Maryland Law Review
Volume 76 | Issue 2
Tributes to Professor Peter E. Quint
Gordon Young
Michael Millemann
David Bogen
Robin West
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr
Part of the Legal Education Commons
Recommended Citation
76 Md. L. Rev. 533 (2017)
This Tribute is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact
smccarty@law.umaryland.edu.
Article 9
QuintTributeFinalBookProof
1/23/2017 11:34 AM
Tribute
TRIBUTES TO PROFESSOR PETER E. QUINT
GORDON YOUNG
We’re here today for Peter. But to talk about the gem, it is necessary to
talk a little about the setting. I met Peter when I moved to the law school
from Syracuse in 1979 where I had been teaching law for a few years. He
had been here since 1972.
His colleagues David Bogen and Bill Reynolds, intellectual anchors of
the law school, started roughly two years before Peter. Michael Millemann
was hired two years after that, and Mike began to fashion the impressive
system of clinics that we have today, which are fundamental to our mission
in so many ways. Ken Abraham, Alice Brumbaugh, Gary Power, Alan
Hornstein, and Bob Keller were here, and, soon after, Danny Goldberg and
Tony Waters. At that point, the initial pieces were in place for Michael
Kelly’s visionary deanship.
In 1974, Mike Kelly became dean of the law school and brought us into
the modern world of legal education and also into our own distinctive
character. Five years later, I started here, feeling as if I had walked into the
Renaissance. The school was full of ability and energy, directed toward legal
theory, clinical practice, public service and various alloys of those three
things. And Peter was at its intellectual and collegial center.
Each of us on the faculty was interested in what everyone else was
doing. It was a supportive and exciting collegial atmosphere. Until the end
of that decade, scholarship was not the price of promotion and tenure, and
yet, out of interest, enthusiasm, and a sense of professional duty, Peter
published his Yale Law Journal article on the Rosenberg case, Bill Reynolds
his scathing Columbia Law Review piece on the injustice of unpublished
opinions, and Dave Bogen a series of foundational articles on the First
Amendment that are still widely cited. Ken Abraham began writing articles
that made him the leading expert on insurance law and a contributor more
generally to the field of law and economics. After a while, we hired Andy
King, Robin West, David Luban, Bob Condlin, Karen Rothenberg, Jana
© 2017 Gordon Young.
Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law.
533
MillemannFinalAuthorReview
534
1/23/2017 11:34 AM
MARYLAND LAW REVIEW
[VOL. 76:533
Singer, Richard Boldt, Taunya Banks, Marc Feldman, Maxwell Chibundu,
Deb Hellman, and many other familiar contributors to the school. We were
seriously underway. And as I said, if there was a center of this activity, Peter
was to be found there.
There’s so much I don’t know about Peter, probably more so than with
other friends and colleagues in my age cohort at the school. I have seen only
the edges of his large international network of friends, most of whom are
deeply engaged with law, the humanities, or sciences. I am not in a position
directly to judge his highly praised books and articles dealing with the law of
other nations, often of the comparative constitutional sort, although I know
of their impressive reputation. But I can say, within my area of expertise,
that I greatly admire his writings on American public law, especially his
works on separation of powers.
I’ll go through the barest facts and then take a more personal turn. Over
his forty-three years here, Peter has written two books, was the co-editor of
a third, and the author of thirty-two smaller pieces, mostly articles, but
including book chapters and book reviews. A major focus of his scholarship
and teaching was comparative American-German constitutional law. This
work produced two books dealing with German constitutional issues: one
published by Princeton University Press on the constitutional issues
surrounding German unification; the other dealing with civil disobedience in
that country.
His fellowships and awards include:
Alexander von Humboldt Foundation Fellowship, Max-PlanckInstitute, Heidelberg, Germany
Fulbright as Senior Research Fellowship, University of
Tübingen, Germany
Fellowship, Institute for Advanced Study, Berlin, Germany
Visiting Fellowship, Clare Hall, Cambridge University (Life
Member of Clare Hall)
Fellowship, Institute for Advanced Study Nantes, Nantes,
France
And, he has taught at l’Institut d’études Politiques de Paris (Sciences
Po) in Paris, France, in the Masters in Economic Law Program of the School
of Law.
