News

Today is Constitution Day, which urges educators to respond to the federal mandate to teach the Constitution in their classrooms. There are a number of websites, like iCivics and the National Constitution Center, that are offering videos and games to help teachers meet this mandate in a way that engages their students. We recommend that you check out this video lecture by David McCullough of the Constitutional Sources Project, made available at the ConSource website. In this 30 minute lecture recorded at the National Archives in Washington DC, McCullough describes how our Founding Fathers joined together “and in the midst of crisis… arrived at the words we live by.” On behalf of Harlan Institute, Happy Constitution Day!

This fall, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in U.S. v. Jones, a case where modern technology meets the guarantee against “unreasonable search and seizure” in the 4th Amendment. Specifically, the case raises the question: Do police need a warrant to install a GPS tracking device on a suspect’s car and monitor his behavior? While some courts have applied the protections of the 4th Amendment to cases involving e-mail and cell phone use, the Supreme Court has yet to consider the implications of the police using common and current technology like GPS tracking.  In fact, two of the most recent precedents for this case are Kyllo v. U.S. (which held that police cannot use a thermal imaging device to “search” a suspect’s house without a warrant) and U.S. v. Knotts(a 1983 case dealing with police use of beepers). The D.C. Court of Appeals held in this case that police must obtain a warrant before attaching a GPS device to the suspects car and tracking his movement for weeks at a time.  Other district courts, however, have held that GPS tracking is no different than the permissible practice of a police “shadow surveillance,” which involves officers staking out and tailing a suspect. These judges reason that the GPS simply allows the officer to tail an individual more efficiently, and therefore, can be done without a warrant. The New York Times is calling U.S. v. Jones “the most important Fourth Amendment case in a decade,” and certainly the Supreme Court’s holding may have widespread effects on the ability of law enforcement to use GPS and other modern technology for the surveillance of individuals.

As a new school year begins, an article in the New York Times considers a conundrum in the current push for the use of technology in the classroom. The article highlights Kyrene School District where, after major investments, the classes are “decked out with laptops, big interactive screens and software that drills students on every basic subject.” Despite the presence of cutting-edge technology, however, Kyrene has seen no improvement in their students’ math and reading scores. In fact, since the technological upgrade in 2005, the school’s scores have remained stagnant, while the statewide average has risen. The article considers several possible explanations for stagnant scores in a tech-savvy school like Kyrene; many of which look to the way we assess educational progress in general. For example, while standardized tests reflect that the students at Kyrene have stagnated in past years, the tests do not show the subsequent improvement of students’ technological skills, which are arguably more important in the digital age. Proponents argues that “technology has inspired students and helped them grow, but that there is no good way to quantify those achievements.” Further, the assessment of technology in the classroom underscores an important point: as the push for more technology increases, “computers are not intended to replace teachers.” To the districts that pour money into laptops and Smart Boards while cutting their budgets and laying off teachers, Bryan Goodwin, spokesman for Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning, points out: “Good teachers can make good use of computers, while bad teachers won’t, and they and their students could wind up becoming distracted by the technology.” The ideal educational structure, it seems, is one where a teacher can use technological tools to engage with students, as a jumping off point for further discussion or independent analysis. This idea rings true when thinking of the classrooms that use FantasySCOTUS as a teaching tool. While Harlan Institute aims to provide resources that fit into history and civics curricula in the digital age, the important part happens in the classroom as students think critically about cases and respond with blog posts or as classes collaborate to predict the outcome of a case before casting their vote on the website. This year, we have also introduced the Podcast Badge, which allows students to record their responses to certain topics, and we hope some students will experiment with this medium and enhance their oral communication skills.

The National Constitution Center, whose extraordinary museum sits directly across from the birthplace of the Constitution in Philadelphia, recently noted the role that the Harlan Institute plays in bringing civics education to the modern classroom.  The NCC featured a blog post by Harlan Institute President and Co-Founder Josh Blackman in which Blackman discussed the success of FantasySCOTUS in teaching students about the Supreme Court, the Constitution and our legal system.  “What makes FantasySCOTUS.org so effective for pedagogical purposes,” Blackman wrote, “is that it is real.” The NCC has clearly shown the need for a resurgence in civics education and the Harlan Institute is proud to share the NCC’s goal of bringing the Constitution to life in a fun and interactive medium with which students can relate.

