Consortium of Undergraduate Law and Justice Programs
  • Home/About
    • FAQs
    • Contact
    • Board of Directors
    • Bylaws
  • Membership
  • Announcements
    • Fellowships
    • Job Postings
    • Calls for Papers
    • Newsletter
  • Programs
  • Resources
    • Syllabi
    • Teaching Resources
    • Advising Resources
    • Undergraduate Research Prizes and Publishing Resources
    • Organizations & Research Institutes
  • Awards
    • 2022 Awards Recipients
    • 2021 Awards Recipients
    • 2020 Awards Recipients
    • 2019 Awards Recipients
    • 2017 Awards Recipients
    • 2016 Award Recipients
  • Meetings
    • Pre-Conference Workshop RSVP
    • CULJP-sponsored Conference Panels
    • CULJP Meetings
  • Blog

Teaching and Learning about Torture

4/20/2018

2 Comments

 
I teach a senior seminar in Political Theory at Drew University titled Torture: Pain, Body and Truth that  counts towards the Law, Justice and Society Minor at Drew and this happens to be the tenth time I am teaching the course. In these ten iterations, I have had the pleasure of teaching some of the best students at Drew from whom I have learnt a lot over the years. Occasionally, like most professors, I have organized events related to the class including panels with ACLU lawyers and Witness against Torture activists (alongside our own students); teach-in on Guantanamo as a part of a multi-university initiative; the Annual Law, Justice and Society lecture by Prof. Lisa Hajjar  and visit to exhibitions on torture. However, this time the students impressed and intrigued me in yet another manner- a constant reward of teaching. I ask them to bring in two visuals as a part of their presentations on concepts related to class and that has often been a way for me to both understand what they are thinking about as they engage with the readings but also to access some of the virtual world that students easily negotiate and initiate me into. This time, the first set of presenters picked political cartoons and that just set the trend for rest of the semester and it was really fascinating to see students relate concepts from our class to the analysis of political cartoons, and they generously agreed to collectively analyze a few political cartoons as a part of this blog. I could not think of a better way to end the semester-  this political cartoon essay reminds us of the ongoing debates on torture as Guantanamo remains open, efforts of accountability continue thanks to the amazing human rights lawyers and activists, and the nomination of the CIA director is mired in the torture policy of the Bush administration. Above all, it notes the continuation of torture and pain from ancient to modern times, across colonial and postcolonial contexts, in democratic and authoritarian regimes almost always coinciding with existing hierarchies in society.

​Jinee Lokaneeta, Drew University

A Deeper Look at the Chain of Command within Abu Ghraib
By: Shaylyn MacKinnon, Brooke Winters, Sage Johnson, and Aurie Flores
​

Picture
This political cartoon deals with the photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison, leaked in 2004 by 60 Minutes. This cartoon deals with the issues of responsibility within the United States military and government, directly linking the abuses at Abu Ghraib to the Bush administration. This cartoon criticizes the lack of accountability among higher-ups, as the blame for these abuses was placed solely on individual military personnel such as Lynndie England, who is depicted in the pose of one of the more infamous Abu Ghraib photographs of her holding a leash around a tortured and naked Iraqi detainee.

In the interview with Angela Y. Davis, Davis asserts that “these abusive practices [at Abu Ghraib] cannot be dismissed as abnormalities,” echoing sentiments that reject the ‘few bad apples’ explanation put forward by the U.S. government in the early days of the Abu Ghraib scandal (49). Moreover, this cartoon ties in with Basuli Deb’s work regarding the tensions between liberal feminism and transnational feminism after the Abu Ghraib atrocities. Deb writes that “US-centric feminisms at once leapt to the rescue of these women [such as Lynndie England] and portrayed them merely as tools manipulated by the military establishment” (Deb, 1). Transnational feminism, on the other hand, looks at the dynamics between gender and race, taking note of how white women became ‘good citizens’ by helping in the torture of brown Iraqi detainees. This cartoon highlights the transnational feminist perspective by showing that while Lynndie England was working for the higher up government apparatus, she is also accountable for her part in the chain of command. England, though being a woman and a victim of the patriarchy, is white and therefore benefits from that patriarchy due to the power she holds over men of color.

Looking into the actual illustrative details of the cartoon, the themes mentioned (lack of accountability and where responsibility lies in the chain of command for torture) are represented most clearly in the directions each figure is facing. Lynndie England, the lowest in the “Chain of Command” and the one who was directly involved in the torture, faces the crumpled figure of the torture victim head on, thus acknowledging her actions in the practice of torture. On the contrary, Rumsfeld's head is only slightly angled toward England, giving the impression that he is neither acknowledging nor condemning the actions that led to the crumpled and chained figure. President Bush’s face is turned the furthest from the body, his eyes closed, whistling a tune to represent how he refuses to outwardly acknowledge the torture in any way. The positions of power are indicated by the size of each character, Bush by far the largest with each body shrinking in scale as the chain. While the size decreases, the detail of each figure increases the closer they get to the tortured victim, again suggesting a refusal to acknowledge the extent of the torture the further up the command chain one is. England is the most detailed because the public has become privy to the details of her involvement in the torture, whereas Bush and Rumsfeld’s connections are obscured to the public, leaving them “clean”. This cartoon is significant to the contemporary public because of its deconstruction of the ‘few bad apples’ explanation.

References

Angela Y. Davis. Abolition Democracy: Beyond Empire, Prisons, and Torture. Seven Stories
Press, 2005.

Basuli Deb. “Transnational Feminism and Women Who Torture: Re- imag(in)ing Abu Ghraib
Prison Photography.” Postcolonial Text 7. 1, 2012.

Drughon, Dennis. “Chain of Command.” Scranton Times, Scranton Times, 16 May 2004.
​

“The Shadow”
​
By: Brielle Castanheira, Alex Gilgorri, Dalton Valette, Boshudha Khan, Sebastian Godinez
​

Picture
The three major themes that we identified are the bureaucracy of torture, denial of torture, and media as a form of torture. The US as a liberal democracy has conducted and denied its use of torture but evidence including the Rizzo memo counter those claims. Legal documentation similar to this show a systematic approach to the legalization of torture. The leak of the Abu Ghraib photos started a conversation about “enhanced interrogation”. This shows how media has become an evolved form of Foucault’s “spectacle of torture”, wherein privacy and autonomy are violated. In this cartoon, we see a deconstruction of liberal values, particularly seeing how the government itself endorsed these actions. The two things we noticed about the image were the shadow, figurative and literal, left by the torture conducted during the Bush presidency. The cartoon specifically states “the government”, alluding to the notion of blame on “a few bad apples” (e.g. Lynndie England). As identified by Jinee Lokaneeta in her first chapter of Law’s Struggle with Violence: Ambivalence in the “Routine” Jurisprudence of Interrogations in the United States, she notes that the U.S. denied their, “own role in authorizing the actions (denial of responsibility)” (Lokaneeta, 43). Today, we see the continued ramifications of our military presence in Afghanistan. Even though there is awareness and conversation around the US’s involvement in torture, the denial is still present.

References
Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Translated by Alan Sheridan.
New York: Vintage Books, 1977.
Keefe, Mike. “The Denver Post .” The Denver Post , The Denver Post, 2007.
Lokaneeta, Jinee. Transnational Torture: Law, Violence, and State Power in the United States       
and India. New York University Press, 2016.

“The Faces of Denial”
​
By: Luis Leroux, David Rosenblum, Nick Defuria, Megyn MacMullen
​

Picture
In these images of Condoleezza Rice and George Bush we see examples of Stanley Cohen’s concept of Literal and Interpretive Denial, as quoted by Jinee Lokaneeta in her book Transnational Torture, laid bare. These images react to the revelations surrounding the incidence of extraordinary rendition and the abuses which it facilitated in Abu Ghraib and Bagram. In the Rice cartoon, we see the artist, Jimmy Margulies, bring attention to the role that interpretive denial played in the construction of the American torture regime by giving officials a language through which they could downplay the severity or very incidence of abuse. In the Bush cartoon, created by artist Mark Fiore, we see the government's ability to exert its power to completely deny the existence of torture, in an example of Cohen’s conceptualization of literal denial. The contemporary significance of these cartoons relies on their modern day relevance. While the faces of torturers may have changed, the existence of black sites continue to be a blemish upon America’s reputation. They continue to operate under unethical means, utilizing the power of the state to obfuscate any information which may be disseminated.  

