A Free Zoom Tutorial from a Long-Time User

By: Professor Tracy Norton (Touro) (compilation prepared with my permission by Professor Abigail Perdue)

As promised, I’ve recorded several videos to help out with teaching online generally and using Zoom specifically. Here is a link to a collection of emergency online teaching resources. I’ve also included several videos below. The first two videos are quick how-tos on equipment that could be helpful and features that help you and your space look camera ready.

The last two are different recordings of a single conversation between me, Ann Nowak (Touro Law Writing Center Director) and Lynne Kramer (Touro Law Professor, Trial Ad and Negotiations) in which we talk about some practical tips that aren’t covered in most how-to videos. We also talk about using different features for different types of classroom activities. Ann talks about her very interactive online Law Practice Management course as well as individual meetings for the Writing Center. Lynne talks about trial ad and negotiation exercises. I talk about writing courses and feedback conferences. The first of these videos is what Zoom recorded and is, mostly, what participants would have seen. The second of these videos is a screencast so you can see what I was seeing as I moderated the conversation and how I accessed the different features. At one point, I accidentally leave the Zoom room, so the Zoom video records what Lynne was saying while the screencast does not, because I wasn’t there. I hope these are helpful.

On March 11, I hosted a live  conversation with anyone who wanted to ask questions or — even better — offer answers about Zoom. The recording of that session is available here.

After my session, I dug deeper into a few good questions from the audience. Here is what I learned:

Q: If I choose Speaker View for a meeting, can I lock the camera on a single speaker?
A: Yes, you can! To spotlight your video when you speak, go to the Settings (either in the app or through the web site, zoom.us). Choose Video and then choose Spotlight my video when I speak. To spotlight someone else, Zoom has instructions explaining how to do that, which can be found here.
Q: With a single monitor, can I see the full speaker view/gallery view PLUS the screen share?
A: Yes, you can! Go to the Settings menu, and choose General. Under Content Sharing, choose Side-by-Side Mode. More information on this feature can be found here.
Q: At your session this week, only about 20 people could be on the screen at one time. I have more students than that in my course. Is there any way to get them all on the screen?
A: Yes, there is! Make sure that you are in full-screen mode and that your window is large enough to display the thumbnails. Zoom supports up to 49 thumbnails on a single screen. More information can be found here.
Q: How do I pre-assign a team or group of students to breakout rooms?
A: I put together a quick 5-minute video [click the blue text] showing where to find the settings for this. There’s also a video about breakout rooms generally along with some written instructions on Zoom.
Q: Do you have any specific tips for using Zoom to host oral arguments? 

A: My colleague, Ann Nowak, also hosted a separate session regarding how to use Zoom for oral arguments.

Q: What if I teach at a school that doesn’t have Zoom? 

A: My colleague, Professor Deborah Borman, has suggested the following Zoom alternatives:

Bluejeans
Cisco WebX Meetings
Google Hangout

Last but not least, below are several videos I have created to further assist you. Zoom’s website also has free training videos.

Video 1: Equipment Setup (6 min, 14 sec)

Video 2: Zoom Feature for Sprucing Up Your Appearance and Your Space (3 min, 43 sec)

Video 3: Zoom Recording of a Conversation Sharing Practical Tips (1 hour, 2 minutes)

Video 4: Screencast Recording of a Conversation Sharing Practical Tips (same conversation as Video 3, just from the moderator’s perspective) ) (58 minutes, 23 sec))
Recorded Using Camtasia

Share our content!

Creating a COVID-19 Contingency Plan for Potential Course Interruption

By: Abigail Perdue[1]

As communities across the country brace for the potential impact of COVID-19, law professors must contemplate how to handle COVID-19-related course interruption. This kind of pandemic planning is particularly pressing for professors in small, experiential courses because they are likelier to involve collaborative group work and lengthy one-on-one conferences between professors and students. Given our current understanding of how COVID-19 likely spreads, such activities may pose a greater risk of COVID transmission unless certain precautions are taken.

Although our understanding of COVID-19 is rapidly evolving, the latest information appears to indicate that the virus spreads when an infected person coughs or sneezes. An infected person’s cough or sneeze expels droplets carrying COVID-19, which may land on another person’s nose or mouth or on a nearby inanimate object like a computer mouse or door handle.[2] Unless and until those objects are properly disinfected, COVID-19 can survive on them for an unknown length of time. And that is exactly how long those objects will be a potential source of contagion unless disinfected. Anyone who touches the object and then touches their nose or face risks becoming infected.

In light of these concerns, law professors may wish to contemplate small measures they can take to keep their law school communities healthy and to limit potential course interruption caused by COVID-19. Below is a non-exhaustive list of ideas: Continue reading “Creating a COVID-19 Contingency Plan for Potential Course Interruption”

Share our content!

Introducing a Great Resource for Business Law Courses and Clinics

By: Professor Abigail Perdue

Professor Katrina Lee (Ohio State) has just published an excellent resource with West Academic that will prove incredibly beneficial to courses and clinics relating to business law as well as to Career Advisors mentoring students who want to learn more about life as a business lawyer, transactional attorney, or in-house counsel. Professor Lee’s book – The Legal Career: Knowing the Business, Thriving in Practice – is the first-of-its kind. According to West Academic:

“This business of law coursebook covers critical topics in the evolving legal profession. A fascinating, informative read for any law student or lawyer or person hoping to learn more about today’s legal landscape, the book features chapters on the structure and business of a law firm; the corporate law department; the emergence of law companies; legal technology; access to justice; employment and diversity in the legal profession; lawyer well-being; and legal education reform. Students will learn from detailed, insightful interviews of people working in law, including a co-founder of a leading law company; a legal innovation designer; the vice president and chief risk officer of a global medical technology company; a deputy legal counsel for an artist crowdfunding platform startup; a national pro bono counsel; law school deans; a law firm managing partner; and a senior director of knowledge and innovation delivery. Interactive exercises and questions for reflection and discussion are included throughout the book. This book, with its innovative holistic approach to the business of law, is ideal for business of law or legal professions courses, law school orientation, legal career services programs, and seminars on the legal profession.”

What a valuable addition to your classroom, Career Services, or law library this new resource will be!

If you have recently published a helpful teaching resource, please email us at teachlawbetter.com, and we might just share a post about it. 

Share our content!

And the Oscar Goes to . . . Language

By: Abigail Perdue (Wake Forest Law)

an image of an award that looks like an OscarLanguage gave a powerful performance at the 92nd Academy Awards. From fashion to foreign films, words took center stage. Actress Natalie Portman gave new meaning to the phrase “fashion statement” when she donned a cape bearing the names of female directors whom she felt had been snubbed at prior Oscars. Words woven into her garment became her silent but powerful protest.

Parasite made history by becoming the first film, not in English, to win Best Picture. At a pivotal time when language barriers and cultural differences threaten to divide people of different national origins and backgrounds, Parasite broke down those walls, provoking a collective sense of awe at the satire’s disturbing depiction of what some have described as “brutal . . . class warfare” and the social chaos it produces.

Parasite also won the Academy Award for Best International Feature, an award formerly known as Best Foreign Film. Although the category is still limited to films predominantly in a language other than English, the Academy determined that the term “foreign” was antiquated and possibly offensive, opting for what it felt would be a more inclusive, evolved title.

Language continued to take center stage when Parasite’s director, Bong Joon-ho, employed an interpreter, Sharon Choi, to translate his numerous Oscar speeches into English throughout the night. Although he delivered his remarks in Korean, like his film, Joon-ho still spoke a language that everyone could understand and appreciate: the language of gratitude, earnestness, and humility. Through his sincerity, humor, and emotion, I quickly forgot that we were two very different people from very different countries and backgrounds who spoke very different languages. Instead, he felt familiar, like an old friend. His moving speech fostered togetherness and understanding.

