The ideal of "the rule of law, not of men" reflects a commitment by most modern democracies to the regular and impartial administration of public rules. Free
societies are also characterized by a pluralism of reasonable but frequently divergent views among its citizens. This course explores the tension between the
rule of law ideal and different forms of pluralism. Drawing on judicial opinions
and works in philosophy and legal theory, we will examine law from the perspectives of gender, race, class, and other standpoints. These perspectives
inform alternative, often critical, understandings of existing legal doctrines in
areas ranging from private law to the constitution. We will focus on how these
competing accounts pose philosophical challenges to the social norms and institutional structures the law endorses--by questioning the status of knowledge
claims, the role of moral principle, and the basis of political legitimacy in law.
Finally, we will ask whether the law can overcome those concerns in light of
emerging theories in contemporary legal philosophy. Readings will include a
few illustrative appellate cases but will consist largely of works by philosophers
and legal scholars such as Locke, Rousseau, John Rawls, Michael Sandel, Duncan Kennedy, Robin West, Lucie White, Robert Cover, Martha Minow, Roberto
Unger, and Frank Michelman.
Requirements: class participation and two 5- to 7-page papers.
No prerequisites. Enrollment limit: 19 (expected: 15). Preference given to juniors and seniors.
Hour: ALCALA