References
Lokaneeta, Jinee. Chapter 1: “Law’s Struggle with Violence: Ambivalence in the “Routine”
Jurisprudence of Interrogations in the United States” in Transnational Torture.
Fiore, Mark. “Top Secret.” 17 November 2005.
Margulies, Jimmy. “Rice Decries Torture.” The Comic News. 14 December 2005.

Internal Imprisonment
By Mariia, Sam, Marta

Picture
                                                                    “Captive” by Todd Tarselli

Some of the themes we related this political cartoon to were the transition from the spectacle of torture to a more private form of torture, specifically Foucault's idea that torture has become about imprisonment and detainment. Furthermore, this cartoon shows the more modern psychological form of torture. This is shown in the way he seems to be imprisoned within his own mind. This cartoon could also be demonstrating an after effect of torture in that the effects never leave and the tortured experiences post traumatic stress. Even though he may be free, torture and pain can be hard to describe with words and the experience leaves him trapped with his memories. In a contemporary sense we related this to the U.S. and its current detainee program in which they often deprive detainees of their senses using blindfolds and earmuffs leaving them only with their own thoughts. Prolonged exposure may lead to the detainee having mental issues and effectively “going crazy” from being trapped with only their own thoughts.

References
Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Translated by Alan Sheridan.
New York: Vintage Books, 1977.

​
2 Comments

Renee Cramer - Who, Why, and How, We Conference

4/6/2018

0 Comments

 
​Spring feels like conference season in my disciplines.  Many of my scholar friends just got back from the Western Political Science Associationmeetings in San Francisco, and many others are gearing up for the Midwest Political Science Associationmeetings in Chicago.  
 
And of course, right now, my attention has turned to the Law and Society Associationmeetings – June 7 – 10 in Toronto, Canada and to the Consortium Pre-Conference Workshop.   The Consortium will have several professional development panels at LSA – on undergraduate research, getting and loving a tenure track job in legal studies at an undergraduate focused institution, and a panel on the connections between LSA and CULJPS (they are long and deep connections!).
 
With all of the recent attention to “Manels,” as well as to the multiple ways that women are showing “we also know stuff,” I’ve been reflecting lately on how proud I am of how inclusive CULJPS is, and how inclusive my time at LSA has been (with caveats, and acknowledged limits – I find CULJPS to be really supportive of women’s leadership, and LSA to be terrific at being an inclusive and international organization; both still have room to grow).  
 
I’ve also been thinking about who I am when I attend a conference, why I go, and how I act while there.  For instance, I avoid APSAmeeting – going only once a decade or so – but I usually attend the WPSA.   I find myself at home with the public law people there, the popular culture people there, and the feminist political theory folks; and I always attend an environmental theory panel, even though they don’t usually relate to my areas of research or teaching.  I like the WPSA focus on pedagogy, the intimate and relaxed feel of it, and the ability to construct a “conference within a conference.” 
 
I presented at some graduate student conferences when I was earning my PhD at NYU in the late 1990s/early 2000s, and I attended disciplinary conferences related to my dissertation, as an observer, during the same time.  But it wasn’t until I attended the 2000 LSA meetings and the graduate student workshop in Miami Beach that I began to see myself as “an academic attending an academic conference.”  In the nearly twenty years since then, I’ve cycled through loving, and loathing, the conference process – and I’ve noticed that the wayI conference has changed over time.  When I was first out of grad school, and still working to develop the book that grew out of my dissertation, I attended in order to present.  Because I was a junior scholar, I almost always presented fully formed work, and therefore didn’t get as much benefit as I could have, from presenting work in progress. 
 
It wasn’t until my first book came out, and I switched gears, that I began to see conferences as a place to have meaningful conversations about my work and teaching – it wasn’t until tenure that I saw conferences as places to be vulnerable, intellectually.  Now, I love to be on panels where I can present work where the research is mostly done and the argument is in formation, but I am still trying out different approaches.  Even more, I love being on panels that are focused on something outside of the research, and use the research as a springboard – a roundtable on Data Access and Research Transparency, for example, or a panel on pedagogy and engaging undergraduates in research.
 
