• Feminist Judgments in the Classroom
1
Overall Teaching Plan
• Introduce the relevant case
• Consider the case in its historical, social,
economic and political context as
appropriate
• Apply feminist method and study feminist
judgment writing
• Re-write another case using feminist
method
• Timetable
• Class1 . Introduce students to judgment writing/feminist
method and historical context.
• Divide students into groups for reading Roberts v
Hopwood and give set questions.
• Class 2
Discuss the questions set on Roberts v Hopwood
• Class 3
• Discuss judgment writing and prepare to write judgment.
• Class 4
• Ask the students to write a feminist or alternative
judgment in Short v Poole Corporation in class or
alternatively write at home to be handed in and assessed
• General Learning Objectives
• Understand and experience the process of
judgment writing
• Develop an understanding of the historical,
social and economic context to judgment
writing
• Understand and apply feminist method
4
•
•
•
•
Possible Courses
Legal Method
Public Law
Women and Law/ Gender Sexuality and
Law
• Human Rights/Equalities Law
• Legal Theory
• Project course/module
5
• Two cases studied for this exercise
• Roberts v Hopwood [1925] AC 578 (equal
pay between the sexes)
• Short v Poole Corporation [1924] S. 3445
(policy of dismissing married women)
• Any two cases could be used from the
same historical periods
6
• General Information
• Roberts v Hopwood is a landmark/well known case because:
• Interventionist court willing to override the discretion exercised by an
elected council.
• Lord Atkinson’s comments on feminism and socialism.
• Developed the concept of the ‘fiduciary duty’ to rate payers that was
relied on in the infamous case of Bromley LBC v Greater London
Council [1983] 1 A C 768(Fares Fair) Discussed by JAG Griffiths in
The Politics of the Judiciary
• Developing the principle that public authorities must not take into
account irrelevant considerations when exercising discretion.
7
Learning Objectives
• Identify the economic, social and or political interests of
the litigants to the case
• Consider the extent to which the law privileges certain
values and or perspectives
• Critique law’s claims to impartiality, objectivity and
neutrality
• Consider what value systems judges use when deciding
cases
• Understand the relationship between law, politics and
economics
• Appreciate the importance of the historical context of
cases.
• Apply feminist methods to the analysis of the case
• Understand how judges and lawyers select what facts
are relevant.
8
• Class 1: Reading Roberts v Hopwood
• Students will be given the case after class
1
• Before asking the students to read the
case:
• Introduce them to feminist method.
• Ask them to think about context
• Ask them to reflect on how the courts
decide what facts are relevant.
9
Class 1: Discuss thinking critically
Remind students to think critically:
‘If you think critically you will:
• Search for hidden assumptions
• Justify assumptions
• Judge the rationality of those assumptions
• Test the accuracy of those assumptions’
• Hanson, S. Legal Method, Skills and reasoning, Third Edition,
Routledge Cavendish, 2010, p.35
•
•
•
•
•
•
Class 1: Discuss feminist method
Apply Feminist Method
Asking the woman question. This ‘means looking beneath the surface of law
to identify the gender implications of rules and the assumptions underlying
them and insisting upon applications of rules that do not perpetuate women’s
subordination’. Bartlett, Katherine T. Feminist Legal Methods, (1990) 103:4
Harvard Law Review, 829-888 at p. P.843
Consciousness raising/drawing on personal experience/Being reflexive
Use feminist practical or contextualised reasoning. Practical reasoning does
rely on rules but considers that ‘What must be done and why and how it
should be done, are all open questions, considered on the basis of the
intricacies of each specific factual context.’ Bartlett, Katherine T. Feminist
Legal Methods, (1990) 103:4 Harvard Law Review, 829-888 at p. 830.
Anti-Disadvantage Principle, This principle ‘is predicated on the assumption
that the courts have the responsibility to ensure that the legislative process
fully protects the needs and interests of disadvantaged groups.’ (Colker,
Ruth ‘Section 1, Contextuality and the Anti-Disadvantage Principle’ (1992)
42 University of Toronto Law Journal, p. 77 at p.86.
• Class 1: Discuss historical context
Historical context:
Consider whether it is judicial bias or prejudice that lead
to a decision rather than the historical context alone
directing the outcome.
• Internal clues: The case itself might provide clues for
this. The fact the litigant is bringing the case at all, the
arguments being used by counsel, references to other
sources in the case such as other cases, government
reports or events.
• External clues: Acts of Parliament, Hansard debates,
newspapers, general historical knowledge of the period.
