University of Texas School of Law - Peregrinus Yearbook (Austin, TX)

Page 12 text:

The man behind all those Daily Texan quotes shares his passion for civil liberty law and his commitment to students The sigtxatures of presidents and senators adorn Douglas Laycock ' s office walls. Too much sunlight from a window facing south has dark- ened his reproduction of the Bill of Rights to a chocolate brown almost as dark as its frame. Considered one of the nation ' s two leading scholars on religious liberty law, he testifies regularly before Congress about issues of religious liberty, and has argued many cases in the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Laycock, a soft-spoken constitutional law professor, went to Michigan State University in the late 1960s, an era known for its social activism, and was inspired to study law as a way to work toward the greater good of the nation. Here in Texas, he chaired the Task Force on Assembly and Expression organized in 2002 to revise the campus speech policy. He also served on the legal team representing the university in Hopwood V. Texas, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals prohibited the School of Law from using race as one of many admissions criteria. He continues to speak about the case, decided in 1996, and his name appears almost daily in tbe campus newspaper as a source of legal com- mentary on issues in the news. This Q A offers a snapshot of the man many students read about but few know. Professor Laycock joined the UT Law staff in 1982. He earned his J.D. in 1973 from the University of Chicago, where he taught before coming to Texas. Q: How did you get mtu studying bw? A: I guess I was always interested. I went to college back in the ' 60s, when it looked like lawyers could do a lot of good in the country. That ' s kind of opposite of now, but that was the mood, generally. Q; What do you think is the current reason is, if not that? A: I ' m sure it ' s partly that, but the kinds of good that motivated a lot of people to go to law schools in the ' 60s - the courts have gotten out of that business. There ' s not nearly as much sense of ... thinking we can make the country work better racially, politically, the civil liberties, poor people. There ' s some of that. Some of tis are still chipping away. The naive view that lawyers go out and save the world, 1 don ' t think has survived 40 years of politics and 40 years of experience. Q: Vbur specialty is religious liberty. Can you tell me a little more about that? A: Well, we have an enormously diverse population, religiously, and we have - compared to the rest of the world, an enor- mous degree of religious tolerance but still a fair amount of intolerance between both ends of the spectrum. The vast middle of the American population are low-intensity theists. They ' re suspicious of people whose religion is too intense, and they ' re suspicious of people who don ' t believe. The goal of the religious liberty clause [in the U.S. Constitution] is to enable all these folks to live together in relative peace in the same society. I ' m sort of a swing guy in the middle. 1 come at it as a lib- erty issue rather than as a religion issue. Q; Youve testified before Congress. What does that entail? A: It ' s a strange process. It ' s kind of a game. Occasionally you can make a difference if you ' re persistent and if you ' re work- ing in tandem with groups that can follow up and see people in their offices and such. The hearings themselves are often kind of for show. The senators and congressmen wander in and out - plenty don ' t shov ' up at all. You fly to Washington, and during the hearing they give you 10 minutes to tell them what ' s going on, and send yuLi 25 follow-up questions you ' re supposed to answer in writing. It ' s not a good activity to engage in if you ' re concerned about your dignity. If you ' re willing to be used and abused a bit in the hopes of trying to explain all this good stuff, sometimes it matters. 8 0 Douglas Laycock

Page 11 text:

- . i fi 3L Patrick Oegerle volunteers as a ballroom dancing teaching assistant Q: Hou ' did you get started with ballroom dancing! A: 1 learned how to two-step in middle school; growing up in southwest Texas, going country danc- ing was fairly common. When I was an undergradu- ate, I took more country and ballroom lessons in order to impress a certain lady. Once 1 got the hang ot It, 1 just continued. Q: You ' ve been a teaching assistant in the ballroom danc- ing class for five years. What ' s kept you at it this long? A: I love being a teaching assistant. Not only do I get to be helpful, but it ' s a good opportunity to learn about people and how to effectively communi- cate. Also, being a TA has enabled me to meet many great people and to stay connected with the university as a whole. Q: How do you balance the dance classes and outi7 gs with law school? A: My first year, I didn ' t do a very good job of man- aging my time. These last two years I ' ve been better at scheduling everything. However, since I ' ve been m law school, I haven ' t had the time to take lessons or practice as much as I used to. Thus, I haven ' t learned anything new in awhile, and I ' xe completely forgotten a few things. Q: Have you seen any other law students take the class or teach while you ' ve been here? A: A friend of mine and his wife took the class the first year. They seemed to enjoy it, and it was some- thing they both could do together. Q: Do you see any similarities between dancing and law, or is this something you do as an escape? A: 1 suppose they both require a certain amount of practice and talent. But dancing is a lot more fun than doin ' . legal research. CJ: I ' ll i)i( have a favorite dance? A: I wiuild have to say your typical two-step. I love the music, especially if it ' s in the 85-100 beats per muiute range. Austin has many venues at which to go two-stepping as well. Q: An ) funny dancing stories? A: None that I want immortalized in print. •