A recent opinion by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals declared unconstitutional a portion of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the official tongue-twisting name of the 2010 health care bill often referred to by its supporters and detractors as “Obamacare”). Because the 11th Circuit’s opinion is in direct conflict with a recent opinion by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the issue is now in a prime position for Supreme Court review, likely late in the coming October 2011 term. The current litigation over the PPACA has demonstrated that Supreme Court prognostication is not just an educational tool limited to the Harlan Institute and FanstasySCOTUS.org; it also has consequential real-life applications. In a search for the correct answer on the constitutionality of the PPACA, the health care legal battle has thus far resulted in several other contrasting opinions: for example, in just the past year, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia struck down the Act while a judge in Western District of Virginia upheld it. These contradictory results serve as a useful reminder for students of the truth behind Yogi Berra’s oft-quoted adage that “it ain’t over ‘till it’s over” – particularly when it comes to the Supreme Court. For instance, Professor Orin Kerr of the George Washington University Law School gave a useful example of this uncertainty when he predicted in a recent blog post on SCOTUSBlog.com that the Supreme Court would uphold the Act by a vote of somewhere between 8-1 and 6-3. While it may be frustrating for students (and lawyers, for that matter) to be unable to pin down a precise vote, Professor Kerr’s two-vote range illustrates an important point that students participating in FantasySCOTUS would do well to heed as they participate: FantasySCOTUS – and real-life Supreme Court prediction – can be as much art as it is science. In a February story, NPR’s Nina Totenberg illustrated the historical difficulty of deciding how the Supreme Court will eventually rule based on the tea-leaves of lower courts’ opinions. Totenberg notes that, while such opinions might be useful as guides to whether certain arguments will carry any weight with the Supreme Court (a point particularly apt in PPACA litigation), the ultimate lesson may simply be that students playing FantasySCOTUS should, “in short, assume nothing, at least until the U.S. Supreme Court rules.” Allie Myers and Charles Kruly wrote this post.

A recent opinion piece in the New York Times highlighted the need to revamp the traditional American classroom to meet the rapidly changing culture of technology. The article specifically focuses on the research of Cathy N. Davidson, co-director of the MacArthur Foundation Digital Media and Learning Competitions, who sets the tone by pointing out that “65 percent of today’s grade-school kids may end up doing work that hasn’t been invented yet.” While some educators curse the Internet as a distraction from learning and view evolving technology as an obstacle to overcome, Davidson suggests that embracing digital technology may be more useful for students in the long run. She proposes that teachers alter their methods by encouraging virtual collaboration and even calls into question one of the cornerstones (or nightmares) of any students’ education: the research paper. Davidson asks: “What if bad writing is a product of the form of writing required in school — the term paper — and not necessarily intrinsic to a student’s natural writing style or thought process?” Of course, not everyone’s embrace is so eager.  Nicholas Carr, in a recent Atlantic Monthly article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, questioned the effect of the Internet – particularly its emphasis on short-form blog and news articles rather than more traditional long-form books and articles – on the way we think, read and process information.  Carr notes that the Internet  encourages “a different kind of reading, and behind [that] lies a different kind of thinking—perhaps even a new sense of the self.” Davidson might respond, however, that this “different kind of reading” is part of digital literacy and that there is value in encouraging, rather than stifling, the skills gained by participating in Internet culture. She notes: “Online blogs directed at peers exhibit fewer typographical and factual errors, less plagiarism, and generally better, more elegant and persuasive prose than classroom assignments by the same writers.” As students participate in blogging exercises as a part of FantasySCOTUS, I would be interested in hearing from teachers how the quality of their students’ contributions to the blog compares to that of more traditional written assignments. Is a student’s work about, say, James Madison substantially more engaged, well-written and creative simply because of the medium in which the student produced the assignment? Regardless, we look forward to seeing students engage with upcoming Supreme Court cases as they create blog posts and podcasts on FantasySCOTUS.org this fall. This post was co-written by Allison Myers and Charlie Kruly.

Congratulations to the winners of the inaugural season of FantasySCOTUS.org. The grand prize winner was Mr. Chris Zanoni’s Honors Government class at Somerset High School in Somerset, PA. In addition to making very accurate predictions about our five cases decided this term, Mr. Zanoni’s class put together an exemplary class blog. I encourage you to read some of the blog posts about Connick v. Thompson, Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, Brown v. EMA, NASA v. Nelson, and Snyder v. Phelps. This writing is at such a high level, and the analysis is superb. This could pass muster in a law school class.Mr. Zanoni’s class will be awarded the grand prize of an iPad. In second place was Ms. Dayna Laur’s government class from Central York High School in York, PA. Ms. Laur’s class will receive a $100 Amazon.com Gift Card. In third place was Ms. Erin Olson’s AP Language & Composition class in Sioux Rapids, IA. Ms. Olson’s class will receive a $50 Amazon.com Gift Card. The runner-up class was Mr. Ben Ewald’s Constitutional Law class in Frisco, TX.  

School	Location	Teacher	Points	Blog
1. Somerset High School	Somerset, PA	Mr. Chris Zanoni	8650	http://www.harlaninstitute.org/mrzgov3/
2. Central York High School	York, PA	Ms. Dayna Laur	2500	http://www.harlaninstitute.org/centrallaw/
3. Sioux Central High School	Sioux Rapids, IA	Ms. Erin Olson	1800	http://www.harlaninstitute.org/eolsonteacheraplc/
4. Frisco CTE Center	Frisco, TX	Mr. Ben Ewald	1700	http://www.harlaninstitute.org/friscocte3a/

