HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017161.jpg

4.2.12 WC: 191694 Professor Dershowitz sees his job not as teaching “the specifics of law in any jurisdiction; anyone can find that on his own,” but to teach his students how “to ask the right questions and bring to bear the right information for the right purpose.” In short, her purports to teach his students how to think critically and teach themselves. “T can only present the problems,” he explains. “In many instances there are no answers, and I don’t particularly care what answers the students find. As long as they see the process in perspective and are equipped to ask the right questions, that’s all that counts.” We deal with common day-to-day documents of the law—indictments, probation reports, transcripts—not merely sterile abstracts of appellate cases...Every major problem faced by the practicing lawyer will come up eventually. But the student will have to find them; they won’t pop out at him...We don’t play the logical, cute little game that often typifies criminal law courses. There are rarely pat answers and clear distinctions in this course; the student will have to make his own chapter titles.” Some traditionalists were appalled at my interdisciplinary approach. One distinguished alumnus spoke for many when he wrote: “Professor Dershowitz seems to epitomize some of the lack of reality at the law school....Until such time as our whole penalogical system is changed, the law student is going to have to know his ‘law’ as his preliminary basis for the experience to cope with existing institutions and do a lawyer’s job. One cannot deny the credentials of Professor Dershowitz’s genius, but I question whether the application of his genius as apparently applied, is of any help making good lawyers out of Harvard law students.” My approach was defended by Justice Arthur Goldberg, for whom I had just finished clerking, who assured my critics that: “Mr. Dershowitz’s students will be the beneficiaries of his engaging personality and extraordinary insight into the subjects he will teach, just as I was.” The Harvard Law Record also editorialized that: It is good to know that many of these subjects are being injected into the Harvard Law curriculum by young Professor Alan M. Dershowitz; no doubt, even with our liberal arts backgrounds, we could stand and benefit from more such learning. Shortly thereafter, a lead article in the New York Times Magazine, comparing Harvard and Yale law schools, described me as “a fresh wind blowing through Harvard” and as an extremely popular teacher.*’ That article afforded me legitimacy, even among some of the faculty and alumni who remained skeptical about my non-traditional approach to teaching law. At the end of my first year, I was given the highest teaching rating among the faculty. A subsequent article said that, “his students have praised him as ‘the master of the hypothetical—answer one correctly, and he’s got one in his arsenal that’s guaranteed to tie your tongue in knots.’” Soon, younger teachers were asking to sit in on my classes. I always said yes. ?1 New York Times Magazine, September 11, 1966, Victor S. Nevasky, The Yales vs. The Harvards 74 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017161