When I read Professor Jerome Culp's article: TOWARD A BLACK LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP: RACE AND ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDINGS it forever changed my scholarly agenda. In that article Jerome issued a challenge when he wrote: "There may be an income tax problem that would benefit from being viewed in a black perspective, but until you look, how will anyone know? " I called Jerome after I read his article and told him that I intended to accept his challenge. Accepting his challenge, however, was the easy part. Analyzing the federal tax laws from a race based perspective was not nearly as easy - nor is teaching the federal tax laws from a race based perspective. But it has been a rewarding experience. Today I will share with you some of the lessons that I have learned along the way which I hope will be helpful to you.

I will begin by showing you a videotape of a class which is typical of how I integrate race, class and gender issues into my Basic Income Tax Course. The class deals with the assignment of income doctrine in the context of the joint return provision of the Internal Revenue Code, which raises race, class and gender issues.

I have three primary pieces of advice for you. First, the materials you use. If you can find a casebook that deals with the class, race, gender, sexual orientation issues - use that casebook. I'm fortunate in the tax area to have Professor Joel Newman's casebook, which is cited in your materials, who does a wonderful job of integrating race, class, gender and sexual orientation issues into the course. It is the only tax book that does this. As you can see from the video, it's even better when the casebook author cites your work. You get instant credibility with your students.

If you assign supplementary materials, make sure to cover them in class. Supplementary materials, however, may not be accepted so readily by your students, especially if your colleagues are not also assigning such supplementary materials. In addition, if the only time the students see issues of class, race, gender, or sexual orientation is in supplementary materials, it may seem to them that those issues are not part of the "real course" and are being forced upon them by you. Are the supplementary materials xeroxes of articles or an additional book? I believe books are better than supplementary materials, even though more costly. It's a matter of perception. In many instances, however, there is no alternative. You either use supplementary materials - or no materials. If you don't use any materials but only your views, the students may be even more suspicious than they would be of a law review article.

Second, how to handle the materials in the classroom. In Federal Income tax, when the casebook talks about the issues, I talk about the issues. I like to hit the issues briefly initially, then more in depth as the semester progresses. By the time we discuss the joint return provision, that you saw in the video, we are two-thirds of the way through the semester. The class is more comfortable with me and with each other. Often I lecture and the students nod and take notes. Occasionally a few questions will be asked or some comments are made.

Third, how to handle student evaluations. One of the complaints that I have heard most often from some of my colleagues is that students complain when the material is Xeroxed material. The students rightly or wrongly believe that it is less authentic if not in the casebook - or another book. Students tend to believe if it's published in a book it must be good. So think carefully about the materials that you are going to give out and require your students to read. I have never received negative remarks in my student evaluations as a result of integrating these issues into my Tax class. Perhaps that's a function of my teaching second and third year students who self-select to take my class. If I have a reputation for integrating these issues into the class, students won't take me if they find that objectionable. First year teachers, where students cannot opt out, are the most vulnerable when it comes to negative student evaluations. Getting your colleagues on board with your approach would be a smart thing to do. Go to them and discuss with them your ideas and see if they would agree to support you, either by assigning the same additional material, selecting the same casebook, or perhaps even co-teaching a combined class with you on a particular day. Having your students believe that they are not the only ones having to deal with these issues will make the evaluation process go much more smoothly for you.

I have had a wonderful experience integrating race, class and gender issues into my Federal Income Tax Class. I would be remiss if I concluded my remarks and didn't plug my forthcoming book Critical Race Theory: Cases, Materials, and Problems which West will be publishing and available for your adoption in the Spring of 2004. My casebook applies critical race theory to the first year curriculum and has a separate chapter on Torts, Contracts, Criminal Law and Procedure, Civil Procedure and Property. It might be that supplementary book you can assign to your students. I look forward to your questions either now or via e-mail later. Thank-you.

Frances Lee Ansley, Race and the Core Curriculum in Legal Education, 79 Calif. L. Rev. 1512 (1991).

Taunya Banks, Teaching Laws With Flaws: Adopting A Pluralistic Approach to Torts, 57 Mo. L. Rev. 443 (1992).

Dorothy A. Brown, Race, Class and Gender Essentialism in Tax Literature: The Joint Return, 54 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1469 (1997).

Dorothy A. Brown, CRITICAL RACE THEORY: CASES, MATERIALS AND PROBLEMS (forthcoming West 2004) (available for adoption Spring 2004).

See Jerome McCristal Culp, Jr., Toward a Black Legal Scholarship: Race and Original Understandings, 1991 Duke L. J. 39.

Chris K. Iijima, Separating Support from Betrayal: Examining the Intersections of Racialized Legal Pedagogy, Academic Support, and Subordination, 33 Ind. L. Rev. 737 (2000).

Amy Kastely, Out of the Whiteness: On Raced Codes and White Race Consciousness in Some Tort, Criminal, and Contract Law, 63 U. Cin. L. Rev. 269 (1994).

Joel S. Newman, FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION: CASES, PROBLEMS AND MATERIALS (West, 2002).