Page 13 text:

Q. Would iiii Sen ' i( I)l ' is i(( he an optimist! A: Yeah, [laughs] Maybe even a ccickeyed optimist. Q: Do you consider yourself one! A: Not a cockeyed one, but yeah. I guess if 1 weren ' t somewhat of an optimist, I wouldn ' t keep doing this. Q: What drew you to that particular field! You said that you got into law for the purpose of helping. Is that why you chose this particular specialty! A: Yeah, I suppose. It ' s probably a matter of drifting into it, but obviously it ' s got a lot of interest for me or 1 wouldn ' t have stayed with it. Q; Do you teach a lot of classes on it! A: Sometimes. I do more religious liberty work in my Con Law survey than most sections do. Occasionally 1 teach a separate religious liberty course. 1 ha ' en ' t done that all that often. Q; Why did you choose to start teaching! A: It ' s a great job! I get to choose my own issues and work on what I want to work on. As long as I ' m produc- tive, the dean doesn ' t much care what I ' m producti e about. Q: B ' productive, do you mean research or teaching ! A: Well, both. 1 pull my weight in the classroom and steadily produce articles or books or whatever, and the articles and the books can be whatever I want to write. That ' s a luxury you don ' t have in many jobs. Q: What ' s your favorite thing to teach! A: I don ' t know. I ' ve mostly been teaching Remedies and Con Law for several years now, and I really like both of them. Not sure I have a favorite. Q; What brought you to Texas! A: It ' s far and away the best university where my wife and I both got jobs. We both had jobs in Chicago, but we ' re a lot better off here. Q: What about this place is better! A: It ' s a lot better on her side. On my side, this is just a bigger, more diverse, intellectually richer faculty. The size of the school is a bit of a disadvantage in terms of the serving the students ... but for the faculty, among them- selves, it ' s all upside and no downside to be so big. Q; You ' re quoted very often in the Texan. How did you get to be the go-to guy! A: Well, it ' s partly the coincidence that affirmative action and the free speech committee were news at the same time. I was chairman of the free speech committee, and I was active in the team that represented the Uni ' ersity in Hopwood. The attorney general didn ' t want publicity ... so I wound up being the one who would talk to the press. But then the rest sort of illegitimately followed from that. Texan reporters knew my name, so they ' d call me about stuff. We ' ve got the public affairs team now in the law school. They ' re trying to make us be more press-friendly, and when they can ' t figure out who should take a ques- tion, they send it to me, whether it makes any sense or Q: How often do you get calls from the Texan. ' A: Too often, [laughs] It differs. Some days a little, some days a lot. Sometimes for days at a time, not at all. One once called me and said, What do you teach? I can ' t remember why I called you. They write about all sorts of things inside and outside of the University, so they ' ll call and ask for explanations of court cases and legal develop- ments. I feel like they ' re our students, there ' s a teaching obligation to help them out, and you ' ve got to take their calls. Some faculty just won ' t talk to them because they know some people don ' t know what they ' re doing, and this would be misquoted, so avoid it. Q; Do you find you are misquoted often! A: I ' ve learned to be more careful with them. But yeah, sometimes - it ' s a hazard of answering the telephone for any reporter, but certainly a student reporter, that some- times you may be misquoted. Q; What ' s a typical day for you! A: One interruption after another, [laughs] When I was first starting out, I thought one of the advantages of teaching as compared to practice was that teaching, you could do one thing and work on it until you got it right and be fully satisfied with how you ' d handled that prob- lem. That turned out to be because I was brand-new and nobody knew me, and there was no reason for anyone to call me and ask anything. Now, between teaching and committee work and service work and reporters calling and colleagues at other law schools asking you to write a review for their latest book, some of the pro bono legal work I do and the congressional testimony - freeing up time to actually work on my own research has been hard, very hard. The day is spent here at the desk, on the phone, on the computer, reading and writing in lots of short bursts. Short-term deadlines drive the long-term projects. It ' s an occupational hazard. Q: What do ' oi( do for fi(n that has nothing to do with law! A: [laughs] I play chess with my son and go to football games. College football. Real football. We [wife and sons, 15 and 22] try to go on a serious vacation in the summer. The younger son plays chess. Beats me nearly every night. Q: Why do you think it ' s important to participate in debates like the affmnative action debate with Lino Qraglia in February! A: I ' m frankly sick and tired of debating Lino about affir- mative action, but to each cohort of students, it ' s new. I think the debate went well, but I actually forgot that Hopwood came down seven years ago. These students were in high school. I probably started out assuming they knew something about what was going on, and they did- n ' t. So I guess the real reason to do it is it ' s important to the student body and it affects the student body. Each new cohort needs and wants to learn about it. • Q A '