Subscribe
Jobs
Cars
Real Estate
Apts
Classifieds
Shop
Dawn Johnsen is in limbo: Her nomination as head of the federal Office of Legal Counsel has not been brought to the Senate floor. Sen. Harry Reid, the majority leader, has said he won’t do so until he’s sure that there are enough votes – 60 – to overcome a filibuster.
Members of both parties have expressed reticence to vote for Johnsen, an Indiana University law professor. They cite her tenure as the legal director of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League and her partisan activities as indications of her possible unwillingness to listen to others and as predictive representations of how left-wing the Office of Legal Counsel will be. They argue Johnsen won’t give President Obama a truly objective analysis of the law; they argue she’ll merely feed the White House left-wing agitprop.
Unlike her Washington opponents, I took constitutional law from Professor Johnsen. If the way she ran her class is a reliable indicator, the fears about her are groundless.
The class discussed federal and state powers, limitations, standards of judicial review, separation of power and substantive due process. Topics inherent in these subjects included abortion, enemy combatant trials and detention.
We had in-depth conversations involving all those topics, and students were required to explain their understanding of the law, the decision-making process involved in the reasoning, and whether they agreed or disagreed with that judicial reasoning.
Perhaps a good indicator of what Johnsen would be like in the Office of Legal Counsel is the manner in which she teaches her students. Really, what is she like? What is her classroom demeanor? Is she a partisan activist as those in opposition to her nomination claim? Is she a political zealot, chomping at the bit to shove her viewpoints down the throats of her submissive first-year law students?
No, really, she is not. My constitutional law class was convivial, difficult but laid-back. Sitting in Johnsen’s classroom for an entire semester, four days a week, I think I got at least a glimpse of what her true professional mannerisms are like.
When we discussed abortion and executive power, I can say the classroom was an area that encouraged diversity of ideas and opinions.
If one didn’t know about Professor Johnsen’s professional past, I challenge any one of my fellow students to have “known” what she was thinking or her own opinions. She was a true professional, soliciting viewpoints from members of the military on occasions when we talked about “don’t ask, don’t tell” and separation of powers.
Perhaps one might think that the pleasant nature of my class was because of a bevy of parroting law students: Learn to repeat the professor and cater to what she wants, and you’ll succeed. This was not true with my class, and we are all better for it. We had a diversity of viewpoints, running the gamut of political perspectives and opinions.
Several members of my class were angry about being stuck with Professor Johnsen when they first received their class schedule. One student wore conservative political T-shirts frequently in protest; I’d heard it through the grapevine that another member of my class wanted to “make her cry” by the end of the class period. Whether the rumor is true or not, she didn’t cry.
In any event, these prejudices were unwarranted: Johnsen’s incredibly fair, intelligent and scholarly outlook, combined with her constant interest in hearing all viewpoints, made class both fascinating and a true learning environment.
Professor Johnsen is, indeed, a brilliant woman, and when she had a disagreement with a student regarding a particular constitutional issue or interpretation, she would challenge that student to an in-class debate of sorts. But any good professor or professional would do that.
Debate and questioning of ideas are what make a great classroom, and the lack of such arguably made the former Office of Legal Counsel environment a bad one. Johnsen’s respectful nature showed during discussions of every issue, whether it was a question of state power or a discussion of abortion.
Yes, my experience is limited. But I think it’s relevant to the discussion about Professor Johnsen’s credentials to mention how good a professor she is and how much interest she had in understanding the multitude of differing ideas about constitutional interpretation.
If my experience in her class is transferable to how she’ll operate in the Office of Legal Counsel, her critics’ worries are unwarranted.
