Hillsdale College's Constitution 101 course???

[swimmermom3]

Ds is taking a U.S. Government course that utilizes Hillsdale College's Constitution 101 lectures and among other videos, some from Craig Seibert at U.S. Civics Training.

 

From an academic standpoint, I am not sure what to think.  I am embarrassed to admit I don't know enough about the topic other than high school basics from thirty years ago to feel as though I can really judge these on academic merit versus political agenda. I do know I get antsy sitting though the umpteenth plug for the college. You could seriously condense the student's time before the computer if you took that out.

 

I am not looking for a heavily left or heavily right interpretation and have starting pulling in lectures from Great Courses like the Great Debate series.  Is this overkill and will the Hillsdale lectures be fine for foundational work?

[mumto2]

We haven't used the course but at some point I ended up on their email list. I get a few emails a week from them asking for money so I can guess af the self promotion levels you are experiencing. The main content should be good so if it's part of an online class he might as well continue. I used to enjoy their Newsletter..https://imprimisarchives.hillsdale.edu/. I haven't looked at it in quite awhile but the archives should contain some good articles.

 

I found this at Annenburg which I think we will use. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/a-guide-to-the-united-states-constitution. They also have some video series but thet appear to be linked to the Articles etc. Not doing the AP just need to do government.

[MamaSprout]

Ds is taking a U.S. Government course that utilizes Hillsdale College's Constitution 101 lectures and among other videos, some from Craig Seibert at U.S. Civics Training.

 

From an academic standpoint, I am not sure what to think.  I am embarrassed to admit I don't know enough about the topic other than high school basics from thirty years ago to feel as though I can really judge these on academic merit versus political agenda. I do know I get antsy sitting though the umpteenth plug for the college. You could seriously condense the student's time before the computer if you took that out.

 

I am not looking for a heavily left or heavily right interpretation and have starting pulling in lectures from Great Courses like the Great Debate series.  Is this overkill and will the Hillsdale lectures be fine for foundational work?

 

I don't know about the lectures, but Hillsdale is heavily "right" leaning as an institution.

[JennyD]

 

Background: I teach at a law school -- not constitutional law, although there is a lot of con law in my courses.  I also have a Ph.D. in political theory and have taught undergrad law-related classes.

 

I was not familiar with the course you mentioned so I just spent some time looking at the class summaries.  In my opinion, if you are looking for something middle-of-the-road, this is definitely not it.  I would describe the course as a strongly normative with a very conservative Christian/providential perspective.  I suspect that if you took this course and then walked into a con law class at a secular law school, even one taught by a conservative legal scholar, you would be extremely surprised.  

 

Just looking quickly, the Great Courses classes look good, especially the ones taught by Pangle.  I see that Akhil Amar from Yale also has a couple of courses up on Coursera -- I have not viewed any of those lectures but he's an engaging speaker and someone who at least tries hard to address multiple angles.  

 

 

[Luckymama]

Why don't you check out the National Constitution Center's materials?

 

http://constitutioncenter.org

[Reefgazer]

Hillsdale College is very much to the right, so I can see this being the case,  But I am not a lawyer or constitutional expert so I can't evaluate the course for its accuracy on my own.  What makes it strongly Christian, and would this mean the interpretation was in error?  What might a more mainstream professor object to? 

 

 

Background: I teach at a law school -- not constitutional law, although there is a lot of con law in my courses.  I also have a Ph.D. in political theory and have taught undergrad law-related classes.

 

I was not familiar with the course you mentioned so I just spent some time looking at the class summaries.  In my opinion, if you are looking for something middle-of-the-road, this is definitely not it.  I would describe the course as a strongly normative with a very conservative Christian/providential perspective.  I suspect that if you took this course and then walked into a con law class at a secular law school, even one taught by a conservative legal scholar, you would be extremely surprised.  

 

Just looking quickly, the Great Courses classes look good, especially the ones taught by Pangle.  I see that Akhil Amar from Yale also has a couple of courses up on Coursera -- I have not viewed any of those lectures but he's an engaging speaker and someone who at least tries hard to address multiple angles.  

 

 

[swimmermom3]

We haven't used the course but at some point I ended up on their email list. I get a few emails a week from them asking for money so I can guess af the self promotion levels you are experiencing. The main content should be good so if it's part of an online class he might as well continue. I used to enjoy their Newsletter..https://imprimisarchives.hillsdale.edu/. I haven't looked at it in quite awhile but the archives should contain some good articles.

 

I found this at Annenburg which I think we will use. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/a-guide-to-the-united-states-constitution. They also have some video series but thet appear to be linked to the Articles etc. Not doing the AP just need to do government.

 

Thank you!  Annenberg offers a wealth of information. I will delve more deeply into the material this weekend and figure out how to write a tactful letter to the instructor, who I really like.

 

I don't know about the lectures, but Hillsdale is heavily "right" leaning as an institution.

 

We just finished the second lecture. I think your comment may be a bit of an understatement. :D

[swimmermom3]

 

 

Background: I teach at a law school -- not constitutional law, although there is a lot of con law in my courses.  I also have a Ph.D. in political theory and have taught undergrad law-related classes.

 

I was not familiar with the course you mentioned so I just spent some time looking at the class summaries.  In my opinion, if you are looking for something middle-of-the-road, this is definitely not it.  I would describe the course as a strongly normative with a very conservative Christian/providential perspective.  I suspect that if you took this course and then walked into a con law class at a secular law school, even one taught by a conservative legal scholar, you would be extremely surprised.  

 

Just looking quickly, the Great Courses classes look good, especially the ones taught by Pangle.  I see that Akhil Amar from Yale also has a couple of courses up on Coursera -- I have not viewed any of those lectures but he's an engaging speaker and someone who at least tries hard to address multiple angles.  

 

 

Thank you for this information. It is very helpful and so far, we are enjoying the lectures by Pangle.

 

Several years ago, we used one of the grammar books put out by Rod and Staff, which obviously is a very conservative Christian vendor.  The grammar instruction was excellent, but writing advice such as using the the Bible as your beginning resource for your research paper because it offers a wealth of information on a variety of subjects, is academically irresponsible, unless of course you happen to be writing a paper on the Bible.  Even if the foundational points are solid in the Hillsdale course, I would like to avoid resources that would be academically irresponsible in the mainstream university classes.

 

I don't yet have a feel for where the Hillsdale lectures fall on that scale. This morning's lecture was No. 2, "The Theory of the Declaration and the Constitution." In it, Dr. West proposed that there were 5 means by which a government secures the rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence, according to the Founding Fathers:

 

1. protect us from invasion by other nations - this is it. Spreading democracy to other countries, nation-building, and helping the AIDS crisis in another country are not included.

 

2. enforcement of criminal laws against violence - Dr. West used the example that the federal government should do something about the number of murders of black men in Detroit, but not work to improve the benefits to a single mother.

 

3. establish civil laws - this covers protection of personal property (wealth), personal injury, and domestic issues such as marriage and divorce.

 

4. establish a moral foundation - Dr. West provided evidence for this from Section 15 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights:

 

"That no free Government, or the blessing of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."

 

His anecdote for this was public school teachers being shocked to have to teach about abstinence before marriage in a health class.

 

5. provisions for the poor - the federal government is safety net of last resort.  Dr. West says that the government may not take money from working taxpayers to provide nice apartments, cell phones, state-of-the-art healthcare, and plenty of money for food for those who do not wish to work.

 

I think teaching AP U.S. Government to students who come fro predominantly conservative Christian household wold be like navigating a minefield. As one of the probably few liberal families with a student in the class, I am not sure yet, what we will do about it. I don't want to over-react and if Sailor Dude is interested in foreign policy and politics, he needs to be familiar with both sides of the fence. Hmmm.

 

 

 

[JennyD]

 

 

I don't think that this is really the 'other side of the fence.'  

 

The main thrust of the course, as I understand it, is that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are best understood as coherent expressions of natural, "higher" law to which the Founders were uniquely privy.  Subsequent developments and constitutional questions are properly evaluated by measuring their fidelity to these natural law principles.

