Courting decency
Judges showing teens that Trump way not the only way
A pilot program in civility has arrived for teen students — and not a day too soon.
Federal judges across the country are welcoming teenagers into their courtrooms to teach them the basics of civil discourse as our nation’s leader’s divisive rhetoric – shared in spiteful tweets and boisterous soundbites – sets a bad example.
The courtroom also serves as a safe place for students to express viewpoints at a time when they say their campus climates stifle free speech.
“The beauty of this is it’s completely apolitical and it provides this very safe, nonpartisan place in a courtroom setting,” said Florida Federal Judge Robin Rosenberg who, in tandem with Judge Beth Bloom, piloted the program in Palm Beach, Fla.
The program wasn’t created as a reaction to President Trump, but his critics believe he’s bolstered its relevance.
“Civil Discourse and Difficult Decisions” introduces law-abiding young people to the court system in relatable ways.
Judges send letters to local school districts to solicit partner schools and enlist students, and also spread awareness of the program through word of mouth. Schools then decide if they want to participate.
Students serve as attorneys and jurors on a fictionalized landmark Supreme Court case, using the skills they’re taught along the way to present oral arguments, deliberate and reach a verdict.
Last spring, judges in Palm Beach, Tucson and Philadelphia piloted the program, which is expected to be implemented in courtrooms in New York City by next year.
It reached more than 1,200 high school and college students throughout the 20172018 academic year, said Rebecca Fanning who, in partnership with Rosenberg and Bloom, created the program and designed materials that guide judges.
Similar initiatives exist, including a New York-based civil education effort called “Justice for All: Courts and the Community,” that Rosenberg said inspired her to develop and implement her own.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Macdonald introduced “Civil Discourse and Difficult Decisions” to students at City High School, a public charter school in Tucson.
“There is so much divisiveness and animosity in the political arena, regardless of political affiliation. It’s a good time to remind everyone of civics, and the basis of the program is how to have a respectful conversation in a civil manner and that is lacking today,” he said.
Participants considered the Supreme Court’s first ruling on the constitutionality of prosecuting potential threats made on social media in Elonis vs. U.S., but with a teen twist — to teach them that digital interactions can have legal ramifications.
The fictionalized scenario is based on the case of Anthony Elonis who, on Dec. 8, 2010, was charged with threatening his ex-wife and other parties in a series of Facebook posts. Elonis, an aspiring rap artist, asked that the charges be dismissed, claiming that his comments weren’t threats, rather a form of artistic expression that shouldn’t have been taken literally. In the student version of the case, Andy Jackson, a 19year-old college student and rapper, posts a creative parody on a series of popular rap lyrics on social media that threatens his ex-girlfriend and her current boyfriend.
Through the realistic simulation of a court hearing, students engage in the civilized exchange of diverse ideas and opinions.
“Everyone’s voice is heard, and you can really see a transformation right before your eyes,” Fanning said.
Samantha Zazua, 17, now a senior at City High School, who served as a juror on the fictionalized case, said she’s seen a shift in the way she and her classmates interact with one another.
She says she’s also more aware of the possible legal consequences of social media interactions.
“I was reminded about the dangers of it and how you can charge someone for something based on it,” she said.
If only the President could learn a similar lesson, said Richard Wilson, professor of law and anthropology at the University of Connecticut.
Wilson — who is not involved in the program — says Trump’s rhetoric “has shredded the norms of the presidency on civil discourse.”
“I believe in America we have long looked to our President for behavior that sets a standard. We hold our President to a higher standard and expect that they set an example for young people and all Americans. We expect that they are calm and deliberative. That they don’t break the law,” he said.
And so the judiciary is stepping in where the executive branch has stumbled.
“People are struggling for ways to be able to communicate in a time and period where they don’t know how to do it without offending or being offended. Either that or they can’t find a way to have a conversation with a different perspective and not feel afraid,” said Judge Rosenberg.
“I have wrapped this into my judicial role because it is consistent with what I can do as a judge. I have the ability to bring kids into my courtroom and I feel that it is a time for us to come back to basics,” she said.