At our law school he has taught: our large survey courses in American
constitutional law and smaller ones on the First Amendment and on the
separation of powers, basic international law, international human rights,
comparative law—often of the comparative constitutional variety—torts,
evidence, criminal law, administrative law, and jurisprudence.
MillemannFinalAuthorReview
2017]
1/23/2017 11:34 AM
TRIBUTE TO PETER E. QUINT
535
In many of his years here, he chaired the Promotions and Tenure
Committee, with a great concern for preserving and improving the quality of
our faculty yet with tact and genuine kindness toward those reviewed. My
guess is that he has chaired that committee in at least 15 of his 43 years here.
And he did equally demanding and crucial work as Chair of our
Appointments Committee—three times over those years. Additionally, in
one or two of those years, particularly the early ones, he spent what must
have seemed an entire lifetime or two at Curriculum Committee meetings.
I’ll now move back to a more personal view of Peter at the center of our
wonderfully successful experiment back in the 1970’s up to today. Saying
that Peter was at the intellectual center of the law school in the seventies, and
of course up to now too, requires a lot of refinement and qualification. First,
there were, and are, quite a few very smart, rigorous, well-read, highly
productive and public spirited colleagues on the faculty. And, second, the
word “intellectual” by itself seems a little vague—much too cold—to
describe Peter.
I’ll have to do better than that, so here goes. In the manner of analytic
philosophers, Peter excels, and always did, at breaking ideas into pieces and
then exploring their connections, logical implications, confusions,
inconsistencies, et cetera.
However, analytic methods can’t create the object of their analysis.
Only observation of some part of the world, followed by theorizing, can do
that. And Peter has his own distinctive, agile theoretical imagination,
enriched by broad reading and life experience, ranging far beyond law. He
was always astonishingly well read in law and legal history, but also in the
sciences, social sciences, really everything.
Of course some of this broader stuff, in turn, enriched his legal writing
and teaching. While all this curiosity and investigation was significantly
about the professional project, I don’t believe it was primarily about that. It
was about understanding and appreciating, as much as possible, the world
that is briefly open to each of us.
Peter would have been at home in a Paris salon with Voltaire or, slightly
later, chez Mme. de Stael. And he tried to recreate some of that, in a lowkey way, at the law school, both for his benefit, and for his colleagues, their
students, the School generally.
In one form of this, he encouraged—really was the driving force
behind—collegial reading groups. Among others, the colleagues were Ken
Abraham, David Luban, Robin West, various philosophers from College
Park and elsewhere, Richard Boldt, Jana Singer and, I’m guessing quite a few
others. We read some legal books and articles, such as Ronald Dworkin and
Charles Reich. But mainly we read much more broadly in philosophy and
MillemannFinalAuthorReview
536
1/23/2017 11:34 AM
MARYLAND LAW REVIEW
[VOL. 76:533
other humanities. For example, we read John Rawls, Nozick, Hegel (if you
can read Hegel) Weber, Adorno, Kuhn, Rorty, and some anthropology—
Geertz’s wonderful “Interpretation of Cultures.”
There was some chitchat before and, often, Italian food along with the
main event. But, when we started talking about the book du jour, it was an
uninterrupted, hard-driving discussion down into the footnotes. I am sad that
this no longer happens often, though some colleagues and I recently did
something like this with Ronald Dworkin’s last book. Let me encourage you
to think of Peter and do this sort of thing from time to time with each other.
In fact, I encourage you to ask Peter to join you, if he is around and has the
time.
Peter almost always had something well thought-through, deep, and
helpful to say at various colleagues’ presentations of their works in progress.
But, more impressive to me, was the no-holds-barred, but still tactful, oneon-one sessions that he had with colleagues about their writing at various
stages of development. Some of this is based on my own experience, and
some on hearsay. Peter was especially good at a sort of collegial metallurgy:
the combining of encouragement, critique and concrete suggestions.
