Hey, @TAMULawSchool students! Sign up for mindful movement & breath (secular form of yoga) during finals weeks. It's free for members of the law-school community. https://www.shriya.yoga/blog/mindful-movement-for-tamu-law-students-5ws-h
As @TAMULawSchool celebrates ten years of affiliation with @TAMU , our talented faculty, staff, and students celebrate as only they Ken. (Oh, and it was also Constitution Day). https://youtu.be/zzDIlMU3wz8?si=27X2SQue5fyUNyF7
I posted a video on Instagram about women in computing, and the misogynist trolls are out in force! But I've discovered that the best response to the (dozens of) comments from men I've received along the lines of "CS isn't toxic for women" or "no one is keeping women out of CS" is: "Oh it's so great to see a woman in CS who has had such a positive experience comment on my post!"
For sterner criticism from me and @StephenESachs, see here: https://reason.com/volokh/2020/10/30/citing-slavery-in-the-bluebook/
I don’t entirely agree with this article but it’s better than the current Bluebook’s approach and kudos for @djsziff for writing it.
I'm happy to announce that my article in the @NCLRev Forum is now live in its final form: Citation, Slavery, and the Law as Choice: Thoughts on Bluebook Rule 10.7.1(d). Thanks to the student editors who made this possible! 1/
(self-promotional) RT of @JLWIonline@twitter.com (tags added)
All students come to law school with rich #RhetoricalExperience, says @rhetoricked
in "Centering Students' Rhetorical Knowledge." The essay describes how #PeerReview and #ClassroomWorkshopping can help develop a #CommunityOfInquiry:
Also available (and open access) on the journal's site is the state-of-the-art paper on norms of public argumentation from the APPLY working group, on which I was a contributing author, along with almost a dozen other folks (I co-wrote the section on legal argumentation): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-023-09598-6
The paper in this thread is now available on the journal's website, open access: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-023-09608-7
If you're into grammar, the passive voice, bankruptcy, or statutory interpretation (or all four) then do I have the Supreme Court case for you! The Court discusses the passive voice in statutory language. Really interesting stuff.
h/t to @rhetoricked
"Centering Students’ Rhetorical Knowledge: The Community of Inquiry as Formative Assessment": My essay on valuing the rhetorical experiences of diverse students in peer-review contexts has appeared in _Legal Writing_ vol. 27 @JLWIonline@twitter.com
RT of my sometime collaborator @CasonSchmit Excited that he and his co-authors have placed this piece in Science
Can Trolls control #AI Robots?
No, this isn't science fiction. It's the overly sensationalized summary of our new article in @ScienceMagazine with @DNAlawyer and @MegDoerr.
Leveraging IP for AI governance
@willbuckingham I wonder to what extent the history we teach our kids is not very much like that family tree. In the US, we talk about old George Washington confessing to chopping down the cherry tree (fiction) but not about the enslaved people he purported to own (fact). I don’t mean to crap on your treasured memories (there are many such stories in my family that I love), only to point out that communities have analogous family trees.
Good take on courses students should take to be more than/better than #ChatGPT
Is teaching Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion a form of indoctrination? For example, is teaching black feminism in an AP African American Studies course indoctrination?
*Banning* DEI is indoctrination, however.
Indoctrination is defined as forcing students to absorb/internalize a belief or narrative uncritically and without question.
Banning DEI is calculated to do exactly that.
@lexpedite After just a quick glance (on vacation here), I wonder how your code maps (or not) onto argumentation mapping tools (eg Rationale, ArgDown, Arucaria, etc.).
Been on the #fediverse for a couple of weeks now (and even succeeded in switching instances!), so it's finally time for an #introduction. Yes, I came here from Twitter like everyone else, but as a Gen Xer, I'm finding this a pleasant throwback to the slightly glitchy but earnest Internet spaces of the 90s/early 2000s. I'm a law prof with extremely eclectic interests: conflicts, civ pro, public health, fed courts, federal Indian law. Also enjoy reading novels, trying to improve my German.
Reviewer #1 called the paper “clever and ambitious” before skewering us on a series of issues that we remedied before a second round of peer review; they accepted the second version without further requirements. The paper seems less clever and ambitious to me now, but we’ve made more precise claims and more carefully supported them. Sadly, I don’t have a pre-print to share online, but ask if you want one privately. I hope to see the issue out later this year! 6/6
Our definition addresses some questions arising from existing argument-scheme definitions. For example, using our data, we show that a minimally well formed instance of this type of argument does not shift any conventional burden from the proponent of the argument to its skeptics. Instead, we speculate that an argument proponent may be able to shift a burden by saturating the argument with propositions in the critical framework to one extent or another. 5/6