• Class 1: Discuss Historical Context
• Critique and Law: Legal Education and Practice by Alan Hunt
‘Historically Grounded Legal Education’
• The great disservice done by medievalist legal history is to have
brought about the eradication of history in any form from the typical
law curriculum. History must be seen as having a central place in
the law curriculum, not as a self-contained strand, but integrated
within the teaching of substantive law. This requires a major shift in
what is understood by legal history; most immediately, a shift from
medievalism to modern legal history. But it also requires a shift from
the preoccupation with the internal development of legal doctrine
towards a socioeconomic orientation.’
• Critical Lawyers’ Handbook
http://www.nclg.org.uk/book1/contents.htm
Preparation for Class 2 on Roberts
v Hopwood
•
Teaching Plan/ Advanced Preparation
• Divide students into groups of at least
three:
• Group 1 read the first instance decision
• Group 2 read the Court of Appeal decision
• Group 3 read the House of Lords decision
• All students to read House of Lords/ Lord
Atkinson’s decision, feminist judgment and
commentary of Roberts v Hopwood.
14
Questions for Discussion in Class 2 / Ask
students to read the set materials and come
prepared to answer the following questions
•
•
•
•
•
•
What were the facts of the case?
What arguments did both sides make?
What were the legal issues that had to be decided?
Summarise the decision and any dissenting judgment
Evaluate the decision and consider the following:
Were the judges sympathetic/unsympathetic to the
litigants? If so how is this sympathy expressed?
• How were the parties portrayed?
• Were the judges objective in their decision making?
• Could the judges have decided the case differently?
15
• Class 2
• Come prepared to discuss and present the
case.
• Classroom discussion
• Compare the court’s judgment with the
feminist judgment. Go back through the
checklist. Highlight the differences
between the judgments: use of facts, legal
sources, values privileged etc.
• Class 2
• To give students further assistance (depending on
level of students)
• Compose a glossary or list words/terms they don’t
understand in advance.
• Summarise the case before asking them to read it
• Explain some of the historical background to the case.
• Provide students with a timeline/key statutes on
equality/put this on the intranet or ask students to
produce a timeline.
17
Class 3:Writing a Feminist
judgment
• Prepare students to write a feminist
judgment either as an in class exercise or
as a take home exercise:
• Ask the students to write a feminist
judgment or an alternative judgment in the
case of Short v Poole Corporation [1924]
S. 3445
• Spend class 3 preparing with the students
18
•
•
•
•
•
•
Class 3
Break the task down for the students
Writing the Judgment
Summarise the facts
Summarise the parties arguments
Decide what the possible conclusions are and
then explain the reasons for the decision. Be
aware of the values you are adopting: Consider
issues of gender and the wider context.
• Explain why you are rejecting the arguments of
the losing side.
19
• Class 3 Additional suggestions
• Ask class to write the judgment in groups
as a wiki
• Ask the class to keep a reflective log as a
blog when writing the judgment
Obstacles to teaching feminist
judgments in their historic context
•
•
•
•
Little knowledge of feminism and its complexities
Students may lack historical knowledge
Students may think the material is irrelevant
Students may think the teacher is ‘biased’ and is
trying to ‘brainwash’ them.
• Students may feel under confident as they are
still learning ‘standard’ legal skills and
techniques and this approach may confuse
them.
21
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reading
Bartlett, Katherine T. Feminist Legal Methods, (1990) 103:4 Harvard Law Review,
829
Colker, R. ‘Section 1, Contextuality and the Anti-Disadvantage Principle’ (1992) 42
University of Toronto Law Journal, p. 77
Griffiths J.A.G. The Politics of the Judiciary, Fontana Press, London, 1997
Hale. B. and Hunter, R. ‘A conversation with Baroness Hale’ (2008) 16 Feminist Legal
Studies, 237..
Hale, B., ‘The House of Lords and Women’s Rights or Am I really a Law Lord’ (2005)
Legal Studies, p.72
Hanson, S. Legal Method, Skills and reasoning, Third Edition, Routledge Cavendish,
2010
Hunter, R., McGlynn,C. and Rackley, E., Feminist Judgments: From Theory to
Practice, Hart, 2010, chs 1-3
Minow, M. ‘Justice Engendered’ in Smith, P. (ed.) Feminist Jurisprudence, 1993,
Oxford University Press, Oxford pp. 217-243.
Sachs, A. and Hoff-Wilson, J. Sexism and the Law: A Study of Male Beliefs and
Judicial Bias, Martin Robertson, Oxford, 1978.