I’ll make one personal observation about Peter’s mind and attitude
before I move on. In the process of preparing, yet again, to teach a particular
constitutional law or administrative law segment, I’d try to rethink lots, if not
everything, from the ground up.
Often I’d see new perspectives or inconsistencies. I’d call Peter. What
he did then was really characteristic of him. Quite often, I’d find that he had
made the same discovery, or an even broader one, earlier—and had a lot to
tell me of what it meant or might mean. Sometimes he would just say, in his
completely honest way, that he hadn’t seen that particular set of problems.
Then we’d just have fun playing together with ideas and arguments. That
sort of playful discussion with colleagues, especially with Peter, was always
a large part of what made the job wonderful for me.
As for Peter’s teaching, my best students had a tendency to bring up
Peter for great praise when we would talk about the courses that they were
taking. There were always students at the school who majored in Peter Quint.
And they were among our most impressive students. Driving this was his
rigor and the demanding nature of his teaching. Those who spent a little time
with him after class were also impressed with his great concern for their
learning and with his kindness.
Almost finally, I have a few words about Peter and the future of our law
school. In the short term, Peter’s continuing involvement with us—as parttime teacher and participant at workshops—is up to him as he structures his
life around writing, travel, et cetera. I have no doubt that he will often be at
MillemannFinalAuthorReview
2017]
1/23/2017 11:34 AM
TRIBUTE TO PETER E. QUINT
537
school engaging in scholarship. And I would always encourage colleagues,
especially young colleagues, to have him read their drafts.
But these things are not really what I have in mind when think about
Peter and our future. What I do have in mind is what we make out of his
example in the longer term. For that stretch ahead of us, it is up to us what
we will do.
The practice of law is changing and, to that and other sorts of flux, we
must make some real adjustments. But I think that we want to continue to be
not only Maryland’s leading law school, but also the very good national law
school that we now are. For that we need to ensure that every student has at
least a few classroom experiences of analyzing legal material very deeply on
its own terms and, then, of thinking about how the material might be
connected to the wider world of science, the humanities, especially ethics,
and then, in a final turn back, of considering how those insights should
reshape the current legal reality.
We want each student who graduates at least to have been exposed
significantly to this Quint-like sort of thinking and to the habit of making
broader connections. And beyond our ordinary graduate, we have many
students who will become judges at all levels of the judiciary, or high-ranking
policy makers, even a few law professors, and some practicing lawyers with
real vision and effect on Maryland and the nation. The opportunity to explore
depth and breadth are especially important to these students. Surely, in some
cases, that sort of preparation will make them who they become in the
profession.
I am not suggesting that Peter is the only one of us who teaches in that
way. Far from it. We have a richly talented menu of faculty, extending from
well-aged colleagues (think the cheese plate) down through our startlingly
good so-called “junior” faculty, (the spring salad?), all of whom engage in
what I’ll call Peter’s sort of teaching, through seminars and individual
supervised projects.
But Peter is perhaps the exemplar, an especially powerful and long
running example of this sort of teaching. We are in a time of tight resources,
and I know that there are competing priorities for the foreseeable future. But
I would like to see the values that Peter has expressed through his life as our
colleague weighed heavily in the process of making the necessary
compromises.
Finally, let me say that I miss the law school. I miss even faculty
meetings a little—and, among their pleasures (yes, there were a very few),
was Peter’s speaking. First, often a disarming folksy “gosh,” sounding like
air leaving a high-pressure tire. And no one, who had been around for a
MillemannFinalAuthorReview
538
1/23/2017 11:34 AM
MARYLAND LAW REVIEW
[VOL. 76:533
while, took that at face value, for it was always followed by something well
thought out, forceful and sophisticated.
I’ll leave the memories at that. I’m grateful to you, Peter, for being such
a good colleague to me over the years, and to all of us at this school, about
which you and I care so much.
MICHAEL MILLEMANN
Thank you Peter Quint! From all of us who have taught here or who
worked in the dean’s office during the last four and half decades. Or who
were students lucky to have taken a class from you.