Rather than touting his own accomplishments, Joon-ho spent most of his allotted time openly praising and honoring his fellow nominees. In a memorable and heartwarming Oscar moment, Joon-ho extolled Martin Scorsese for inspiring him to become a filmmaker. He spoke Scorsese’s words back to him in Korean: “The most personal is the most creative.” In so doing, Joon-ho demonstrated how Scorsese’s words had once reached a stranger in a distant land and altered the course of his life. Members of the audience were so moved that in response, they gave Scorsese an unforgettable standing ovation.

Joon-ho’s humility and graciousness again shone through when he expressed his desire to cut his Oscar into five equal parts to share with the other deserving nominees. Joon-ho had won, and they had lost. Yet his words powered through that divide to uplift his fellow nominees, making them equals rather than placing himself above them.

Subsequent winners followed suit with some of the most memorable Oscar acceptance speeches in recent history. Best Actor Joaquin Phoenix eloquently opined: “at times we feel . . . that we champion different causes, but for me, I see commonality. . . [W]hether we’re talking about gender inequality or racism or queer rights or indigenous rights or animal rights, we’re talking about the fight against injustice.” With disturbing detail, he described the anguish of a baby calf forcefully removed from her mother, so that humans can instead steal the milk intended for her calf to use in their morning coffee. His words were convicting, risky, brave, and provocative. Teary-eyed, he ended his impassioned speech by quoting beautiful song lyrics from his deceased brother: “Run to the rescue with love and peace will follow” – words so meaningful that they had outlived their creator and made him immortal, first to his brother and now to us all. Similarly, Best Actress Renee Zellweger called for greater inclusion and civility, observing that “our heroes unite us.”

Unfortunately, at a time when polarization and prejudice threaten America, the powerful use of language at this year’s Oscars to underscore our common humanity and encourage us to unite have been largely overlooked or worse yet, derided by some media outlets. But the words were not lost on me. As a lover of language and teacher of communication, I, more than most, appreciate the profound power of Language to unite, to inspire, and to save. And this year, Language was the Leading Lady who truly stole the show!

What did the Oscars teach you? How might you incorporate major pop culture moments like the Oscars into your teaching? Share your good ideas at teachlawbetter.com, and we might just post them.

Share our content!

Politics and Prose: How Encouraging Thoughtful Political Discourse May Preempt Political Discrimination

By: Abigail Perdue (Wake Forest School of Law)

The United States has become or (perhaps more cynically) has always been a hotbed of discrimination on the basis of political ideology and affiliation. Increasingly, those discriminatory attitudes permeate every facet of society from romantic relationships to hiring. In recent years, one cannot turn on the television or read the newspaper without being bombarded with politically charged persuasive rhetoric masked as objective news reporting. Yet too rarely do discussions regarding inclusion and diversity address the value of having distinct political perspectives in the classroom.

Nor is it uncommon for online dating profiles to advise Republicans or Democrats to “swipe left,” presumably based on deeply rooted stereotypes regarding the kind of mate a person of that political affiliation will be. And there’s good reason to believe that at least some employers snoop on social media to learn about applicants’ political ideology and activity. It is not hard to imagine a Democrat moving an applicant’s resumé to the bottom of the pile if it lists membership in the Young Republicans or the Federalist Society, or alternatively, a Republican declining to interview an applicant whose public Instagram page showcases the applicant fundraising for a Democratic candidate. As we enter yet another election cycle, which promises to be as contentious as the last, it is important to consider these questions and their implications for our students, both now and in the future.

Indeed, the realities of political discrimination in legal education hit home for me when a student emailed to say that she would be unable to attend our Thursday afternoon class because she was attending a once-in-a-lifetime political event with a close friend who had scored incredibly hard-to-get tickets to attend it. The student was naturally excited, but during the exchange that ensued, it seemed clear that the student would not be sharing the specific reason for her absence with some of her classmates or professors in part because she felt that it would not be well received. Put differently, she feared falling victim to political discrimination.

Not long after, two different students met with me to discuss judicial clerkships. The first expressed sincere concern that anything in her resumé that signaled political ideology, even the topic of her writing sample, might bar her from getting the position. The second flatly stated that he would only apply to Democratic judges who had been appointed by Democratic Presidents.

Whether you characterize these behaviors as thoughtful decisions, benign political preferences, or downright discrimination, they’re concerning for the future of our country (at least to me). After all, if citizens cannot cross the boardroom or Bumble site to meaningfully engage with people whose political ideology is different from their own, then how can we expect that bipartisan, mature, collaborative behavior from the political leaders we elect. And if Americans can’t work together, America will fall apart.

With these troublesome concerns percolating in my mind, I began to consider my role and perhaps, responsibility, as a law professor to help address this pressing issue. I teach effective oral and written communication to diverse audiences. Doesn’t fostering thoughtful exchanges between people with competing ideology fall squarely into that domain? Thus, I (reluctantly) dug into this issue, which is arguably mired in controversy and definitely out of my comfort zone. Drawing on my past experience as an employment litigator, I investigated this curious question more deeply, and what I found might surprise you.

In most states and localities, political discrimination, benign or otherwise, is perfectly legal in the private sector. Indeed, federal anti-discrimination statutes like Title VII, the ADA, and ADEA do not explicitly preserve a person’s right to be free of employment discrimination on the basis of political beliefs, affiliation, or ideology. Yet states and localities may enact anti-discrimination legislation that is more, but not less, protective than their federal counterparts, and New York has done just that.  New York Labor Law 201-d prohibits covered employers from discriminating against covered employees and applicants for: “an individual’s political activities outside of working hours, off of the employer’s premises and without use of the employer’s equipment or other property, if such activities are legal . . .”

With this background in mind, I created an exercise about political discrimination that would simultaneously serve as a vehicle to instill strong research, writing, editing, and analytical skills (among other things). With complete awareness that I was treading in dangerous waters, I aimed to strike a delicate balance. Pointing a finger at one party or another would be polarizing, not unifying.

Accordingly, I set the problem in New York where the owner of the Red Dragon Inn (Daenerys Targaryen), a staunch “Republocrat,” had recently learned that a waitress, Sansa, at the Inn was fundraising for a “Demopublican” candidate in her free time on the weekends. Although Sansa had not previously had any performance issues, Daenerys now felt that Sansa was not a good “fit” for the Inn given her political leanings, which might “put off” the Inn’s “mostly Republocrat” clientele. As a result, Daenerys wanted to terminate Sansa’s employment and replace her with a Republocrat. However, out of an abundance of caution, Daenerys had reached out to our law firm to determine if she could lawfully do so in New York.

Given that this was a first-time pedagogical experiment, I didn’t want my students to be wading through this issue for weeks on end, given that it could be a huge fail. So I limited the issue to a timed exercise on which they would spend a single ninety-minute session. During the next class, we reflected on what they had learned during the exercise, and some shared their thoughts regarding why political discrimination should be permitted or not. Several were surprised that Sansa’s political activity was not already federally protected. It was a productive, fruitful discussion celebrating diverse voices. Although the students had different backgrounds and political affiliations, they seemed unified in the collective sentiment that they should be free to possess and express their beliefs without fear of political discrimination.

Given the success of the exercise, the next year, I expanded the problem into a full-length memo on which we spent several weeks. Again, it fueled rich and illuminating discussions about political discrimination, a topic that many students had not previously considered. This pedagogical experiment was only the first step in my “curiosity voyage”[1] regarding political discrimination, which I will more deeply explore in a forthcoming law review article.

Have you ever tried to address a controversial problem of our time in your classes? How did you handle it? Was your pedagogical experiment worth the risk? Share your good ideas at teachlawbetter.com, and we might just publish them.

 

 

[1] A delicious phrase borrowed from Mr. Clarke on Stranger Things (Netflix).

Share our content!