Papers
The following are all the writing assignments I had to do this year. They are organized by semester and chronologically.
Fall Semester
Annotation Assignment on Cover’s “Nomos and Narrative” pages 51-55
When I think of judges, an image of older, professional adults in black robes who settle disputes through argument and reasoning rather than violence and threats comes to mind. Due to this perception, it surprised me when Robert Cover wrote “Judges are people of violence” (53). This sentence made absolutely no sense to me. How can one be violent without resorting to bloodshed? Cover seemed to answer this question when he stated, “judges characteristically do not create law, but kill it” and “they assert that this one is law and destroy or try to destroy the others” (53). Violence is figurative as judges “kill” different interpretations of the law by striking down actions deemed as violating the law according to their interpretation. The concept of judges as violent people made sense until Cover then said, “judges are also people of peace” (53). This new assertion of judges created a seemingly unresolvable contradiction for me. How exactly can people be violent and peaceful? Cover is able to reconcile these contradictions by making a point about how the role of judges changes based on the circumstances. “Among warring sects, … they assert a regulative function that permits a life of law rather than violence” (53). Basically, judges are violent when it comes to conflicting interpretations of the law but peaceful when settling disputes. Even then, another curveball was added when I read the line, “Confrontation, on the other hand, challenges the judge’s implicit claim to authoritative interpretation” (53). This sentence blurred the boundary of when judges are peaceful and violent. It made me realize that Cover was saying they can be both at the same time in the same case, but it depends on the different parties’ reaction to a judge’s ruling. If one side does not accept it, then judges are considered violent but if they comply, it reinforces the idea of judges as peace in disputes between groups. While judges might not be violent in the literal sense of murder and bloodshed, they have the power to destroy and impose their will on others, making them violent figuratively.
When Cover discussed the relationship between a court order and how a community reacts to it, he made a footnote about Abraham Lincoln’s position on how the public should react to the Supreme Court’s decision on Dred Scott v. Sanford, which ruled that slaves could not be citizens and therefore did not have the right to sue in court. In the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln believed jurisdiction was “entirely case-specific, the only deference due the Court’s authority is to refrain from direct resistance to its specific edicts” (54). This doctrine recognizes the court’s authority without extending the scope of its decisions on American society. Lincoln’s position on the matter raises plenty of questions. Is there a limit to how often this position on cases can be applied? If the Dred Scott decision only applies to Dred Scott the person, does that prevent the application of other precedents on all of the United States like Marbury v. Madison or McCulloch v. Maryland, both of which significantly expanded judicial and federal power, respectively? While it sounds convenient to ignore judicial precedent on court cases we disagree about, can’t Lincoln’s position be used by other groups who disagree with the Court’s decisions which may not be as popular as the reaction to Dred Scott? Cover himself alludes to this when he says, “Bickel correctly assimilates Lincoln’s position to that of groups that resisted the ruling of Brown v. Board of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954)” (54). While most Americans currently disagree with segregation, per Lincoln’s logic, it is perfectly fine for Southern schools to ignore the decision since the case specifically dealt with schools in Topeka, Kansas. Lincoln’s belief that decisions written by the Supreme Court only apply to the case at hand sets a dangerous precedent for the impact of decisions on society. It would require the Supreme Court to consider far more cases and would cause conflict between lower courts as there is no standard by which you can consider most constitutional cases. Overall, the ramifications of Lincoln’s doctrine on jurisdiction would result in more groups defying court orders, significantly weakening court authority and potentially rendering it useless in settling disputes about interpretation of the law.