The Supreme Court handed down an opinion for Brown v. EMA (formerly Schwarzenegger v. EMA) on June 27, 2011. In a 7-2 decision, the Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s holding and struck down the California law that would restrict the sale of violent video games to minors. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, began by explaining that video games — like books, movies, or other forms of entertainment — communicate ideas, and therefore qualify for First Amendment protection. He disagreed with California’s assertion that violent video games, like obscenity, should not be protected by the First Amendment when directed towards children, calling the argument “unprecedented and mistaken.” Scalia then discussed several children’s stories and high school reading list favorites that include violent or gruesome scenes, from Hansel and Gretel to Dante’s Inferno, to make his point that our country has no tradition of restricting depictions of violence aimed toward children. He concludes by noting that California has not provided convincing evidence that violent games have a negative effect on children, and therefore their argument fails the strict scrutiny test. Because the law restricts too much speech and does not serve a narrow, compelling state interest, it must be struck down. Justice Alito, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, wrote a concurring opinion in which he agreed that the California law was unconstitutional, calling it “impermissibly vague,” but cautioned the majority against hastily comparing new technology like video games to more familiar forms of expression like books and movies. Alito believes that the interactive nature of the games, as well as evolving technology that makes the gaming experience exceedingly realistic, should distinguish video games from other forms of media. Justices Thomas and Breyer filed separate dissenting opinions for this case. Thomas disagrees with the majority based on historical evidence that the drafters of the First Amendment would not have intended for absolute free speech rights to extend to children. Breyer would uphold the law as well, writing that California has the right to restrict minors from buying violent games and that, based on the evidence presented, they have a legitimate reason for doing so. In the spirit of new technology, Breyer became the first Supreme Court Justice to cite a YouTube video in his opinion.

This year, Harlan Institute had the honor of participating in National History Day by judging the senior division of the competition. High school students from all 50 states competed in various categories– paper, exhibit, documentary, website, performance – and shared high-level research projects with their audience, judges, and peers. The middle school and high school students who competed on June 12 – June 16 at the University of Maryland were the state level winners, representing over half a million students nationwide who created individual or group projects this year. While topics ranged from the triumph of the Polish Solidarity movement to the legacy of Native American boarding schools, each project was tied in to this year’s theme of Debate & Diplomacy in History. The “debate” aspect of the theme inspired many students to explore influential decisions by the Supreme Court and the controversy that surrounded them. Student projects discussed the impact of Brown v. Board of Education, the famous case that declared “separate but equal” schooling for black and white students was unconstitutional, and criticized the holding in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, where the Court held that 1st Amendment freedom of association allowed for the Boy Scouts organization to exclude a homosexual scoutmaster. Other students engaged with constitutional law in other ways, for example, by exploring the tension between personal privacy and national security and how it relates to the Constitution. In the wake of sobering reports about students performing poorly on nationwide American history tests and their failing grades on civics exams, the students who showed their work at National History Day provided a refreshing counterpoint. They displayed both an eagerness to engage with history and the ability to conduct impressive research and analysis. Congratulations to all the participants for their hard work and to the finalists and winners for their exceptional presentations.

Here are the latest rankings:

		Member	Points
1		Melech	4,340
2		tcampbell1950	4,190
3		nbcrcc	4,190
4		lawnerd	4,100
5		Jakes553	3,870
6		abbamouse	3,790
7		corteal	3,790
8		vivekn	3,620
9		TheConstitutionsChamp	3,580
10		homerthedude	3,520
11		Kanu17	3,270
12		ugapolisci	3,260
13		eodenius	3,220
14		jonathaningram	3,200
15		hummel8226	3,070
16		ctrejbal	2,970
17		hythlos	2,850
18		jtrulock	2,840
19		Alexander	2,760
20		keichstaedt	2,670
21		gomorra3	2,590
22		andrewthemachine	2,480
23		nuchar	2,250
24		shanec	2,240
25		uscterrapin	2,130

Here are the latest law school rankings:

Law School Rankings				Score
	1	.Columbia	21 Members	4130	Join
	2	.New York University	39 Members	3870	Join
	3	.St. Thomas (minnesota)	12 Members	3100	Join
	4	.Michigan	17 Members	3030	Join
	5	.Louisiana State	23 Members	3010	Join
	6	.Virginia	22 Members	2500	Join
	7	.Georgetown	42 Members	2450	Join
	8	.Charleston	15 Members	2310	Join
	9	.Thomas M. Cooley	34 Members	2190	Join
	10	.Valparaiso	20 Members	1940	Join
	11	.Campbell	8 Members	1920	Join
	12	.Santa Clara	18 Members	1790	Join
	13	.Brooklyn	33 Members	1520	Join
	14	.Miami	20 Members	1320	Join
	15	.Loyola – New Orleans	11 Members	1300	Join
	16	.Chicago-kent	29 Members	1290	Join
	16	.Seton Hall	16 Members	1290	Join
	17	. Other Law School	122 Members	1230	Join
	18	.Northeastern	35 Members	1190	Join
	18	.Regent	6 Members	1190	Join
	19	.Georgia State	16 Members	1140	Join
	20	.Saint Louis	27 Members	1080	Join
	21	.Northern Kentucky	20 Members	1070	Join
	22	.District Of Columbia	11 Members	1060	Join
	23	.Depaul	22 Members	1030	Join
	24	.Capital	12 Members	1010	Join
	25	.Utah	11 Members	980	Join