Today’s episode is the jackpot for Supreme Court bingo players, as our hosts play a guessing game as to which justices will write some of the court’s most anticipated forthcoming opinions. Also on today’s episode, David and Sarah chat about two cases involving racial classification in the dispensation of government relief to “socially disadvantaged” farmers and ranchers, and debate which Supreme Court cases AP U.S. history students should be required to commit to memory. Plus, Sarah shares a fun story about her experience camping outside of the Supreme Court building to hear oral arguments for D.C. v. Heller.
Show Notes:
-Fulton v. City of Philadelphia
-Ferris v. United States
-Trump v. Hawaii
I was delighted to hear your response to the plea of a mild-mannered AP Government teacher regarding your takes on the SCOTUS cases required by the College Board for America's high school seniors (sorry If I misreported the date of the exam). I found myself imagining grading your responses as a teacher. Any good teacher is well aware that he/she grades students far more capable than themselves. "Reading" David's answer brought a smile to my face as his answer demonstrated every bit as much fidelity to the margins of the paper as it did to the question itself. His handwriting was as true as his logic, even and consistent. He disected the prompt, offered a robust rebuttal against the presence of Schenck (Amen!) all with a reasonable amount of ink to allow his teacher to assign him a perfect score AND effieciently move on to the next paper. I of course pat myself on the back as his brilliance is clearly the result of my dutiful instruction (thank you smart kids! for building the egos of your teachers). On to the next paper...Sarah's. It starts out rather drab. Clearly she's used flash cards to associate the pertinent information, and key words with each case. I strech my back in my chair as she sets up a rather conventional thesis. Hmmm...what's this? The second paragrap is written with a far heavier hand. The poor pen must have endured the intense pressure as the loops of her letters grow large with intensity. The revolution has begun and the glass house of the College Board cracks under her initial volley! One of two things can happen here: 1) I roll my eyes and assign an perfect score early-it's easier this way. After all, I have kids, a wife, and this kid clearly doesn't need me...and this paper is like twelve pages! OR, 2) I tuck this paper away in my bag-this is wine-time grading. On my second glass of the Trader Joe special (teachers are not poor, but high-end Spanish wine is only a luxury...and Glenmorangie tingles with guilt on my tongue) I resume Sarah's paper. Sure, she waivered from the original premise of the question, questioned the value of the question qua question, indirectly challenging my very competence as a teacher. I raise my head...my wife and kids are asleep and a pile of ungraded papers sit neatly on the table for another day. Thanks for you response to the question. I intend on taking copious notes and implementing what I can. You've done a great service to a braggadocious TD member and indirectly helped guide the instruction of a small portion of American teenagers. Thank you.
As a high school humanities teacher, social studies department chair, and all-around curriculum nerd, listening to your responses to the AP U.S. History teacher's question got me thinking about designing a U.S. History course that is framed around a well-chosen handful of Supreme Court cases, tracing one, maybe two key issues (free speech, religious freedom, dual/cooperative federalism, etc) in depth. A class like that would lend itself so easily to teaching good research and debate skills as well, and would as a matter of course require--and enhance--a firm foundation of civic understanding.
It would also help to resolve the tension that most U.S. History teachers face between coverage (trying to get as far in a US Hist. survey as possible only to have the school-year end right as the Cold War is just beginning) and un-coverage (accepting that we can't cover everything and instead choosing key topics to uncover and delve into more carefully).
Easier said than done when CollegeBoard recommends a 9-unit structure stretching from 1491 to the present day, with 8 major themes and specific required content to cover over the course of those 9 units, including an eclectic list of Supreme Court cases to remember. *sigh*