The term “equity” often shows up when talking about the relationship between judges, the state, and challengers of the state. Cover writes, “The court’s authority derives ultimately from a conception of the equity judge as guarantor of the social order…” (55). In this context, equity refers to the ability of a judge to act as a guarantor of social order and put a stop to “disorder”. Cover specifically refers to the case of Walker v. City of Birmingham, where he said, “The rule of Walker v. City of Birmingham subordinates the creation of legal meaning to the interest in public order. … It speaks to the judge as agent of state violence and employer of that violence against the “private disorder”… ” (55). Walker was a case where the Supreme Court ruled that protesters who were arrested for protesting in Birmingham despite an injunction against it could remain arrested since proper judicial procedure to test the validity of the injunction was not done by the plaintiff. With this precedent, along with others like “Howat v. Kansas”(55), judges are to consider social order above everything else. This position on the role of the judiciary raises a striking question. Does this mean that the constitution and the rights it guarantees all Americans are subordinate to the ideal of “social order”? Cover has an answer when he states, “the court’s authority is greater than its warrant in interpretation of the Constitution or the law. Even when wrong, the judge is to act and is entitled to be obeyed” (55). In effect, judges are above the law. If the goal of the judiciary is to prevent “disorder”, especially when it is caused by private actors, does that not make it an arm of the state? These questions raise serious doubts about the role of the judiciary in society. When judges side with the state against private actors for the sake of “order”, equity ceases to have any meaning as the judiciary is not an impartial arbiter and is only bolstering the power of the state. The judiciary is subordinated to the role of a rubber stamp.
Citations: “Walker v. City of Birmingham.” Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1966/249. Accessed 22 September 2025. Cover, Robert M. “The Supreme Court, 1982 Term-Foreword: Nomos and Narrative” Harvard Law Review, https://drive.google.com/file/d/161yUG07qYx7QV9yIAe48xsrFDW5qcXhR/view. Accessed 26 September 2025.
Legitimacy of the Supreme Court: Justice Brennan on Interpretation
In a speech to an audience at Georgetown University in 1985, Supreme Court Associate Justice William Brennan focused on the task of interpreting the Constitution. Throughout the speech, Brennan discussed what interpretation entails, attacked the “original intent” doctrine, and promoted his belief of “dignity” on determining Constitutional arguments. Before going into his beliefs on how Constitutional interpretation should be approached, Brennan first talked about legitimacy around the Court’s rulings. He specifically focused on the need for the public to accept decisions, making them a critical part of the process. By changing the view of justices as people who live in and depend on a society for their power, Brennan is able to explain how interpretation changes over time and use it to support his beliefs on interpreting the Constitution to settle Court disputes.
When talking about the Supreme Court’s legitimacy, Brennan notes that the Constitution has fundamental principles that are imbued and accommodate changing times. He opens by highlighting specific rights outlined in the Constitution in order to show how those fundamental principles are represented. “Obvious are the separation of powers; the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus; prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments;…. With respect to at least such principles, we simply have not constituted ourselves as strict utilitarians” (Brennan, 6). Brennan uses these principles to show how values are represented but how their relationship to society changes over time. He then proceeds to show how the Constitution’s meaning changes over time. “We current justices read the Constitution in the only way we can: as Twentieth Century Americans. … To a growing extent economic existence now depends on less certain relationships with government-licenses, employment, contracts…. We turn to government and to the law for controls which we would never have been expected or tolerated before this century, when a man’s answer to economic oppression or difficulty was to move two hundred miles west” (Brennan, 9-10). Brennan makes these remarks to make two key points: justices are part of society and times have changed, making it that Constitutional interpretation has to follow. Judges are not some distant beings who decide upon matters distant to them. They come to age and live in a society, taking in the events, issues, and values of society in their present-day. Therefore, their interpretation and reading of the Constitution is also colored as they are viewing it through the lens of twentieth-century Americans. Their values and vision of society are determined by the events of the day and what are the predominant views in society at the time. This belief of justices goes into the next point that times have changed and so have issues and views in society. Brennan points this out when discussing the relationship between government and the people. He points out how the status-quo would not have been acceptable a century prior. However, due to the changing economy, government has been forced to become more powerful. These two points show how and why Constitutional meaning changes over time. The Supreme Court remains legitimate as it accommodates its Constitutional interpretation to changing times due to justices who imbibe societal views since they grow up in and are a part of society.
