課程資訊
課程名稱
性別歷史與法律專題研究二
SEMINAR ON GENDER,HISTORY AND THE LAW(II) 
開課學期
97-2 
授課對象
法律學院  法律研究所  
授課教師
陳昭如 
課號
LAW7302 
課程識別碼
A21 M8220 
班次
 
學分
全/半年
半年 
必/選修
選修 
上課時間
星期四7,8(14:20~16:20) 
上課地點
 
備註
教室為社法研3。應具備英語閱讀能力。
限碩士班以上
總人數上限:20人 
Ceiba 課程網頁
http://ceiba.ntu.edu.tw/972genderhistorylaw2 
課程簡介影片
 
核心能力關聯
核心能力與課程規劃關聯圖
課程大綱
為確保您我的權利,請尊重智慧財產權及不得非法影印
課程概述

本學期的課程主題是美國法院判決中的性別歷史政治。在此,我們主要並非要探討美國法院制度或女性(主義)法律專業的發展史,也不是要探究婦運如何透過法院訴訟爭取權利的歷史,而是要從兩個面向切入來思考美國法院判決中的性別歷史政治:性別歷史敘事(historical narratives)在法院判決論證中的角色,以及女性主義/性別史學者涉入訴訟的政治實踐。這兩個面向,都涉及了歷史解釋方法的爭辯:原意主義(originalism)、文本主義(texualism)、活的憲法(living constitution)與動態史(ongoing history);都攸關社會實相(social reality)的經驗證據在法學論證中的角色;也都與法學者與史學者的政治實踐有關:在此,史學家的涉入訴訟不只是做為「提供歷史專業知識」的專家證人,更是一種尋求性別改革的運動實踐,而法學者與史學者的結盟,更是一種跨界的運動實踐。
我們將特別著重以下三個案件的性別歷史政治,並且將按照其時序的發展來展開探索之旅。首先是於1986年有關職場性別歧視的EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 628 F. Supp. 1264 (N.D. Ill. 1986), aff'd, 839 F.2d 302 (7th Cir. 1988).。在這個女性主義史的經典案件中,性別/女性主義史學者分別為主張Sears雇用歧視(女性沒機會選擇 lack of opportunity)和主張此為性別差異(女性沒興趣從事lack of interest)的對造兩方作證。其次是1989年有關終止懷孕(abortion)限制的Webster v. Reproductive Health Services,492 U.S. 490 (1989)。在該案中,超過四百位史學者連署提出了有關終止懷孕管制史的法庭之友意見書(Amicus brief)(本案的該份法庭之友意見書一般被稱為the Webster brief或the Webster historian’s brief),要求法院保障女性的終止懷孕權。最後是2003年有關性悖軌法(sodomy laws)的Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003),在本案中,十位著名的性別史學者提出了法庭之友意見書,反駁確認性悖軌法合憲性的Bowers v. Hardwick中的歷史解釋,論證性悖軌法乃是美國歧視同性戀的近代歷史產物。我們將藉由拜訪這三個有關勞動、終止懷孕及性管制的案件史,來探究性別、歷史與法律的交錯政治。
Gender, History and the Law

Course description

The topic of this course is the politics of gender and history in American courts, focusing on the role of gender history narratives in courts, and the engagements of feminist historians in legal advocacy. We will critically read and examine materials and studies on three cases concerning employment discrimination, reproductive rights and sodomy laws: EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 628 F. Supp. 1264 (N.D. Ill. 1986), aff'd, 839 F.2d 302 (7th Cir. 1988); Webster v. Reproductive Health Services,492 U.S. 490 (1989), and Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

 

課程目標
思考美國法院判決中的性別歷史政治
Course objectives

The course will familiarize students with a range of theoretical perspectives and issues of gender, history and the law in the U.S. setting. The principal objective of the seminar is to sharpen skills of close reading and critical analysis. Students are required to be prepared for classes, to actively participate in class discussion, and to submit assignments and a final paper of an issue of their choice based on course readings.
 
課程要求
本課程非常重視同學們對每週閱讀材料的研讀理解思辯、上課的積極參與、以及報告的撰寫。課堂參與和讀書心得將佔學期成績的50%,期末報告占50%。 課堂參與和讀書心得為:
(1) 必須輪值報告,並提供包括摘要、提問的報告大綱,報告大綱應於輪值報告的前一日下午六點之前,發表於課程網站中。未負責報告之同學,則應於同一時間之前,於課程網站中發表至少兩個提問,於學期中至少應發表10次提問。輪值報告者,於課堂報告中應整理並回應其他同學的提問。
(2) 共計應繳交三次各約2000-3000字的讀書心得。分別為03/26、04/30、06/04
 
預期每週課後學習時數
 
Office Hours
 
參考書目
 
指定閱讀
 
評量方式
(僅供參考)
   
課程進度
週次
日期
單元主題
第1週
  Introduction 
第2週
  EEOC v. Sears in the casebook
• Catharine A. MacKinnon, Sex Equality (2007), 199-211. 
第3週
  Women’s history on trial and feminist historians as expert witnesses: the Sears controversy in its early stage
• Jacquelyn Dowd Hall and Sandi E. Cooper, "Women's History Goes on Trial: EEOC vs. Sears Roebuck and Co.," Signs, 11 (1986): 751-779
• Alice Kessler-Harris, "EEOC vs. Sears Roebuck: A Personal Account," Feminist Review, 25 (1987): 45-69.
• Ruth Milkman, "Women's History and the Sears Case," Feminist Studies, 12 (Summer 1986): 375-400.
 
第4週
  Academic freedom and expert witnessing: the sears controversy in legal contexts:
• Thomas Haskell and Sanford Levinson, “Academic freedom and expert witnessing: historians and the sears case,” 66 Texas law review 1629 (1988)
• Alice Kessler-Harris, “Academic freedom and expert witnessing: a response to Haskell and Levison,” 67 Texas Law Review 429 (1988)
• Peter Novick, That Noble Dream: The “Objectivity Question” and the American Historical Profession (1988), 491-510.
 
第5週
  Beyond equality vs. difference
• Joan W. Scott, "Deconstructing Equality-Versus-Difference: Or, the Uses of Poststructuralist Theory for Feminism," Feminist Studies, 14:1 (Spring 1988): 33-50.
• Mary Joe Frug, “Sexual Equality and Sexual Difference in American Law,” 26 New Eng. L. Rev. 665, 675-68 (1991)
• Boris, Eileen , Looking at Women's Historians Looking at Difference, 3 Wis. Women's L.J. 213 (1987)
 
第6週
  After Sears and wrap-up discussion
• Vicki Schultz, "Women `Before' the Law: Judicial Stories about Women, Work, and Sex Segregation on the Job," in Judith Butler and Joan W. Scott, Feminists Theorize the Political (1992), pp. 297-338.

**First Assignment due
 
第7週
  [溫書假] 
第8週
  Abortion Regulation and the Webster Brief
• Jack M. Balkin, “Introduction. Roe v. Wade: an engine of controversy,” in Jack M. Balkin ed., What Roe v. Wade should have said : the nation's top legal experts rewrite America's most controversial decision (2005), 3-18.
• Webster v. Reproductive Health Services,492 U.S. 490 (1989), excerpts.
• Clyde Spillenger, Jane E. Larson, Sylvia A. Law, “Brief of 281 American Historians as Amici Curiae Supporting Appellees,” The Public Historians, 12:3 (1990): 57-75
 
第9週
  Defining the Original intent
• Otis L. Graham, “Introduction,” The Public Historians, 12:3 (1990): 9-10.
• Sylvia A. Law, “Conversations between Historians and the Constitution,” The Public Historians, 12:3 (1990): 11-17
• James C. Mohr, “Historically Based Legal Briefs: Observations of a Participant in the Webster Process,” The Public Historians, 12:3 (1990): 19-26
• Estelle B. Freedman, “Historical Interpretation and Legal Advocacy: Rethinking the Webster Amicus Brief,” The Public Historians, 12:3 (1990): 27-32
• Jane E. Larson, Clyde Spillenger, “"That's Not History": The Boundaries of Advocacy and Scholarship,” The Public Historians, 12:3 (1990): 33-43
• Michael Grossberg, “The Webster Brief: History as Advocacy, or Would You Sign It?,” The Public Historians, 12:3 (1990): 45-52
• Wendy Chavkin, “Webster, Health, and History,” The Public Historians, 12:3 (1990): 53-56
 
第10週
  The Effect of Amici Curiae
• Kathryn Kolbert, “The Webster Amicus Curiae Briefs: Did the Amici Effort make a difference?” 15 American Journal of Law and Medicine 153 (1989)
• Susan Behuniak-Long, “Friendly Fire: Amici Curiae and Webster v. Reproductive Health Services,” 74 Judicature 261 (1991)
• Ruth Colker, “Feminist Litigation: An Oxymoron? A Study of the Briefs Filed in William L. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services,” 13 Harvard Women’s Law Journal 137, 168-188 (1990)
 
第11週
  Wrap-up discussion

**Second assignment due
 
第12週
  Lesbian and Gay Rights in legal and historical contexts
• Patricia Cain, “Litigating for Lesbian and Gay Rights: A Legal History,” 79 Va. L. Rev. 1551, 1564-1572, 1580-1619 (1993)
• William N. Eskridge, Dishonorable Passions: Sodomy Laws in America 1861-2003 (2008), 2-12.
 
第13週
  Remapping the past: Lawrence and the public historians
• Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003), excerpts
• Chauncey, George, “ ‘What Gay Studies Taught the Court’: The Historians' Amicus Brief in Lawrence v. Texas,” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 10:3(2004), 509-538
• Chauncey, George, “How History Mattered: Sodomy Law and Marriage Reform in the United States,” Public Culture, 20:1 (Winter2008), 27-37
 
第14週
  Remapping the past: the engaged law professor
• Brief of the CATO Institute as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners (Jan. 16, 2003)
• William N. Eskridge, Dishonorable Passions: Sodomy Laws in America 1861-2003 (2008), 299-330
 
第15週
  [肉粽節] 
第16週
  Lawyer’s history, historian’s history, and a feminist point of view
• Laura Kalman, “Border Patrol: Reflections on the Turn to History in Legal Scholarship,” 66 Fordham L. Rev. 87 (1997).
• Estelle B. Freedman, “When historiography meets legal advocacy: Abortion, Sodomy, and Same-Sex Marriage,” in Feminism, Sexuality & Politics (2006), 175-195.
 
第17週
  Wrap-up discussion

**Third assignment due