 

The religious analogy here is obvious, and the idea of the Constitution as a sacred document in American civil religion is still clearly a part of our national discourse.  However, the notion that this is it,  that this is constitutional law, is just not something that you hear outside of the most conservative Christian institutions. 

 

The critique that is perhaps most relevant here is that this framework is largely divorced from actual constitutional debates.  For example, in the lecture summary given above, the speaker seems to be trying to answer the question, "How do we know when a law is legitimate?"  Good question.  However, the very first question that any constitutional law scholar– of any political persuasion – would ask is:  Is it a state or federal law?   

 

If the answer is "federal," then the question is "Does this fall under the enumerated powers set out in Article I?"  The Constitution specifically establishes that the federal government is a government of limited powers – Congress can only make laws about things that are specified. Of the list that the speaker offered, only protecting from invasion clearly makes the cut.  The power to establish civil and criminal law depends on the specific law.  Bankruptcy law, yes.  Divorce law, no.   Establishing a moral foundation and providing for the poor are nowhere to be found, and indeed, the authority of the federal government to do either of the latter has been hotly contested.  If the answer is "state," then the question is, "Is this prohibited by the Bill of Rights or any of the subsequent amendments?" 

 

Of course, legal scholars and judges disagree passionately about all kinds of issues here:  how to properly interpret constitutional and/or statutory text, the role of precedent, the balance of power between Congress and the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution etc.,  But you have to understand this basic framework if you are going to make any sense of either historical or contemporary constitutional law. 

 

The other thing that strikes me as most fringe about this course is its take on the Federalist v. Anti-Federalist debate about the correct balance of power between the states and the federal government.  The summary for Week 3 describes the laws passed by the state legislatures under the Articles of Confederation as "characterized by their multiplicity, mutability, and essential injustice."  Of course, since the Founders/Federalists were pushing for a strong central government, this has to be the case, but it is just a very striking statement, not least of all because it is so dissonant with modern legal conservatism. 

 

 

[Reefgazer]

Thanks for explaining!

 

 

 

 

I don't think that this is really the 'other side of the fence.'

 

The main thrust of the course, as I understand it, is that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are best understood as coherent expressions of natural, "higher" law to which the Founders were uniquely privy. Subsequent developments and constitutional questions are properly evaluated by measuring their fidelity to these natural law principles.

 

The religious analogy here is obvious, and the idea of the Constitution as a sacred document in American civil religion is still clearly a part of our national discourse. However, the notion that this is it, that this is constitutional law, is just not something that you hear outside of the most conservative Christian institutions.

 

The critique that is perhaps most relevant here is that this framework is largely divorced from actual constitutional debates. For example, in the lecture summary given above, the speaker seems to be trying to answer the question, "How do we know when a law is legitimate?" Good question. However, the very first question that any constitutional law scholar– of any political persuasion – would ask is: Is it a state or federal law?

 

If the answer is "federal," then the question is "Does this fall under the enumerated powers set out in Article I?" The Constitution specifically establishes that the federal government is a government of limited powers – Congress can only make laws about things that are specified. Of the list that the speaker offered, only protecting from invasion clearly makes the cut. The power to establish civil and criminal law depends on the specific law. Bankruptcy law, yes. Divorce law, no. Establishing a moral foundation and providing for the poor are nowhere to be found, and indeed, the authority of the federal government to do either of the latter has been hotly contested. If the answer is "state," then the question is, "Is this prohibited by the Bill of Rights or any of the subsequent amendments?"

 

Of course, legal scholars and judges disagree passionately about all kinds of issues here: how to properly interpret constitutional and/or statutory text, the role of precedent, the balance of power between Congress and the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution etc., But you have to understand this basic framework if you are going to make any sense of either historical or contemporary constitutional law.

 

The other thing that strikes me as most fringe about this course is its take on the Federalist v. Anti-Federalist debate about the correct balance of power between the states and the federal government. The summary for Week 3 describes the laws passed by the state legislatures under the Articles of Confederation as "characterized by their multiplicity, mutability, and essential injustice." Of course, since the Founders/Federalists were pushing for a strong central government, this has to be the case, but it is just a very striking statement, not least of all because it is so dissonant with modern legal conservatism.