Thank you for your excellence as a teacher and scholar, but also for
your appreciation of legal educational excellence in all its varied forms.
Thank you for your principled leadership at times when principle was
at risk.
Thank you for your mentorship and friendship to so many, including
me.
Thank you for your modesty and sense of humor.
Thank you for your love of our school.
Thank you for leading us in making it better.
Thank you, above all, for your tremendous heart, which, for fortythree years, you invested in us all.
When Peter Quint came to teach at the law school in 1972, tuition for
residents was $500 a year in the day division and $375 a year in the evening
division. The law school sat in the current footprint, but was just the shell of
today’s school. We then required today’s required courses, but we also
required Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Tax. Peter was a key leader in
making our school better over the next forty-three years.
I met Peter when I was hired to teach in the spring of 1974. He was a
blossoming scholar and, even then, an excellent teacher. I and others will
describe the many ways in which he has become an internationally renowned
scholar, but Peter also was a superb lawyer. He spent five years at the
predecessor of Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP before he came to our school.
That is one measure of his legal ability.
More important to me was what I observed during Peter Quint’s
participation in our Juvenile Law Clinic, the school’s first clinic, in which he
mooted cases for Peter Smith (the Clinic teacher) and the clinical students.
© 2017 Michael Millemann.
Jacob A. France Professor of Public Interest Law, University of Maryland Francis King Carey
School of Law.
MillemannFinalAuthorReview
2017]
1/23/2017 11:34 AM
TRIBUTE TO PETER E. QUINT
539
The clinic had a broad array of legal work in the 1970s (and later). Its
students were counsel for juveniles in delinquency cases and engaged in
juvenile law reform litigation, including in Maryland’s federal district court
and the Fourth Circuit. Peter Smith was a brilliant and dogged lawyer and
teacher. He placed the major responsibility for the majority of the cases in
his students. So Peter Quint’s moots were of the students who would argue
or try the actual cases.
In these moots, which I sometimes sat in on and participated in, Quint
always asked the key questions that the courts would ask, and made the
students focus on the interplay of facts and law. With his moots, Quint
required the students to integrate theory and practice a decade and a half
before the school made this integration in its curriculum mandatory. When
the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a clinic case, Peter Quint accompanied
Peter Smith, who argued it, to D.C.
I was a classroom teacher during the early part of this period (1974–
76). I did not begin clinical teaching until 1976, when our school, with Dean
Michael Kelly’s leadership, created the Legal Services Clinic, a joint venture
of the school and Piper & Marbury. I was inspired before and after I began
clinical teaching by Peter Quint’s participation in our Juvenile Law Clinic.
Here was one of our most important developing scholars and classroom
teachers modeling how important the integration of theory and practice was.
There is an additional reason that I believe Quint is a first-rate lawyer.
It inheres in his scholarship. The hallmarks of his scholarship are those of
excellent lawyering: the “no-stone-left-unturned” thoroughness of factual
and legal research, his honest analysis and application of the law and facts,
his fact-based advocacy for ideas, the elegant quality of his writing, his
overall clarity (above all), and his integration of theory and facts. These are
the measures of a great scholar and first-rate lawyer. Peter was and is both.
Among many other happy recollections of Peter are memories of the
many ad hoc meetings at the school on weekends and late evenings, often
when he and I were the only professors at the school. I especially sought him
out for his advice and insight when I was teaching Constitutional Law. I used
more of his articles and ideas in my courses than those of any other
constitutional scholar.
Peter now is an internationally lauded international and comparative
law scholar, including four books and articles that analyze German and
French constitutional law and compare our Constitution and our Supreme
Court’s role in enforcing it to those of other European countries. But, in the
1970s and 80s, it was his analysis of the American Constitution that I found
most useful.
