Course Objective: To give students a better understanding of the arguments for and against cultural relativism, claims that there are universal human rights, and the issue of to what extent the law should recognize cultural and human rights claims. In addition to considering general theories we will focus on specific legal cases in which cultural differences came into play.
Description: This course focuses on how legal systems do and should cope with people of different cultures. For example, should we allow a cultural defense to people who violate U.S. law while engaging in practices that are a legitimate and accepted part of their native culture, on the ground that complying with the law for them is more difficult? How far should governments go to intervene in cultural practices that violate human rights? To accommodate the cultural practices of foreign diplomats? What are the costs of accommodating people of different cultures, and what are the costs if instead we force them to assimilate? Are people accountable for the way in which they are brought up? Are there universal standards of justice that should be common to any legal system, or should we rather say that concepts such as justice, due process, and law are socially constructed and vary among different societies, with no particular conception having any more intrinsic value than another?  The class will be discussion based, and students must come to class prepared to discuss the day's readings. This 1-credit course counts toward the Honors College critical inquiry seminar requirement. 
Requirements: Attendance and participation in class discussion is required. Grades will be based on quizzes/in-class assignments (30%), participation in class discussion (20%), and two 3 page papers (50% total). Since this is only a five week course, you should not miss class unless you have a documented valid excuse. Late arrivals will result in a reduced grade for the course.  Late papers will be marked down.
Readings:  Readings will be available through Canvas.  Some online materials require you to use a computer within the FAU domain or, if you use a computer not on campus, to use a proxyLinks to an external site.. Complete court cases are available online at westlaw or lexis-nexis via the online library databaseLinks to an external site.. 

Honor Code: Students agree to adhere to the honor code, available online at http://www.fau.edu/divdept/honcol/students/honorcode.htmlLinks to an external site.
Course Schedule: Consult Canvas

Grading scale:
A   = 93 - 100                      B   = 83 - 87                      C   = 73 - 77                 D   = 66 - 67
A-  = 90 - 92                       B-  = 80 - 82                     C-  = 70 – 72                D-  = 64 - 65
B+ = 88 - 89                       C+ = 78 - 79                     D+ = 68 - 69                F    =  0 – 63

Schedule:
Jan. 17 Introduction and in-class discussion.
Reading (on canvas in 1st module): Rdg: Ruth Benedict and Walter Stace, “Debate on Moral Relativism “A Cultural Clash Forces Korea to Beware of Dog,” NYT Dec. 13, 2001, online;  'Muslim Girls in Switzerland Must Attend Swim Classes with Boys, Court Says', NYT 1/11/17
In class screening of film “One Child Nation” (2019)(85 minutes)
In-class writing assignment (6pts.).

Jan. 24 Relativism vs. Universalism; Laura Nader: “Human Rights and Moral Imperialism.” False Consciousness.  Rdg: Marvin Harris “India’s Sacred Cow” (from Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches); Video: Star Trek Next Generation, Symbiosis season 1: 21 (to be screened prior to class)

Jan. 31  Should there be a Cultural Defense?
Rdg: (1) The Case of Fumiko Kimura (collection of news articles)
(2) The Case of Dong-lu Chen (Washington Post article)
(3) Maine v. Khargar
(4) Michelle Moody-Adams “Culture, Responsibility, and Affected Ignorance,” Ethics 104:291-309 (1994);

Feb. 7  Culture and religion in a liberal pluralist society.
Rdg: (1) David Miller, "Majorities and Minorets: Religious Freedom and Public Space," B.J. Pol. S. 46:437-56 (2014)
(2) Religious exemption cases in the U.S.:
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)
Bowen v. Roy, 476 US 693 (1986)
State v. Tenerelli, 598 N.W. 2d 668 (1999)

For those interested:
William Galston, "Parents, Government, and Children: Authority over Education in a Pluralist Liberal Democracy," Law and Ethics of Human Rights 5(2):284-305 (2011): Galston, a prominent political theorist, argues that parents should have the right to raise their children consistently with the parents' "deepest understanding of what gives meaning and value to life"--and supports the Court's decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder; yet he also recognizes limits to parental authority: for example, he believes the state may compel parents to immunize their children.
Werth v. Taylor, 190 Mich. App. 141 (1991): suit against doctor who provided blood transfusion to Jehovah's Witness patient to safe her life, without her consent
Brown v. Smith, 24 Cal App 5th 1135 (2018): challenge to a California mandatory vaccination law
 Paper One


Feb. 14  Arab Honor Killings (see comment) Rdg: Catherine Warrick, The Vanishing Victim: Criminal Law and Gender in Jordan, Law & Society Review, Vol. 39, No. 2 (Jun., 2005), pp. 315-348
NYT Morocco Loophole Eliminated (1).pdf
For those interested: Shaw v. State, 510 S.W. 2d 926 (1974) (concerning Texas's law in the 1970s providing a defense against homicide if one kills a man engaged in adultery with one's wife)
Paper Two

Additional notes:

Policy on late work and make-up for final exam: If you present documentation of an emergency, be it medical or otherwise, your professors will do everything they can to help you make up missed class work (participation, quizzes or exam). Any make-up must be completed within (5) class days. The general rule, however, is the following: NO LATE WORK IS ACCEPTED AND NO MAKE-UP EXAMS WILL BE GIVEN.  It is always your responsibility to find out what was covered in class the day you were absent, to get any updates on assignments, and to come to the next class prepared for that day’s work.
Code of Academic Integrity policy statement: Students at Florida Atlantic University are expected to maintain the highest ethical standards. Academic dishonesty is considered a serious breach of these ethical standards, because it interferes with the university mission to provide a high quality education in which no student enjoys an unfair advantage over any other. Academic dishonesty is also destructive of the university community, which is grounded in a system of mutual trust and places high value on personal integrity and individual responsibility. Harsh penalties are associated with academic dishonesty. For more information, see University Regulation 4.001. Here are the links to the FAU and Honors College Policies on Plagiarism:
http://www.fau.edu/honors/academics/honor-code.php
http://www.fau.edu/regulations/chapter4/4.001_Code_of_Academic_Integrity.pdf

Policy on Accommodations: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA), students who require reasonable accommodations due to a disability to properly execute coursework must register with Student Accessibility Services (SAS)— in Boca Raton, SU 133 (561-297-3880); in Davie, LA 131 (954-236-1222); in Jupiter and all Northern Campuses, SR 111F (561-799-8585) – and follow all SAS procedures.
For more information, please visit the SAS website at www.fau.edu/sas.

Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS) Center
Life as a university student can be challenging physically, mentally and emotionally. Students who find stress negatively affecting their ability to achieve academic or personal goals may wish to consider utilizing FAU’s Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS) Center. CAPS provides FAU students a range of services – individual counseling, support meetings, and psychiatric services, to name a few – offered to help improve and maintain emotional well-being. For more information, go to http://www.fau.edu/counseling/.

Updated 1/17/2020