[swimmermom3]

 

 

 

I don't think that this is really the 'other side of the fence.'  

 

The main thrust of the course, as I understand it, is that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are best understood as coherent expressions of natural, "higher" law to which the Founders were uniquely privy.  Subsequent developments and constitutional questions are properly evaluated by measuring their fidelity to these natural law principles.

 

The religious analogy here is obvious, and the idea of the Constitution as a sacred document in American civil religion is still clearly a part of our national discourse.  However, the notion that this is it,  that this is constitutional law, is just not something that you hear outside of the most conservative Christian institutions. 

 

The critique that is perhaps most relevant here is that this framework is largely divorced from actual constitutional debates.  For example, in the lecture summary given above, the speaker seems to be trying to answer the question, "How do we know when a law is legitimate?"  Good question.  However, the very first question that any constitutional law scholar– of any political persuasion – would ask is:  Is it a state or federal law?   

 

If the answer is "federal," then the question is "Does this fall under the enumerated powers set out in Article I?"  The Constitution specifically establishes that the federal government is a government of limited powers – Congress can only make laws about things that are specified. Of the list that the speaker offered, only protecting from invasion clearly makes the cut.  The power to establish civil and criminal law depends on the specific law.  Bankruptcy law, yes.  Divorce law, no.   Establishing a moral foundation and providing for the poor are nowhere to be found, and indeed, the authority of the federal government to do either of the latter has been hotly contested.  If the answer is "state," then the question is, "Is this prohibited by the Bill of Rights or any of the subsequent amendments?" 

 

Of course, legal scholars and judges disagree passionately about all kinds of issues here:  how to properly interpret constitutional and/or statutory text, the role of precedent, the balance of power between Congress and the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution etc.,  But you have to understand this basic framework if you are going to make any sense of either historical or contemporary constitutional law. 

 

The other thing that strikes me as most fringe about this course is its take on the Federalist v. Anti-Federalist debate about the correct balance of power between the states and the federal government.  The summary for Week 3 describes the laws passed by the state legislatures under the Articles of Confederation as "characterized by their multiplicity, mutability, and essential injustice."  Of course, since the Founders/Federalists were pushing for a strong central government, this has to be the case, but it is just a very striking statement, not least of all because it is so dissonant with modern legal conservatism. 

 

 

I really appreciate this explanation.  I listened to another lecture and started to look more closely at some of the other resources linked in coming weeks. It looks as though the students may be using the "Principles of the Constitution" series from Freedom Project Media.  Nearly all of the supplementary resources come from very right "return to traditional values" sources.  The knot in my stomach concerning this class is really growing.  Ds's class load is heavy and making room to supplement in order to counterbalance the material is really going to require some juggling.

 

 

 

 

[swimmermom3]

Why don't you check out the National Constitution Center's materials?

 

http://constitutioncenter.org

 

Thank you so much. I am going to ask if I can substitute the NCC materials or the Annenberg materials for the stuff from Freedom Project Media.

 

[Luckymama]

Does he have the same teacher for Comp Gov? Are they using similarly-slanted materials without opposites (I'm trying to imagine what those might be)?

 

I'm all about balance, right v left, but heavily one way would make me question the class-----especially if I'm paying the big bucks.

[swimmermom3]

Does he have the same teacher for Comp Gov? Are they using similarly-slanted materials without opposites (I'm trying to imagine what those might be)?

 

I'm all about balance, right v left, but heavily one way would make me question the class-----especially if I'm paying the big bucks.

 

He does. Gulp. I will be exploring the supplementary resources for that class as well. The textbooks are fine for both classes. They have to be for AP audit approval.

 

I am all for balance too, and darn it, this is a special area of interest for ds and I don't want him permanently turned off by some of the stuff that has been presented in those lectures.

 

Sailor Dude felt that comments like the one about public high school health teachers being shocked by being asked to teach abstinence really took away from the speaker's credibility especially since ds had taken health at the ps and the first thing they tell the kids is that abstinence is the only 100% guarantee against pregnancy and STDs. The comments that generalized liberalism were primarily based on the far, far left of the spectrum.

 

[swimmermom3]

nm