Poly Sci moot court educates outside the box

Three semesters ago, Political Science Professor Mark Kemper recognized the importance of incorporating a "moot court" requirement into his general course outline for his Introduction to Law and Constitutional Law classes. Instead a class that constitutes with primary grades for the midterm-final, Kemper decided to go against the grain and went with a moot court requirement that would constitute for 50% of the students final grade. In this requirement, he challenged students to write a 10-15 page legal brief of their chosen argument and present this argument before a mock Supreme Court justice panel, consisting of classmates.

Kemper first thought of the idea while serving on the American Collegiate Moot Court Association's Executive Board. He thought that this kind of requirement would enhance the students learning experience beyond the classroom.

''I have become increasingly convinced that students benefit from the hands on, experimental learning that the moot court provides,'' said Kemper. ''It is something that promotes their ability to develop arguments, think critically, reason by analogy and engage in public speaking.''

This semester Kemper challenged students in his POLI-285 (Intro. to Law) and POLI-344 (Con. Law- Rights of the Accused) classes to engage within the text of the majority and dissenting opinions he provided.

The case that his Introduction to Law class deals with revolves around the 8th Amendment's issue of "no cruel or unusual punishment."

It addresses a problem with a Los Angeles ordinance that prohibits individuals from sitting, lying, and sleeping on the public streets and sidewalks 24 hours a day, and can be enforced against the homeless.

The case that his Rights of the Accused class is dealing with concerns Fourth Amendment doctrine with regards to legal searches and seizures.

The defendant (Scott), signed his rights away in a document that allowed for "any search at any time of the day or the night," while he was under a pre-trial release.

During one particular search, the police came and arrested Scott because he violated federal law for possessing an illegal firearm.

In both classes, students are allowed to pick what side they will argue for oral arguments.

They are asked to argue on behalf of the government or the party that is being affected by the government. All cases are real cases that have not been heard by the Supreme Court. It is the student's job to analyze relevant Supreme Court precedent and argue their side of the argument.

''I don't want students to tailor their arguments to please me or my ideological preferences,'' said Kemper. ''Instead students need to develop the best argument that they can for the side of the case they are arguing. Students should let the merits of their arguments speak for themselves.''

Junior Andrew Cullen said that this class has been invaluable in preparing him for not only the working world but for everyday life.

''Everyday people are going to ask you questions in situations that need to be presented and addressed where you have to speak on your feet,'' said Cullen. ''You have to research to know what your doing, so that you know what people might ask you in the course of a day.''

Cullen is currently enrolled in Kemper's Rights of the Accused class and says that the case that he has to work with is challenging.

"The case is tough because it deals with both a legal issue and a moral issue," said Cullen. "It's a legal issue because it deals with handguns and the defendant tested positive for drugs, with a family. And it's a moral issue because the evidence found is rather impermissible and Scott's rights should be protected from the government."

Cullen said that this is his third Constitutional Law class and he says that Kemper isn't your average professor that will let you say what you want to say before the justices.

''Kemper is the kind of professor that doesn't let you off easy,'' said Cullen. ''You have to speak in an organized fashion and do it efficiently. Sometimes what you write in the brief isn't good enough to answer his questions because one wrong answer and your entire argument can fall apart.''

Professor Kemper says that as students take more of his Constitutional Law classes he hopes that they will get the gist of his expectations and do better the next time, if they didn't do so hot the first time.

''I hope students will get better,'' said Kemper. ''I offer feedback on both the oral argument and the brief, so students should improve their skills the second time around.''

Kemper thinks that after completing the oral argument requirement, students will become better public speakers.

''Students will be come more comfortable with speaking in front of an audience the more times that they do it,'' said Kemper. ''This will be something that will aid them if they take other legal studies courses or any other course with a significant public speaking requirement.''

The Political Science department is offering POLI-343 (Con. Law: Liberty and Equality) in the Fall semester.