Brennan’s views of how the Supreme Court’s legitimacy is maintained is the basis of his opposition to interpreting the Constitution through “original intent” and his promotion of “dignity” in determining interpretation and deciding Constitutional disputes. The original intent doctrine describes a method of interpreting the Constitution based on how the framers thought about the constitutional question a Court dispute is asking. It was a method that rose in popularity throughout the 1980s, a decade when conservatives controlled the government and Brennan gave this speech. Brennan focused his attacks of this doctrine on its efficacy and impact on society, using it to support his argument on legitimacy. “Those who would restrict claims of right to the values of 1789 specifically articulated in the Constitution turn a blind eye to social progress and eschew adaptation of overarching principles to changes of social circumstance” (Brennan, 5). The doctrine disregards social change and deprives the Court of its legitimacy as it does not support the broad application and accommodation of the Constitution’s fundamental principles to society. Brennan then discusses how the Constitution was supposed to reshape society from the status quo. He uses this position to argue in favor of interpreting the Constitution through the lens of dignity. “Our Constitution was not intended to preserve a preexisting society but to make a new one, to put in place new principles that the prior political community had not sufficiently recognized. … As augmented in the Bill of Rights and the Civil War Amendments, this text is a sparkling vision of the supremacy of the human dignity of every individual” (Brennan, 8-9). Adding the idea of the Constitution being designed to create a new society bolsters the argument for dignity being the best way to approach Constitutional interpretation. Brennan’s argument for dignity ties into the belief of the Constitution reshaping society, as it then creates questions about what constitutes individual dignity and rights. These conflicts then support his claim of how changing interpretation gives the Supreme Court legitimacy, as the definition of rights and what the Constitution covers has changed significantly since the founding. Brennan’s views on how to interpret the Constitution, based on dignity and not original intent, strengthen and originate from his beliefs on how the Supreme Court maintains legitimacy.
Justice William Brennan argues that the Supreme Court’s legitimacy among the public is dependent on interpreting the Constitution in a way that reflects the society they inhabit. He bases this idea on the fact that society has significantly changed since the Constitution’s ratification in 1789. Rejecting the original intent doctrine as outdated and unable to meet the demands of legitimacy, Brennan instead promotes the idea of dignity as the basis for interpretation. Dignity, according to Brennan, reflects the fundamental principles the founders were trying to imbibe on society and accounts for the transformational aspect of the Constitution. It also allows the Court to maintain legitimacy as what constitutes dignity changes over time along with the disputes that arise from it. Brennan’s views on legitimacy in relation to interpretation at the beginning of his Georgetown speech form the basis for his views on interpretation as the speech goes on.
Brennan, William J. The Constitution of the United States: Contemporary Ratification. 12 October 1985. https://drive.google.com/file/d/13Ih_zXbM4Yg4DE3IvJBlahBvzOnIfRl3/view
Spring Semester
Writing Assignment Number Three
Letter
Dear Davidson College Archives and Special Collections,
As someone who is interested in the history of workforce development and unions in the Southern United States, your Archives and Special Collections provide a golden opportunity. I am positive it will enhance my understanding of the subject matter.
My research question focuses on how employment has changed in Southern economies. Specifically, I am focusing on how the lack of unions, combined with a deep history of slavery and Jim Crow segregation have shaped workforce development and patterns for generations. My research leads me to explore higher education due to their numerous records, allowing me to see how employment was displayed at universities while also seeing how they could be vessels of anti-union sentiment permeating through society as institutions of education. Davidson is the perfect place for me to start.
I recently discovered an artifact at Davidson that will help me in my research. It is a newspaper article that has a perspective of a student on an attempt to unionize Davidson College. This article allows for a thorough examination into prevailing attitudes about unions, reflecting decades of anti-union sentiment including in the higher education sphere.
