Describe how you utilized the 5Cs within your assignment.
-Communication: I wrote a judicial opinion, more than 2500 words long, discussing different arguments and ultimately settling on one of them, conveying that idea and the rationale behind it.
-Creativity: I think it was creative of me to not just write an essay on the relationship between law and air pollution, as I might have done. Instead I framed the discussion in an inherently legal context. Additionally, I slipped some funny details into the opinion.
-Curiosity: This SDA was an inherently curious one because in it I had to entertain and try to understand different points of view, and experiment a little bit with writing a respectable judicial opinion.
-Critical Thinking: I think of critical thinking as knowing what you’re saying, why you’re saying it, and who you’re saying it to. Here, I knew what I was saying (that legal theory x is better than legal theory y), why I was saying it (because I was settling a dispute between parties), and who I was saying it to (not just the parties, but other courts throughout New York and the world, whom my opinion influenced.
-Collaboration: I did have a discussion with a professor of mine about my research topic generally, climate change as an economic opportunity. This conversation convinced me that I would need to reconsider my definition of property going forward. I this project I’ve been thinking of property in a Lockean sense, but that’s somewhat unrealistic. However, I kind of skirted the issue in this SDA.
Describe how you built upon prior knowledge — How did this assignment further your thinking and learning?
I feel like this was a big step forward, because it was the beginning of a combination of law and economics. I’m a relative expert in both of them, but I usually think of them as completely separate. Here, I combined my knowledge of legal doctrines and the method of judicial opinions and my knowledge of economics and attempted to find a way for the two to work together to achieve a desirable outcome. In doing so, my thinking about both subjects has changed.
At this time, how do you think this assignment will contribute to your final product?
I’ve been thinking a lot about what my final product is going to look like, and I’m still not certain. However, I think the purpose of my project is to break a paradigm of thought that dominates current discussions about climate change, namely that climate change is bad. I don’t think bad is the right word. Climate change is happening. The question is not how do we stop it, but what do we do about it. I think that our paradigms and the structure of our laws mutually reinforce each other. By making this foray into the legal aspect of this problem, I think I set myself up for a stronger final product.
What would you change if you had a chance to do this piece over again?
The jurisprudence that I relied upon in justifying the justiciability of issues was federal law. However, the Court of Appeals is a state court. The principle is still the same, but if I could do this piece again I would find New York cases to justify this principle, rather than federal ones.
What ideas have changed about your topic through your research so far? (i.e., biases, misconceptions…)
I’m always found myself more in the ideas camp when it came to any subject of interest. I focus my efforts on exposing people to better ideas, rather than proposing better policies or plans of attack, so to speak. Because of this, I thought my project would be totally educational, and even totally theoretical. But after this month, I wonder if there might be certain laws that I could propose that would aid in my efforts to break the paradigm of climate change. It’s a misconception that a free society would have no laws; they just require a different justification. So maybe an idea for a law or body of law might emerge from this topic.
What new questions do you have about your topic?
This SDA addressed the idea of law as a solution to tangible nuisances, attributable to definite sources. How can the law be a solution to larger problems like climate change? What incentives are needed to properly prepare for the future? How can we break the current paradigm of thought that dominates discussions of climate change?
In one sentence: As of right now, what is your research question?
What are different ways of thinking about climate change?
How would you describe your success with respect to your goals with this assignment?
Met my expectations.
No comments:
Post a Comment