MillemannFinalAuthorReview
540
1/23/2017 11:34 AM
MARYLAND LAW REVIEW
[VOL. 76:533
His article about the Rosenberg trial was masterful, both in his
analysis of the evidence and his creative proposal that there be First
Amendment limits on the admission of evidence in criminal prosecutions.1
His trilogy of articles on presidential power and the exercises of it by
Presidents Nixon, Carter and Reagan are the best in the fields of executive
privilege and separation of powers.2 They have extraordinary contemporary
significance. They were the foundations of my executive privilege and
separation of powers classes. I also relied heavily on his original research on
the Communist Party Smith Act cases, including in Baltimore, in teaching
about the First Amendment.
Our drop-in weekend and late-evening conversations about these and
other topics are among the collegial highlights of my forty-two years at the
school. Peter fielded my questions without any hint that these were things I
really should know. His was collegial diplomacy at its best. I always left
these conversations knowing more than when I came.
Peter also did his part to protect the American Dream by owning and
driving an old big car, an Oldsmobile I think. I will never forget the sight of
Peter behind the wheel of one of these behemoths. General Motors should
have sponsored Peter’s retirement event!
When I accepted the Law Review’s invitation to write this piece, I
took the invitation to mean that I should speak for the faculty, not just for
myself. We each have our own vantage point, and none, by itself, captures
the critical importance of Peter to this school. So I asked a cross-section of
the faculty to give me their comments. I start with comments from the faculty
who were here in 1972 when Peter was hired. One who had worked at
Debevoise with Peter said:
[At Debevoise] he struck me as always impeccably dressed in his
three piece suit. When he came here, he became peccable. His
scholarship has brought renown, and his work with comparative
constitutional law, and educational institutions and other
organizations has benefited the world and not just this school or
even this nation.
Another said:
When Dean Cunningham hired Peter in 1972, he was from all
appearances a Wall Street lawyer in a three piece suit with all the
values and professionalism of the elite Bar. There was some
1. Peter E. Quint, Toward First Amendment Limitations on the Introduction of Evidence: The
Problem of United States v. Rosenberg, 86 Yale L. J. 1622 (l977).
2. Peter E. Quint, Reflections on the Separation of Powers and Judicial Review at the End of
the Reagan Era, 57 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 427 (l989); Peter E. Quint, The Separation of Powers
Under Carter, 62 TEX. L. REV. 785 (l984); Peter E. Quint, The Separation of Powers Under Nixon:
Reflections on Constitutional Liberties and the Rule of Law, 1981 DUKE L.J. 1.
MillemannFinalAuthorReview
2017]
1/23/2017 11:34 AM
TRIBUTE TO PETER E. QUINT
541
consternation when Peter actually showed up with a counterculture haircut and a devotion to the German intellectual tradition.
Other comments:
● “Peter has been an exemplar for all that is good in scholarship. His
erudition and dedication to the truth are wonderful. He has also been a
wonderful teacher. Tough Socratic but always challenging.”
● He is “one-of-a-kind in his complete devotion to scholarship and the
law school. During the many years that Peter headed the Promotions
Committee, he always conveyed a sense of moral purpose that demanded
everyone’s respect. Peter also always seemed to be there when faculty
members were having difficulty, both within the school and outside of it.”
● “His piece in the Yale Law Journal on the Rosenberg’s trial signaled
the turn to valuing scholarship as well as teaching at the law school. Quint
was and is a triple threat in the academy: a superb teacher and scholar and
an energetic citizen of the community. He was a tireless colleague in support
of others’ scholarly work.”
● “Peter set the gold standard for scholarship at our school and never
wavered from his commitment in nurturing our junior faculty and sustaining
our community of scholars. Striving for us to always be better. This will be
his legacy.”
● “His early scholarship included path-setting models for a scholarly
community that was just beginning to form here. Peter’s more recent work
on comparative constitutional law has played a similar role today.”
● “Peter was a transformational figure for the Law School. At the time
he joined the faculty in 1972, the faculty was essentially a teaching faculty.
Peter was a self-motivated scholar. He served as a model for younger faculty
like me for whom scholarship became an expected and valued part our
responsibilities. This helped to transform the Law School into a national law
school with a national reputation.”
● “Peter is a true intellectual, but grounded in the real world importance
of ideas. He has the attention to detail of a German legal intellectual—he is
someone who can dissect legal concepts with the precision of a surgeon. But
he always connects his legal analysis to real world issues and consequences.
In this and in so many other respects, he has been an inspiration to his
colleagues, and he certainly has been an inspiration to me.”
● “Peter has been an intellectual bridge between great sources of
jurisprudential wisdom—Rawls, Holmes, Hart, Hale—and contemporary
legal research, teaching, and practice. He has brought great and humane
intelligence to bear on some of the most difficult issues in law—civil
disobedience, presidential power, or the lessons to be learned by the U.S.
from other legal systems.”
MillemannFinalAuthorReview
542
1/23/2017 11:34 AM
MARYLAND LAW REVIEW
[VOL. 76:533
● “Peter had such high respect from everyone on the faculty that for
decades he served as chair of one or the other of the two most important
faculty committees: Appointments and Promotions.”
● “Peter Quint is an institution within this institution. He is the calm but
authoritative voice of reason on controversial issues within the law school. I
have often gone to him when I have had to make difficult decisions because
I trust his judgment and think that he makes decisions with the best interests
of the law school in mind.”
● “Peter has been the voice of wisdom at the law school. He is the
inspiration behind our LLM program and the importance of integrating an
international perspective into our pedagogy for the benefit of our students
and our own scholarship”
● “For me, Peter has always been a font of wisdom, and the conscience
of the institution.”
● “Peter has played a key role as a community builder at our law school.
He has mentored many of the most productive writers and most effective
teachers on our faculty, and has supported the development of our Clinical
Law Program and Cardin Requirement, and for many years oversaw our
tenure and promotions process.”
● “He is a mensch in every sense of the word—a supportive and loving
mentor and a wise and wonderful friend. When I first interviewed for a
faculty position, I was told that every candidate had to pass muster with Peter
Quint. So I expected a haughty and aloof figure—slow to warm and quick
to judge. I couldn’t have been more wrong. From the moment I joined the
faculty, Peter has been an engaging and generous mentor who is never too
busy to share his deep knowledge of constitutional law, his wisdom about
teaching or his tales of living and dining in Paris.”
● “You can’t leave a conversation with him without knowing more than
when you began, usually thinking that you came up with the new ideas
yourself. Beyond that, he is funny, caring, cultured, and a genuine friend.
He leaves a big hole.”
● “Peter is unmistakably an intellectual, in the very best sense: smart,
cosmopolitan, multilingual, ironic but never too ironic, and a thinker. But
above all, there is that fantastic twinkle in his eye and wryness in his smile,
which were actually the first things I noticed about him. Peter’s superb paper
on the separation of powers under Nixon was my introduction to
constitutional law; years later, his famous paper on the trial of the East
German border guards became my first real introduction to German legal
theory, and I’ve read it many times. Peter should be celebrated for his great
career and his tremendous heart.”
Peter, on behalf of all of us, job well done!
BogenFinalBookProof
2017]
1/23/2017 11:34 AM
TRIBUTE TO PETER E. QUINT
543
DAVID BOGEN
I’m not Peter’s oldest friend—but I may have known him about as long
anyone at the school. We were at Lowell House together, attended college
and law school together, were Debevoise colleagues and finally ended up
here. In 1975, Mike Kelly was the dean of the Law School, and there was an
opportunity to go to Germany. Mike selected me. Just to show what a warm
hearted and generous person Peter is: he still speaks to me. Of course he also
used the occasion of the exchange visit by the Heidelberg professors to
Maryland to begin his long and incredibly fruitful relationships with scholars
there and his study of comparative law. He has always managed to make
things better.
Henry James created Peter Quint,1 Marlon Brando played him,2
Benjamin Britton wrote an opera about him,3 but that was not Peter Edward
Quint and thankfully our Peter is no ghost. As I recall, his best friend in
college was fellow Detroit native, Raymond Sokolov, later a noted editor and
author of books about food; but though I knew of Peter’s ties to excellence
in food, I never did find out whether that included pumpkin—so my doggerel
does not comment on the issue.
