce more than 680 legal journals.

The Gentleman from Hagerstown: How Maryland Jews Won the Right to Vote

This article discusses the early history of Maryland in the context of religious discrimination, specifically in reference to discrimination against those of the Jewish faith, even though the state was founded as a haven of religious liberty and beacon of toleration. It also highlights a member of the Maryland House of Delegates, Thomas Kennedy, a Christian, as being the leader of the movement to ultimately correct this injustice. Part of the problem were clauses in the state\u27s constitution requiring officeholders to be Christians. Kennedy lost his seat in the House, but didn\u27t give up the battle. Ha had tried several times to get bills passed to solve this problem, but many of these failed. After six years of effort, and after having been reelected to House of Delegates, his bill on behalf of the Jews passed, in February of 1825

Free Exercise in the Free State: Maryland\u27s Role in Religious Liberty and the First Amendment

Maryland arguably holds the distinction of being the state whose early history most directly ensured, and whose citizenry was most directly affected by, the First Amendment\u27s protection of religious freedom. Because of its relatively diverse religious population, Maryland stood out as both a champion of tolerance and a hotbed of discrimination for most of its colonial experience. Similarities have been pointed out between the first provincial government in St. Mary\u27s, Maryland, and the American plan under the Constitution, particularly with respect to religious liberty.This article offers a brief overview of the religious history of Maryland, focuses on important state cases that have contributed to the jurisprudence of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in the First Amendment and examines several unresolved issues engendered by recent litigation and legislation

Two Workers

This article profiles two individuals who were workers in two distinct industries. The first profile is of Dotty Neal, who at the time of this article\u27s writing, worked for the Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company, in Maryland. The nature of her job and work are described, often in her own words. The second profile is of Ray Murdock, who worked as a sanitary worker, or garbageman, in Boston, MA. Again, the nature of this kind of work is described, often in Murdock\u27s own words. The article shows how much technology has changed in the telecommunications industry, and perhaps how much it hasn\u27t changed in the area of trash collection. This article won a 1971 Sidney Hillman Prize Award for magazine journalism

The Astonishing Year(s) of 1996: A Confusion of Tongues and Alphabetical Camels the First Time as Tragedy

Such irreverence was nothing new to Nimrod. A half-century earlier he had encouraged [Abraham], who\u27d publicly renounced idolatry even though his father manufactured and sold graven images: how ridiculous, he reasoned, to worship clay figures that had been made the day before! Thus did Nimrod have Abraham thrown into a fiery furnace, from which, according to Midrashic legend, he emerged unscathed. Unlike Nimrod, Abraham eschewed power in favor of teaching ethics and morality to his people. In the intervening years Nimrod concerned himself with the building of great cities as testimony to his own power and invincibility. And in 1996 (B.C.E.) he is said to have commissioned the mother of all monuments — the Tower of Babel — from which he could wage war against the Heavens. Yes, echoed the people: Come, let us build a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves. (Genesis 11: 4) For this deed, the Bible tells us, mankind was scattered over the face of the earth to form no fewer than 70 different nations, each with its own language and self-interest. Strife and discord ensued

No More \u27Sha Still\u27

This op-ed laments the consequences of staying quiet in light of recent national and international events. It takes President Obama to task for blaming Israel for lack of progress in Middle East peace negotiations, as well as Congress for its ineptitude during the recent national debt ceiling negotiations

Controversial Speakers on Campus: Liberties, Limitations, and Common-Sense Guidelines

Veritas vos liberabit, chanted the scholastics of yesteryear. The truth will set you free, echo their latter-day counterparts in the academy, intoning the mantra reverentially but with increasingly more hope than confidence, more faith than conviction.... The real world of the academy, of course, is not quite that wonderful, nor nearly as bad as many would suggest. The ironies become palpable, however, when those self-same institutions, which almost universally view themselves as bastions of free speech, instead stifle debate that is perceived as politically incorrect or otherwise embarrassing. Academic administrators naturally shy away from conflict and contention. They shun controversy. They abhor negative publicity of any kind, quelling it as heavy-handedly as conservative corporations whose primary concern is to ensure a profitable bottom line. Thus universities have become intuitively reluctant to sponsor ideas that clash too loudly. The research and scholarship they most enthusiastically support is that which curries favorable coverage from the media and attracts large amounts of dollars from alumni