This artifact indicates how the Archives offer a unique opportunity for me to explore workforce development. The fact that a newspaper article from 2001 is still preserved and publicly accessible shows how much Davidson cares about record keeping, allowing me to build a picture of the origins of anti-union sentiment. Davidson was also built with slave labor, something it has tried to grapple with through the “With These Hands” Memorial. Generations of families have worked on campus, playing essential roles in running the campus. All these factors make Davidson College the ideal site for me to begin my research, thanks to an inextricable history with changing labor practices and meticulous record keeping.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Kind Regards,
Arjun Chityala
Analysis
On February 28, 2001, the student newspaper at Davidson College, the Davidsonian, published a perspective article written by Brandt Leibe, class of 2002, which commented on an email about unions. The email was sent by Anna Thompson from the People’s Labor Advocacy Organization (PLAO). In the email, which was sent to small blocks of select students, Ms. Thompson outlined reasons why Davidson College should have a union. In response to the email, Mr. Liebe outlined his belief that having a labor union is not necessary, saying in the title that the community is stronger without one.
Throughout this short perspective, Mr. Liebe explains his point of view about why Davidson does not need a union. He first focuses on the way that Ms. Thompson spread the message. Instead of putting up fliers or starting a campus discussion, they decided to send the email to a select group of students. Mr. Liebe states that this should discredit the organization’s efforts. He goes on to discuss how there has not been any tension between the administration and staff, questions how labor unions bring more diversity, and praises how there has not been a management versus workers mentality on campus. Overall, the article is an attack on the PLAO, arguing a union is unnecessary and Davidson does not need one.
This article poses more questions than answers. Was there a reason why an email was sent instead of organizing a campus discussion or putting fliers like Mr. Liebe suggested? Why was the email sent to certain groups of students only? Why did the People’s Labor Advocacy Organization specifically target Davidson? Did they target any other college campuses? Was there something or someone that prompted them to send the email to Davidson?
A potential reason why the PLAO spread the message through emails is because North Carolina is a famously anti-union state. Like the rest of the South, it has right-to-work laws which allow workers to opt-out of union membership but the union still has to represent them with less resources. Afraid of intimidation, they sent emails instead of openly going on campus or filing any formal complaints. This incident could just be a continuation of the anti-union spirit in the region. On top of this, conservatism’s dominance, which includes anti-unionism, has reduced organized labor’s power, making it more difficult for them to take actions without significant opposition nationally and locally.
This anti-union sentiment is not a recent phenomenon. Rather, it is a symbol of centuries of racism and exploitation that have permeated the United States, but especially the South. Starting from slavery and continuing into chain gangs and sharecropping, the South has exploited African-Americans and relegated them into hard labor or menial jobs. These jobs provided lower wages and protection, marginalizing African-Americans and keeping them in poverty.. Unions potentially offered a path out of poverty for African-Americans, making it a threat to the Southern economy. As a result, unions had to be suppressed with anti-union laws, making the South the least unionized part of the country. The article reflects the dominant sentiments that emerged from this history which continue to shape policy against unions and broader labor policy.
Another reason why email was the chosen way to spread the message was to protect an identity. Potentially, an employee or groups of them complained and tried to force action through this organization. The organization sent emails in order to prevent any identities from being revealed and subsequent retaliation.
The biggest thing I want to know is if any complaints were filed by staff against the administration on issues like workplace safety and wages. This would reveal a potential correlation between staff discontent and attempted unionization.
This Davidsonian perspective demonstrates dominant views on employment in the South. Unions are seen negatively in the article and viewed as distant and foreign. The article, I believe, reflects regional trends relating to employment and unions. Dominant views of anti-unionism are expressed, perpetuating the same views that have dominated attitudes towards unions and employment in the South. The article provides a snapshot of views on unions and employment in the South, and serves as the perfect basis for me to begin exploring how anti-union sentiment originated and how it impacts employment development and practices in the modern workplace.
https://open.rc.davidson.edu/app_data/slurm-output-files/2001/20010228/PDFs/20010228_013.pdf
Research Paper