Peter, Peter,
Law School Teacher,
Debevoise and Detroit creature,
Cambridge, Mass., U.K. as well,
Plus Baltimore for quite a spell.
Peter, Peter,
No one neater.
Attention paid in all his classes
Sometimes to sweater, always glasses,
brings admiration from the masses.
Four decades plus he’s raised our sights
And for his students turned on lights;
© 2017 David Bogen.
T. Caroll Brown Scholar Emeritus and Professor Emeritus, University of Maryland Francis King
Carey School of Law.
1. See HENRY JAMES, THE TURN OF THE SCREW (Dover Thrift Editions 1991) (1898).
2. THE NIGHTCOMERS (Elliot Kastner-Jay Kanter-Alan Jnr Productions 1971).
3. BENJAMIN BRITTEN, THE TURN OF THE SCREW (world premiere Sept. 14, 1954) (opera).
BogenFinalBookProof
544
1/23/2017 11:34 AM
MARYLAND LAW REVIEW
[VOL. 76:533
But to digress from honor due,
There’s a rumor—perhaps ‘tis true—
His barber once gave him a crew
His mind flies—
It’s supersonic
When he hears of things Teutonic;
But though his work is brilliant there,
He’ll never be beyond compare.
ROBIN WEST
Peter Quint has long been my friend, colleague, teacher, mentor,
companion, confidante and champion.
He has also been, to my mind, not just a great scholar, but the
quintessential legal scholar. Peter is what Robert Ferguson, the legal
historian at Columbia, called, although referencing the Jeffersonian era, a
“man of law and letters.”1 As was true of the Jeffersonians, Peter sees and
inhabits law as a truly seamless web of cultural and political authority, not
set apart from or over those other forms of social life. He knows that to study
law, one must study the language, the history, the culture, and the politics of
the society in which it is embedded. Whether the subject is mid to late
twentieth century east Germany,2 or the American First Amendment,3 or the
contemporary French Civil Code, or the constitutions of societies in
transition, Peter has always done precisely that: devoted him self to full
immersion—a deep dive—into the social milieu, the languages, and the
myriad histories of the legal regime he seeks to understand. Even more
important, Peter also knows—in his heart, so to speak—that law, or the Rule
of Law, is hard to keep hold, that it runs deep and touches us deeply, and that
it is, all said and done, immeasurably valuable. It is sometimes corrupted and
it is always vulnerable. Law, therefore, needs critique and reform and change
© 2017 Robin West.
Frederick J. Hass Professor of Law and Philosophy, Georgetown University Law Center; J.D.,
University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, 1979; J.S.M., Stanford University,
1982.
1. ROBERT FERGUSON, LAW AND LETTERS IN AMERICAN CULTURE (1984).
2. PETER E. QUINT, THE IMPERFECT UNION (1997); Peter E. Quint, German Unification and
the Federal Constitutional Court: A Retrospective View after Twenty Years, in GERMAN
UNIFICATION: EXPECTATIONS, AND OUTCOMES 153 (Peter C. Caldwell & Robert R. Shandley eds.,
2011).
3. Peter E. Quint, Towards First Amendment Limitations on the Introduction of Evidence: The
Problem of United States v. Rosenberg, 86 YALE L.J. 1622 (1977).
QuintTribute_jciFinalBookProofII (Do Not Delete)
2017]
TRIBUTE TO PETER E. QUINT
1/23/2017 11:34 AM
545
and sometimes it needs uprooting, no less than it needs respect and
veneration. Law needs to be cared for. Peter does just that in his scholarship,
and because he does just that, because he cares, his legal scholarship is
always, whatever its subject, a rigorous, demanding act of love. For just that
reason, Peter has always been a demanding scholar, mostly of himself, but
also of his students and of his colleagues.
His retirement is a loss for Maryland students but a gift to those of us
who will now enjoy his company and benefit from his learning all the more.
He loves Maryland Law School—it is and has been his home for legal
scholarship, for teaching, and for learning and conversation. I am sure it will
continue to be all of that. And I hope that bruised and battered and beautiful
Baltimore City will continue to be his home as well.