Roe

Diary Entry: October 18, 2016

The primary focus of today’s Constitutional Law lecture was the landmark Roe v. Wade case.

In what I considered an absolutely brilliant move, our professor invited a guest speaker — and not just anyone, but a judge from California! He was a Chinese-American man, lean as a legal brief, perhaps in his mid-forties, who held strikingly conservative views. This immediately thrilled me; our professor is known for his own staunch, passionately liberal opinions, so inviting someone with a diametrically opposed perspective spoke volumes about his broad-mindedness. This is the essence of true academic debate!

The judge possessed an impressively articulate, robust, and intellectually rigorous stance. He methodically began his analysis of the Roe v. Wade case, breaking it down into its structural components. His central argument was that the case entirely lacked a consistent, logical theoretical framework. “It has absolutely no foundation,” he stated flatly, stripped of any emotion. It was such a wonderfully provocative assertion that it left the entire room in deep thought.

The lecture began with a seemingly simple question, which pierced the audience like a thrown spear. It was an invitation to engage — a question left hanging in the air, followed by a profound, collective silence. “What are factions,” he asked, “and why did the Founding Fathers warn us against them?”

A heavy hush descended. Nobody moved. I could almost feel every student in the room frantically sifting through their minds, desperate to unearth the precise answer. For a fleeting second, it struck me how oddly symbolic our class composition was in relation to the question, given that the historical homelands of its members were scattered across the globe. But I had already read the Federalist Papers! A surge of excitement took over, and unable to contain myself, my hand shot up — I was eager to join the fray. The professor called on me immediately, and I could sense his delight at my initiative. I didn’t disappoint him either, delivering a textbook response rooted in James Madison’s arguments from Federalist №10. I was thrilled to share my knowledge with the room, even if a touch of nervousness slightly clouded my English.

This promptness yielded entirely unexpected results, effectively setting the tone for the remainder of the lecture! Satisfied that I grasped the fundamentals, the judge generously pivoted his focus to the other students, drawing them into the intellectual exercise. He never gave me the floor again, and it dawned on me that he had used me as a sort of example. He no longer needed to test my understanding; instead, he trusted me, yielding the floor so others might have their fifteen seconds to shine. What a masterful teaching strategy! Through it, he demonstrated that the debate belongs to everyone, and that every voice should be engaged in it.

I lowered my hand, quietly proud to have set the wheels in motion. The lecture hall buzzed, finally awakening as a vigorous debate ignited around the grand, complex legalities of abortion. My mind was racing, brimming with so much restless energy that I could hardly contain it; eventually, I pulled out my phone, loaded an online football stream, and simply allowed myself to relax. I knew my part was already done.