Early in my career, I understood that conferences were important places to network, even as I hated the term, and cringed at the thought.   I was lucky to have an advisor who did lots of heavy lifting on my behalf – she’d introduce me to her peers, saying things like, “Renee’s research is on ...” and when I listened closely I learned not only how she saw my research, but how to talk about it within the different subfields of my disciplines.
 
On my own, though, I didn’t start out strategically – in fact, I was such a dork! I’d actually follow senior scholars around the book room, or around the reception buffet (grabbing as much food as I could, to supplement my super small assistant professor at a state university per diem), and “accidentally-on-purpose” run into them, smile, and blunder through “I love your work” conversations.  I was lucky that so many senior folks were generous – they gave me their cards, they sat down with me to hear what I loved about their work, they invited future conversation, they helped me connect with their graduate students and colleagues.  Over time, I learned to be more strategic (and respectful) – to email in the month ahead of a conference to introduce myself and ask for a cup of coffee, to follow-up with everyone I met with an email in the weeks after the conference, thanking them for their time, suggesting an article, sending my work whenever they invited it.   I learned to ask my panel mates to meet up for breakfast before, or for drinks after, as a way of extending our scholarly connections and conversations.  
 
I learned, actually, to be much more extroverted than I am.  
 
Years later, I learned the value of three special treats: one hotel breakfast-in-bed, the ability to say no to an evening out, when I was wiped out, and the pleasures of an afternoon in a strange and fabulous city. As a new mom, I learned that conferences were also places I could sleep in, and take uninterrupted showers, and eat breakfast alone.  
 
While conferencing, I was always aware that I was making connections – I didn’t realize that I was also making friends.    I didn’t realize that slowly, over the course of a career, conferences would become the highlight of my academic year – a chance to see and talk with people I only get to see once every twelve months, as well as a chance to meet junior scholars who are just beginning to develop their research agendas and teaching personas. 
 
Time at conference is, for me, like a miniature sabbatical on an amazing fellowship – three to five days of focused conversation about my work, and your work – the chance for adequate sleep (or not) and the chance for a morning writing retreat in a new city with great coffee.  I try to do two conferences a year – more doesn’t seem sustainable (though I’ve done four, before), one doesn’t seem quite enough.  I try not to grade during conferences – except on the airplane (airplane grading is the best) – and I try to return from conferences refreshed and energize for future work.
 
I am certain that LSA will be all of that that this year – and I am incredibly excited about the pre-conference workshop that CULJP is planning.  
 
We will meet – and I hope you’ll join us – the day before, in the conference hotel in Toronto, to engage in sustained and invigorating dialogue about undergraduate legal studies. We’ll start the day with presidents – past and future – of CULJP and LSA, discussing the interplay and overlap between our two organizations, and the role of sociolegal studies in undergraduate legal studies.  We’ll network and chat at lunch – and maybe even take a walk – and then return in the afternoon for a hands-on and interactive set of sessions on program development and maintenance, curricular outcomes and assessment, and how best to serve our students. 
 
The CULJP pre-conference workshop will be an intimate gathering 20 – 30 people, and a perfect place to have a conference experience as a junior scholar new to LSA and CULJP, as well as a place for those of us who are more ‘seasoned’ to connect in different ways with our peers.  
 
I hope you will join us – register here, then email me and ask to meet up for a cup of coffee at LSA!
0 Comments

    In the Classroom:
    A Blog about Undergrad Teaching and Learning

    A group blog of the Consortium for Undergraduate Law and Justice Programs. Follow us on Twitter or Facebook for alerts about new posts.

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    March 2022
    January 2022
    June 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    July 2020
    April 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    April 2018
    May 2017
    April 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    August 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015

    Categories

    All
    Assignments
    Call For Papers
    Classroom Activities
    Conferences
    Constitutional Law
    Criminal Justice
    Graduate School
    Mentoring
    Prelaw Advising
    Primary Sources
    Social Justice
    Syllabi
    Teaching
    Television
    Undergraduate Curriculum And Program Design
    Undergraduate Research

Proudly powered by Weebly