76 Similarity
Transcript 4.15 [8/17/13]Prof.: Organs, all right, organ transplants and stuff. Now, you might or
might not agree with it and it might or might not happen, all right.
But there are- there’s at least some concept that there (is) some
things that are beyond the pale to be allocated through private
resources. (.03 pause) Well, is Batzakis that- or isn’t it, and should it-
(.03 pause) and what should the court do with it? Yeah?
Student #1: See, I don’t see organ, like donating an organ for money as the same
thing as Batzakis- like they’re in a war-torn country and the only way
for them to get the money is to give up an organ, in that sense I
could see them being similar. But if you’re a rational person living in
America and just one day decide you want to give up your organ, I
think that should be allowed more so than a situation where you
have no choice.
Student #2: But the only reason people give up their organs is when they’re
under extreme duress, they’re so poverty-stricken that they say, “All
right, I’ll sacrifice one of my two kidneys to this person who’s much
richer and can afford to buy it because I need the money in order to
feed my kids.”
Prof.: That’s the supply side of it, and what’s the problem with the demand
side of it, and by the way if you would say this is somewhat hypo-
critical because I don’t see the difference between this and milk, on
the demand side I’d say, “Yeah, I think we are drawing lines and
some of it does look very hypocritical, but we are drawing lines and
have to”- what?In this example, as in many policy discussions, students and professor tell stories
to illustrate the possible moral and social underpinnings for the intricate legal
apparatus that forms the core of a legal reading.
There is an intriguing paradox to be found here. On the one hand, this kind
of free-ranging commentary on fairness would not be a correct move during the
actual parsing of a legal text, and that parsing forms the core of the classroom les-
sons. A correct legal reading requires strict submission to layers of legal authority
discernable in the text: the question is not what any reader thinks is fair, but what
the court says or what the law permits. (See excerpt from 1/7, in Chapter 1, pp. 9–
10.) However, after a text has been properly read, there is quite broad latitude for
consideration of possible social or moral implications. The degree of latitude here
contrasts interestingly with that in a social science discussion, in which it is likely
that professors would focus attention on the evidence required to support gener-
alizations as to the social class of organ donors. This focus would require parsing
of social science data and studies, in which there are stringent requirements for
demonstrating generalizations regarding social impacts. By contrast, law profes-
sors focus students’ attention on the kinds of evidence and proof required for legal
assertions. This focus requires deciphering of legal texts and layers of legal author-
ity and of the legally accepted facts formed by legal filters. When classroom dis-
course moves to consideration of social causes and impacts, a much more free-form