Butterfly Effects: the Possibilities of Law Teaching in a Democracy*
Duke Law Journal VOLUME 41 FEBRUARY 1992 NUMBER 4 BUTTERFLY EFFECTS: THE POSSIBILITIES OF LAW TEACHING IN A DEMOCRACY* PAUL D. CARRINGTON** INTRODUCTION New legal institutions are being formed at an astonishing pace in 1992. From Cambodia to Croatia, from Pretoria to Bogota, in the for- mer territory of the Soviet Union, and the federation taking shape in western Europe, the work of constructing new polities proceeds apace. It would be far too much to say that all of these developments are proceeding along the lines of our American model; others, of course, think for themselves. Yet it is clear that many of the ideas embraced by Americans in the late eighteenth century are finding favor with many, perhaps most, of the plentiful founders of 1992. Political accountability of the governors to the governed and government limited by law seem, for example, to be generally accepted premises of contemporary govern- mental reform. The tradition of American law teaching had its origins in precisely these premises. It seems not unlikely, therefore, that the subject of legal education will reach the agendas of today's founders as well. This Arti- cle is therefore written to assist the thinking of those in distant places who may in 1992 or soon thereafter consider the possible role of law teaching as a foundation of restrained democratic government. * Some of this Article appears in a shorter piece prepared especially for English readers. See Paul D. Carrington, Aftermath, in ESSAYS FOR PATRICK ATIYAH 113 (1991). ** Chadwick Professor of Law, Duke University. The author is grateful for comments on earlier drafts by Francis Allen, Barbara Babcock, David Barnhizer, George Christie, John Frank, Walter Gellhorn, Martin Golding, Erwin Griswold, Stanley Hauerwas, Wythe Holt, Kenneth Karst, Richard Maxwell, Jeffrey O'Connell, Jefferson Powell, Thomas Rowe, Theodore St.
[Show full text]