1035 NE Campus Parkway, Terry 340

Seattle, WA 98105

April 29, 2017

Dr. Misty Anne Winzenried

Odegaard Undergraduate Library, Room 121
Seattle, WA 98105

Dear Dr. Winzenried,

I am writing to apply for a tutoring position at the OWRC. I want to work at the OWRC because I have a
genuine interest in the academic goals of my peers, I enjoy instilling confidence in others, and I look
forward to the opportunity to help fellow students reach and exceed their ambitions. My strong
interpersonal, verbal communication, and writing skills make me an excellent candidate for an OWRC
tutor position. For the past two quarters I have been a Pipeline Project tutor and in previous years I
have been employed as a ski instructor. These experiences have enabled me to connect with and
support others. Additionally, through my previous position as a student government official, I have
honed my reflection, metacognition, and emphatic listening skills. I am highly enthusiastic about
becoming a writing tutor and am committed to the OWRCs nondirective philosophy.

My well-rounded background effectively prepares me for an OWRC tutoring position. Since January, I
have been a tutor at Leschi Elementary School through the Pipeline Project. At Leschi, I help a diverse
group of kindergarteners and first graders strengthen their reading and writing skills. I have learned to
ask questions like what are you writing about? and how are you going to describe that? Guiding
elementary schoolers through the most rudimentary elements of the writing process has strengthened
my own understanding of writing, specifically brainstorming and communicating ideas with clarity.
Additionally, I have considerable experience editing my peers work. Through editing a particular
friends JSIS papers, I have learned how to give constructive criticism while acknowledging the strong
aspects of her essays. Moreover, I have learned that it is most effective to ask questions to get my
friend to expand upon her ideas, rather than suggesting exactly how she should write or change her
papers. This ties directly to the OWRCs nondirective philosophy. Additionally, I am a strong
communicator, evident in my involvement in my high schools student government. Specifically, I have
experience listening to my constituents and enacting their needs into schoolwide policy, which would
enable me to be an empathetic listener as an OWRC tutor. Further, as a student government official I
have engaged in formal reflection to better understand the bigger picture: who I am serving and how I
can best serve them. For example, I noticed that my LGBTQ peers were being underserved, so I went
to the Gender-Sexuality Alliance and asked them how I could meet their communitys needs. They
proposed that I make the schools graduation gender neutral, which I enacted into policy. My past
participation on organized sports teams has also strengthened my ability to work well in groups. I have
demonstrated success as a writer and student at the UW, evident in my high GPA and consistent
Deans List status. I am a quick learner and am enthusiastic about improving my efficacy as a writing
tutor, which is indicative of the growth-based mindset that is expected of all OWRC tutors. Above all, I
love helping others excel and would love to work in an environment that supports students in becoming
stronger writers and thinkers.

I look forward to an opportunity to speak with you about my interest in becoming a dynamic member of
the OWRC team. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Hannah Farrell
 Hannah Farrell
c: 206.551.1089
farreh2@uw.edu

SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS
Highly motivated, enthusiastic, and self-starting individual
Experienced in tutoring through the Pipeline Project, as well as teaching through ski instructing
Highly effective communicator and team member within fast-paced, diverse environments
Involved in leadership through student government and a position on the executive board of a UW RSO
Demonstrated academic success at the UW
Excellent event planning and reflective skills

EDUCATION

University of Washington, Seattle, WA Expected graduation: Jun 2019

Bachelor of Arts: Law, Societies, and Justice
University Honors Program, Major GPA: 3.85/4.0; Overall GPA: 3.79/4.0

Study Abroad, Berlin, Germany Enrolled for Jun 2017 Jul 2017
Program name: Negotiating Identities and Mediating Community in Berlin, Germany through UW Honors
Interning at a local community-based organization that works with refugees and asylum-seekers
Increasing knowledge of community assets and needs
Reflecting on experiences in and with communities in Berlin

Garfield High School, Seattle, WA Sept 2012 Jun 2016

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE

Tutor, Pipeline Project, Leschi Elementary School, Seattle, WA Jan 2017 present
Tutored and provided mentorship to a diverse group of kindergarteners, first graders and second graders
Honed interpersonal communication skills
Guided students through writing short stories and descriptions
Assisted and supported students in learning how to read
Fostered personal relationships with individual students

Babysitter, Seattle, WA 2009 present

Have consistently babysat every Wednesday for four years for the same family
Have babysat overall for eight years
Duties include being patient and understanding with small children, cooking dinner, providing comfort, and being
a responsible adult

Sales Associate, Zovo Lingerie, Seattle, WA Dec 2016 Feb 2017

Utilized interpersonal skills to connect with women in a very private context
Participated in casual conversations with customers in order to make them feel more comfortable
Worked full-time during the holiday season
Student Body Vice President, Garfield HS, Seattle, WA Jun 2015 Jun 2016
Planned schoolwide assemblies and dances
Advocated for gender-neutral graduation
Personally gathered feedback from various community members for gender-neutral graduation (students,
teachers, principal, alumni organizations, parent organizations)
Led an opt out movement for a standardized test called the SBAC
Frequently attended professional development days
Frequently reflected on my role and impact as a student government official

Ski Instructor, Summit SnowSports School, Snoqualmie, WA Dec 2013 March 2015
Taught multiple toddlers how to ski at a time (usually six 4-year-olds at once)
Effectively multitasked, watching several young children at a time while ensuring that every student was learning
Interacted with parents (many of whom were not native English speakers)

RELEVANT PROJECTS

Ethical recommendations for Zell Kravinskys nondirected kidney donations April 2017
Research memorandum for Human Rights Law in Culture and Practice course
Synthesized multiple sources into a memo-style paper
Used critical thinking skills to formulate an opinion on a complex fact pattern

How Carotenoid-Based Coloration Increases Attractiveness, yet is not an Accurate Indicator of Health in White
Human Males Feb 2017
Paper for Evolution and Human Behavior course
Utilized research skills to find a published scientific paper from Oxford Academic database
Analyzed and interpreted the data
Honed clear, concise scientific writing skills

Shadows or Substance?: How Privacy was Established as a Right in Griswold v. Connecticut Dec 2016
Research paper for Interdisciplinary English for Social Sciences course
Analyzed procedural, substantive, and penumbral rights in a specific Supreme Court Case
Currently using this paper to apply for a Library Research Award

Annotated bibliography Nov 2016

Wrote a proper abstract on the above research paper for Interdisciplinary English for Social Sciences course
Effectively researched academic sources

Commentary assignment Nov 2016

For Interdisciplinary English for Social Sciences course
A detailed analysis of Reflections on Little Rock by Hannah Arendt
Considered the context of the passage, what was at stake, what was presupposed, and the passages problems

Academic article review for Peg Birminghams On Violence, Politics, and the Law Dec 2016
Clearly articulated the meaning of Peg Birminghams article and communicated its importance to my reader (the
professor)

Why More Than 200 Garfield High School Students Are Boycotting a Standardized Test, in Their Own Words
Collaborated with peers on student government to formulate an argument against a standardized test called the
SBAC
Article was published in the SLOG in the Stranger in April 2015
ADDITIONAL EXPERIENCE

Programming Coordinator, Northwest Women Club, University of Washington, Seattle, WA April 2017 Present
Member, Northwest Women Club, University of Washington, Seattle, WA Sept 2016 Present
Volunteer, Marys Place, Seattle, WA 2014 - Present
Staff Member, Congress of Racial Equality, Garfield HS, Seattle, WA Jun 2015 Jun 2016
Food Courier, Caviar, Seattle, WA March 2016 Sept 2016
Team Member, Garfield Girls Lacrosse, Seattle, WA February 2014 May 2016
Team Member, Seattle United Soccer, Seattle, WA 2011 May 2016

HONORS AND AWARDS

Deans List, University of Washington, 2 consecutive quarters Sept 2016 Present

AP Scholar with Distinction June 2016
Secretary, National Honors Society, Garfield High School, Seattle, WA Sept 2013 June 2016
AP Scholar with Distinction June 2015
I wrote this research paper for an English course that was linked to my Intro to Law Societies,
and Justice class. I have excerpted the first five pages of the ten-page paper. I was instructed
to write the paper on any topic related to the course, namely rights, the violence of the law, or
something similar. For my topic, I chose the landmark Supreme Court case Griswold v.
Connecticut and the notion of penumbral rights. I feel like this research paper upped my level
as a writer. By writing this paper, I learned how to effectively use databases to find relevant
academic articles. I learned how to pull apart an abstract to quickly discern whether a specific
academic article was pertinent to my research. I discovered that there was truly a breadth of
information on the topic; the difficult part was selecting research that best supported my thesis.
I learned how to use footnotes for the first time. I worked diligently to make my expository
writing sound informative and interesting. I am particularly proud of this research paper
because I invested so much time and energy into it. I am currently in the process of using it to
apply for a Library Research. Through this paper I strengthened my research and writing skills,
which I could apply to an OWRC tutoring position.

Hannah Farrell
ENGL 298
Ren Boullet
Autumn 2016
Shadows or Substance?

How Privacy was Established as a Right in Griswold v. Connecticut

Privacy is never explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution. However, privacy

was established as a right under the Warren Court, particularly in the case of Griswold v.

Connecticut1. In this case, Estelle Griswold, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood

League of Connecticut, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton, the clinics medical director, were arrested for

giving medical advice to married couples who wished to avoid conception. They violated two

Connecticut statutes, one prohibiting the use of "any drug, medicinal article, or instrument for

the purpose of preventing conception;" and the other punishing any person who assists

1
See David Luban, The Warren Court and the Concept of a Right, 34 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties
L. Rev. 7 (1999). Luban argues that the Warren Court was significant because it transformed the concept
of a legal right, through vigorous jurisprudence that protected civil rights and liberties. All subsequent
references to Luban are to this edition and will be incorporated into the text in parentheses.
another person in committing an offense2. Griswold and Buxton were convicted and fined $100

each, which they appealed. Eventually the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the case in 1965 and

ruled 7-2 in favor of Griswold, claiming that the law violated the right to marital privacy3.

Inarguably this case established privacy as a constitutional right4; however, legal scholars have

varying opinions about how that right came to be in the case of Griswold. Procedural and

substantive due process rights implicitly played into the opinion of the court, but some scholars

argue that the majority did not argue the right to privacy through a substantive due process

lens. Instead, Justice Douglas used the concept of penumbra, utilizing metaphoric reasoning to

strengthen the notion of the right to privacy. Through this reasoning, Justice Douglas drew

conclusions that the state cannot intrude on individuals privacy without compelling

circumstances. Ultimately this penumbral metaphor is what establishes privacy as a

constitutional right in Griswold and allows this case to set precedent for many important civil

rights cases, including Roe v. Wade.

Before procedural and substantive due process rights can be understood, rights as a

whole must be defined. A right is understood as a value of importance that warrants protection

under law (Luban 11). Due process rights reduce the power of the state to a comprehensible,

rational, and principled order, and [] ensure that citizens are not deprived of life, liberty, or

2
See Chris Rideout, Penumbral Thinking Revisited: Metaphor in Legal Argumentation, 7 Legal
Communication & Rhetoric: JALWD 155, pg. 182 (2010). All subsequent references to Rideout are to this
edition and will be incorporated into the text in parentheses.
3
See McBride, Alex. "Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)." PBS. Educational Broadcasting Corporation, Dec.
2006. Web. All subsequent references to McBride are to this edition and will be incorporated into the text
in parentheses.
4
See From Griswold to Lawrence and Beyond: The Battle Over Personal Privacy and the New Supreme
Court, Pew Research Center (2006). Perhaps the right to privacy isnt inarguable; actually, its highly
contentious. Some believe that Griswold established a liberty jurisprudence instead of a privacy
jurisprudence. But in the majority opinion, Justice Douglas explicitly argues Griswold through a privacy
jurisprudence.
property except for good reason5. Procedural due process asks whether the government has

followed the proper procedures in taking away an individuals life, liberty, or property6. In the

case of Griswold, proper procedures were followed7. However, procedures themselves are not

sufficient criteria for lawfulness; the distinction between a lynch mob and a lawful criminal

process turns not on the outward forms of procedure but on the inner principles of lawfulness

(Sandefur 329). This is why courts have considered substantive due process, which focuses less

on the legitimacy of laws procedures and more on the legitimacy of the laws themselves.

Substantive due process asks the question of whether government deprivation of an

individuals life, liberty, or property is justified by a sufficient purpose, with the goal of

protecting some of our most precious liberties (Chemerinsky 1501). Chemerinsky presents a

simple example: parents have a fundamental right to the custody of their children under the

due process clause. Procedural due process means that the government must give notice and

a hearing before it can permanently terminate custody. Substantive means the government

must show a compelling reason that would demonstrate an adequate justification for

terminating custody and in turn cut off parental rights for those who have proven unable to

5
See Thomas Sandefur, In Defense of Substantive Due Process, or the Promise of Lawful Rule, 35
Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 283 (2011), p. 285. All subsequent references to Sandefur are to
this edition and will be incorporated into the text in parentheses.
6
See Erwin Chemerinsky, Substantive Due Process, 15 Touro L. Rev. 1501 (1999), pg. 1501. All
subsequent references to Chemerinsky are to this edition and will be incorporated into the text in
parentheses.
7
See Nancy Finlay, Taking on the State: Griswold v. Connecticut, ConnecticutHistory.org (2015).
Estelle Griswold and C. Lee Buxton [] decided to challenge the Barnum Act in court. In a deliberate act
of civil disobedience, they opened a small clinic near the PPLC office. The clinic immediately received
numerous requests from married women seeking advice on birth control. Detectives also showed up
promptly to ask questions and investigate. On November 9, 1961, authorities shut down the clinic just a
few days after it opened. They arrested Griswold and Buxton, convicted them, and fined them $100
apiece. Thus, proper procedures were followed by the state in arresting and convicting Griswold and
Buxton.
appropriately care for their children (Chemerinsky 1501-2). In Griswold, substantive due

process potentially asks whether the government has sufficient justification to deprive married

couples of their decision to use contraception, which also has a connotation to their privacy.

The government must provide a substantial, defensible reason for a deprivation of rights as

such. Despite this, it is debatable whether or not Griswold actually used substantive due

process to justify privacy as a right.

Chemerinsky uses Justice Douglass words themselves to argue that Douglas specifically

denied using a substantive due process claim in Griswold; past precedent made it difficult, if not

impossible, to do so. Historically, substantive due process was used to protect economic

liberties from government interference, particularly in the case of Lochner v. New York8, a case

that held the freedom of contract as a fundamental right under the liberty of the due process

clause (Chemerinsky 1503). Lochner also established a means/ends balancing test,

considering whether the state's justification for abridging the right was sufficient and, if so,

whether the state chose the proper means for achieving its end9 (Radu 250). Since then,

however, not one federal, state, or local economic regulation has been invalidated on

substantive due process grounds (Chemerinsky 1504). In cases after Lochner such as Newbie v.

New York10, the Court opined that it was wrong [] to place individual contract rights over a

state's ability to govern, essentially invalidating substantive due process rights in this regard

(Radu 250). The Court has backed away from substantive due process in all of its forms,

8
198 U.S. 45 (1905)
9
See Mattei Ion Radu, Incompatible Theories: Natural Law and Substantive Due Process, 54 Vill. L.
Rev. 247 (2009), pg. 250. All subsequent references to Radu are to this edition and will be incorporated
into the text in parentheses.
10
See 291 U.S. 502 (1934).
economic and otherwise, so in the days of Griswold, it was difficult to make a substantive due

process claim (Chemerinsky 1506). Chemerinsky posits that the best illustration of the

avoidance of substantive due process is Justice Douglass majority opinion in Griswold v.

Connecticut (ibid). This is because Justice Douglas specifically cited Lochner v. New York as a

case that should not guide Griswold. Although Justice Douglas explicitly eschewed examining

the propriety of laws that touch economic problems, business affairs, or social conditions

claims that fall under the Fourteenth Amendment he applied the Bill of Rights to the state and

local governments using the Fourteenth Amendment. He used substantive due process even

though at the time he denied that was what he was doing (Chemerinsky 1508). In

Chemerinskys eyes, although Griswold established penumbral rights, the case technically did

not make a substantive due process claim.

Several scholars concur that Griswold established privacy as a substantive due process

right, although they believe that claim to be explicit. Mattei Ion Radu writes that Griswold is

generally regarded as the clear starting point for the return of the jurisprudential doctrine of

substantial due process for [n]oneconomic [l]iberties11 (Radu 247). Radu notes that Justice

Douglas expressly den[ied] that the majority followed Lochner in reaching its conclusion.

Instead, the Court's decision rested on the discovery of a general constitutional right to privacy

that invalidated the anti-contraception statute, which was further supported by several

concurrences that revived the doctrine of substantive due process (Radu 252). Contrarily,

11
See Kathleen M. Sullivan & Gerald Gunter, Constitutional Law, 544 (15th ed. 2004). For an overview
of the concept of substantive due process in the history of the Court, see Edward Keynes, Liberty,
Property, and Privacy: Toward a Jurisprudence of Substantive Due Process (1996); Christopher Wolfe,
The Rise of Modern Judicial Review: From Constitutional Interpretation to Judge-Made Law 148-63
(1986) (Radu 247).
Alex McBride writes that the majority in Griswold v. Connecticut agreed that the right to

privacy in addition to being fundamental, was substantive [] It ruled that substantive

rights do exist in non-economic areas like the right to privacy, even if they do not in economic

activities like the right to contract, referencing Lochner (McBride 2006). Thus, McBride thinks

that despite Justice Douglass assertion that Griswold was unlike Lochner, he ruled that

substantive rights exist outside of the financial realm.