1. Wolin, Sheldon S., “Political Theory as a Vocation,” American Political Science Review 63:4 (December, 1969) 1062-82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. Gray, Virginia and Walcott, Charles, “Simulation, Learning, and Student Attitudes,“ Teaching Political Science, 4 (1977) 3: 295–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Cooper, Phillip J., “Undergraduate Moot Court: A Simulation for Undergraduate Courses in Public Law,” Teaching Political Science, 7 (1979) 1 “ 105-118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. “A Role-Playing Simulation of the United States Supreme Court,” Whitaker, Steve, Teaching Political Science, vol. 1, 47 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Krislov, Samuel, “The Amicus Brief: From Friendship to Advocacy,” Yale Law Journal, 72 (1963) 694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. 208 U.S. 412 (1908)

7. The problem mentioned, in full, is presented to the students as follows:

A Moot Court Problem

Hypothetical Problem. The fact situation described below is purely fictitious, and the “Student Enrichment Curriculum System” involved does not exist. As is true generally of appellate courts, the trial record is closed, and no new facts are ascertainable. Assume that the case came up to the United States Supreme Court on writ of certiorari, that the Court has proper jurisdiction, and note that Sanchez is the petitioner, Bucks County School Board the respondent.

Sanchez v. Bucks County School Board. In 1984, Bucks County, Pennsylvania established and committed itself to financing a program to be administered by the School Board for the gradual development of gifted children's “School Enrichment Curriculum System” (SECS). Involved in SECS would be special teacher attention for “gifted children,” added homework, after school “educational enrichment programs,” a field trip to Independence Hall in Philadelphia, and a “hands on” demonstration program in computer uses. Children selected for the program would not otherwise be separated from others in the public school system. Under the terms of the program, $150,000 were earmarked from 1984-85 (Phase I) and $300,000 for 1985-86 (Phase II). The School Board was authorized “in its wisdom” to determine the criteria for selection, the goals of the program, and the standards for evaluation to be used in justifying the expanded development of Phase II. The Board adopted as the basis for selection the achievement of the 90th percentile in the “Cognitive Abilities Test,” administered to all third grade children. On the basis of this test, 60 children in the system encompassing 12,000 children were selected.

The Bucks County School Board determined that the SECS would require $5,000 per-pupil per-year expenditures during Phase I. Thus, for reasons of economy, the number of children selected to benefit during Phase I would be cut in half. On this basis, the Board, noting that eligible children were racially and ethnically mixed and divided 50/50 by sex, decided to select only boys during Phase I and boys and girls during Phase II.

Maria Sanchez, the highest scoring student on the Cognitive Ability Test, was excluded from the program on account of sex. Her parents filed suit as taxpayers and on her behalf in federal district court in Philadelphia, challenging the Phase I plan as invidiously discriminatory under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Board responded, justifying its classification on 1) limited funds; 2) the fact that 50 percent more boys in Bucks County went on to college than did girls; and 3) that Phase II would not be discriminatory. As a Moot Court participant, you must delineate the issues and decide on the Sanchez demand to enjoin the administration of the SECS program.

8. Gunther, Gerald, “Equal Protection,” Chapter 10, Individual Rights in Constitutional Law, 3d ed.(Mineola, New York: The Foundation Press, Inc. 1980)Google Scholar; Tribe, Laurence H., American Constitutional Law, “The Model of Equal Protection,” Chapter 16, (Mineola, New York: The Foundation Press, Inc., 1978)Google Scholar.

9. On the possibilities of measuring the impact on simulation participants and on the importance of linking impact to simulation design, see: Foster, John L., Lachman, Allan C., and Mason, Ronald M., “Verstehen, Cognition, and the Impact of Political Simulations,” Simulations and Games 11 (1980) 222-41;Google Scholar and Conway, M. Margaret, Ahern, David, and Feldbaum, Eleanor, “Instructional Method, Social Characteristics, and Children's Support for the Political Regime,“ Simulation and Games 8 (1977) 233-54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar