By Justin R. Kishbaugh*

The authors of Gut Renovations: Using Critical and Comparative Rhetoric to Remodel How the Law Addresses Privilege and Power argue that both the form and substance of traditional legal analysis work to reinforce systems of racial, gender, and class inequity. As such, they contend that if legal writing professors continue to teach deduction and IRAC as the only “correct” method for legal analysis, they are essentially perpetuating a homogenizing and exclusionary methodology. The authors argue that this methodology authorizes and represents only the voice and logic of elite privilege. In this Article, I present evidence that like deduction and IRAC, the very medium of legal writing itself—Standard Edited American English (SEAE)—is a system that replicates and perpetuates implicit racial, gender, and class biases. Despite that both the legal academy and profession operate almost exclusively in SEAE, the privilege that it and its users are afforded allows it to function as an unnamed but constant standard against which difference is marked as deficiency. Therefore, SEAE exists as a paradox: it acts as the mark of quality for academic and legal writing but is rarely acknowledged except when not present and is even more rarely taught in any deliberate or recursive manner. I contend that professors should design and employ rubrics that make explicit the structure of SEAE and their expectations for it in their students’ writing. Students will then be able to identify and meet those standards for a “well-written” text, and professors will prevent the implicit biases inherent in SEAE and writing assessment from affecting their grading process.

By Melissa L. Kidder*

This Article emphasizes the dual professional roles of legal educators: as experts in their legal disciplines and as educators shaping the next generation. It argues for the recognition and encouragement of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (“SoTL”) within the legal academy. By participating in scholarly pursuits to enhance teaching effectiveness, legal educators undoubtedly contribute to their professional development using the same scholarly methodologies other law professors use in their promotion and tenure process. This Article asserts that the academy should not only encourage SoTL but should also recognize its importance as a form of scholarship. In doing so, this Article draws on a prior discussion in this Journal about what constitutes legal scholarship. In the prior conversation, two legal writing scholars demonstrated how legal writing scholarship meets three well-established criteria for legal scholarship. This Article demonstrates how SoTL meets established criteria when viewed through a lens that acknowledges educators’ dual roles. Specifically, this Article argues how SoTL can meet the same criteria advanced by these scholars simply by using a “law-connected” terminology for the first criteria. This slight revision also embraces the already diverse nature of legal scholarship and aligns with the recent changes occurring within the legal academy. Ultimately, by advocating for a broader understanding of legal scholarship that includes pedagogical inquiry, this Article aims to promote the inclusion of all scholarly work while highlighting the value of SoTL to the legal academy.