Superintendent U.S. Coast Guard Academy

15 Mohegan Avenue New London, CT 06320 (860) 444-8383

1610 January 17, 2012

MEMORANDUM

From: R. E. Bowman, CDR Chief, Law Section

Reply toAttn of:

CDR Bowman x 8383

To: File

Subj: CLASS OBSERVATION—DR. WILLIAM BRADFORD Ref: (a) NEASC Standards for Accreditation; Standards 2.1, 4.1-4.4, 4.6, 4.32, 5.11 1. On 13 January 2012, in accordance with, and to promote and adhere to, the standards listed in reference (a), I observed Dr. Bradford’s third period Criminal Justice class (#2391). Professor Bradford is serving in a 1-year temporary adjunct (Law Lecturer) faculty position. He teaches four, 50-minute periods of Criminal Justice – the introductory legal course required for all cadets – on a Monday-Wednesday-Friday schedule to over 100 students.

2. Content of class: The observed class was the third block of instruction for the course and was designed to cover the basic categories of law, such as the distinction between civil and criminal law, along with the reasons therefore.

3. Tenor of the class: Dr. Bradford ran a very professional, efficient class that was infused with energy, wit, and enthusiasm for the subject matter. After a brief review of the different sources of law – using recent litigation over the Hawaii “Super Ferry” - Dr. Bradford led his class through the substantive material. Dr. Bradford kept the class on track at all times and proceeded through the lesson’s intended materials smoothly, and at a good pace. In general, all students were prepared, interested, and attentive throughout the 50-minute period.

4. Feedback: I was impressed by Dr. Bradford’s superlative use of supplemental knowledge and materials (ranging from brief discussions of English Courts during Kind Richard’s time, to economic theory, to the Nuremberg war crimes trials held in the wake of World War II, to recent Supreme Court precedent) to bolster (and deepen) the points raised by the text and lecture. I also appreciated his creative professional development efforts in support of the course’s communications objectives. For example, the subtle “charging” of students 25 cents for every use of a verbal crutch – suck as “like,” “um,” or “so” – was both humorous and effective. While conceding the lack of clear answers to many of the questions he raised, Dr. Bradford effectively used class discussion and “bonus” materials to challenge his students to think critically about the classifications and sources of law. He did so while deftly moving through the (necessarily) impressive scope of material. Overall, Dr. Bradford provided a very solid presentation of potentially dry, but fundamental material that was well received by the students.

5. The above was discussed and agreed to between myself and Dr. Bradford at an informal meeting on 13 January, held shortly after the observed class.

# Copy: LCDR C. A. Tribolet, Criminal Justice Course Coordinator