Documents

Favors v. Section Five Word of the Day Commission Opinion

Description
The Supreme Court of Section Five's decision in Favors v. Section Five Word of the Day Commission Opinion Majority opinion by Justice Epstein, concurring opinion by Justice Richards, and dissenting opinion by Justice Malhi
Categories
Published
of 5
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  Cite as: 573 U. S. ____ (2014) Opinion of the Court SUPREME COURT OF SECTION FIVE  _________________  No. 01–001  _________________ JEOHN FAVORS, PETITIONER v.  SECTION FIVE WORD OF THE DAY COMMISSION ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SECTION FIVE COURT OF APPEALS [November 7, 2014] J USTICE E PSTEIN  delivered the opinion of the Court. Law is reason free from passion. No matter how sympathetic Petitioner in this case may be, we decide not for any given petitioner, but for all of Section Five. A textual interpretation of the word “call out” would deny relief in this case – Prof. Lazarus noted Petitioner's use of the word and repeated it. The intent of the “called out” provision of the statute was to avoid disruption of the class while providing an incentive for students to be clever in their use of the word of the day. Without this, the game could quickly become detrimental to the learning environment and be shut down. * * * Therefore, we hold that Petitioner should be denied one  point, and that recognition of word use by a professor qualifies as being “called out.”  It is so ordered.    Cite as: 573 U. S. ____ (2014) R  ICHARDS ,   J., concurring in judgment SUPREME COURT OF SECTION FIVE  _________________  No. 01–001  _________________ JEOHN FAVORS, PETITIONER v.  SECTION FIVE WORD OF THE DAY COMMISSION ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SECTION FIVE COURT OF APPEALS [November 7, 2014] J USTICE R  ICHARDS  concurring in the judgment. The intent of the called-out provision is clear – the word game challenges students to use the word when responding to a professor’s question, without alerting the professor of the student’s ulterior motive. The ingenuity required to insert the word into an answer without detection is what provides “levity during the otherwise confusing and troubling process of learning the law.”  J. Malhi, dissenting. Without a rigid application of this provision, the game would quickly devolve into a monkey-like dump of shenanigans. I also believe that Justice Malhi’s concerns regarding the chilling effect of our ruling today are misplaced. Certainly, a fear of being called out has not restricted the utilization of the word of the day in other contexts. See dump, brouhaha. Section Five is no longer hobbled by a chicken-esque fear,  bubbling beneath the surface, of the power wielded by  professors.  FAVORS v.  SECTION FIVE WORD OF THE DAY COMMISSION R  ICHARDS ,   J., concurring in judgment Although Petitioner’s use of the word “kapow” was admirable in its subtlety and masterful in its execution, an examination of the game’s overarching purpose requires me to conclude that Petitioner should not be awarded a point. I concur.  Cite as: 573 U. S. ____ (2014) M ALHI ,   J., dissenting SUPREME COURT OF SECTION FIVE  _________________  No. 01–001  _________________ JEOHN FAVORS, PETITIONER v.  SECTION FIVE WORD OF THE DAY COMMISSION ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SECTION FIVE COURT OF APPEALS [November 7, 2014] J USTICE M ALHI , dissenting. The majority here has erred in interpreting the term “called out.” The intent of the “called out” provision of the statute is not, as the majority suggests, to prevent disruption in the learning environment of the classroom. Using this rationale, any usage of the word of the day should be deemed inappropriate, as the snickering and chitchat that results from even a non-called out” employment of the word of the day threatens the sanctity of the learning environment. Rather, the intent of the provision is to avoid awarding students points when their usage of the word of the day is so grossly nonsensical in the context as to allow the professor to clearly discern that the student has employed the word as part of such a game. In the current context, Petitioner used the word of the day “kapow” and the term was repeated a number of times by Prof. Lazarus. However, Prof. Lazarus’ repetition of the word
Search
Tags
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks