Comments on: Oil and Anger

By: Jen

Jen — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 16:28:24 +0000

I just found your site, if you are still teaching, can you imaging how much worse the Gulf spill is going to end up? How sad that we didn’t learn from that first tragic mistake. Thank you for teaching the children compassion among other things.

By: Borderland › Heartbreaking

Borderland › Heartbreaking — Sat, 01 May 2010 19:34:17 +0000

[...] This brings back some painful memories. [...]

By: Borderland » Blog Archive » Opportunistic Teaching

Borderland » Blog Archive » Opportunistic Teaching — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:26:08 +0000

[...] that my students participate. Yes, we’ll do that. But we’re also writing letters to the Supreme Court about the Exxon Valdez damages [...]

By: Doug Noon

Doug Noon — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:09:09 +0000

Hi Russ,

We’re on spring break at the moment, and didn’t get the letters done beforehand, so it’s still a work in progress.

The kids are mostly focused on a couple of things. We all know that the person that makes the mess should clean it up, and the company that hires the person is just as responsible. Especially if they let him drive after they know he has a drinking problem. A schoolteacher, by the way, would have been dismissed after a single DUI conviction. The kids also have observed in the videos that Exxon’s “clean-up plan” was no plan at all, that they were slow to respond, and that they merely threw money at the problem, washing the oil back into the sea to make the beaches look clean on the surface. They are outraged at the number of animals that died, and at the human suffering this all caused.

As for the chief justice’s comments, the kids do not buy the idea that having rules is the same as enforcing them. They know the difference – being boundary pushers, themselves.

I’ll post their letters to their website as soon as they finish them.

By: Russ Josephson

Russ Josephson — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:35:12 +0000

Thanks for that piece. I’m also a teacher, and I’m in Alaska. My law students have been going through the Supreme Court arguments with me. The esoteric arguments are a bit difficult to follow, but I have to say they were interesting. I thought it interesting that Exxon would raise the idea that the shipping industry is inherently dangerous because that’s the classic definition of a party who is found guilty under the strict liability theory of law, as opposed to the negligence theory. (Strict liability applies classically when no amount of care can prevent injuries to others or to their property. Negligence theory requires more: a showing of a duty of care, a showing of a breach of that duty, a showing of causation, and a showing of damages.)

I also thought the question asked by the Chief Justice (what else could a corporation do other than have a standard or policy?) was amazing. Later he answered it almost off-handedly when he said they could implement the policy. So having a rule against drinking on the tankers should have been implemented. Gee, no kidding.

I’d be interested in seeing your students’ letters. Both my law students and composition students could learn from them

Thanks.