The Faculty Lounge

BDS and Academic Boycotts

This video was produced by MLA Members for Scholars Rights:

 

 

Illinois Law Review on the first 100 Days

The Illinois Law Review has publiushed an on-line symposium on Trump's first 100 days.  The distinguished and numerous contributors survey the Trump administration's approach from civil rights to environmental law and federalism and a lot in between. You can read it here.  Two quick observations -- first, this is exciting not just for the content, but also because it shows that law reviews can respond quickly to current events.  

And second, while this is a little outside the law area, which is the focus of the Illinois Law Review symposium, I have been very interested in Trump's vision/understanding of American history.  I know there's been some commentary already on his view that in our nation's history we've done some bad stuff. ("You think our country is so innocent?")  But the historian in me wants to hear more about what that vision suggests about how Trump views our nation's mission and our moral obligations to our citizens.  The left-wing historians who emphasize how far our nation has fallen in some cases from the promise of equal treatment -- and are frequently criticized for their writing -- usually have that interpretation as part of an agenda for better treatment.  Obviously Trump is more interested in the future than the past; perhaps the emphasis on past injustice by the US is just a way of releasing constraints on future behavior.  If I can free up some time this summer, I hope to write a little about this.

Meanwhile, congratulations to the Illinois Law Review on fast and engaged scholarship!

Ann Coulter at Berkeley -- UPDATED UPDATED

SECOND UPDATE:  One of the students who invited Coulter to Berkeley, on behalf of a group called BridgeUSA, has this oped in the Washington Post.  Here are a few key passages:

National media coverage of Coulter’s visit mostly overlooked BridgeUSA’s role and our plan for the event, instead reporting that the incident was a repeat of the Yiannopoulos fracas — exactly what we set out to avoid.

Antifa and other “black-bloc” groups that are able to organize do so far beyond the perimeters of our campus, and they receive an insignificant amount of support from Berkeley students, if any. But in national news, all that’s seen is violence and destruction being used to censor speech.

Conservative groups, in their attempt to frame this complex series of events as a “free speech battle” by suing Berkeley’s administration, have used the label of free speech as a tool for publicity. Our organization prides itself on the values of free inquiry and discourse, yet we understand the impossible trade-off that the university faces: the administration is caught between upholding its commitment to free speech and its responsibility for student safety.

The administration attempted to work with us, to propose alternative dates this semester and next semester where a defensible venue would be available. In balancing the concerns of protecting students and allowing peaceful protest, they never backed down from their commitment to help us bring Coulter to campus. It is easy and expedient to blame the university in this situation, but that avoids the actual problem. The true issue here is not the way that the university handled this situation; rather, it is the fact that this trade-off between student safety and free speech even exists in the first place.

FIRST UPDATE: Chancellor Dirks has this oped in today's [April 27] New York Times.

ORIGINAL POST:  The letter below was circulated today [April 26] by Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks regarding the Ann Coulter situation.  The story he tells is considerably different from the one generally reported in the press.  I have bolded the key passages:

To the Members of the Berkeley Campus Community,

As I write this, I am aware of the uncertainty surrounding Ann Coulter’s stated intention to come to campus tomorrow afternoon.  We will be sending out a separate message later today with updated information about safety arrangements, as well as our hopes and expectations regarding how members of our campus community should conduct themselves.  For now, I want to share my thoughts about all that has led up to the current situation in which we find ourselves.

This University has two non-negotiable commitments, one to Free Speech, the other to the safety of our campus community members, their guests, and the public. In that context, we cannot ignore or deny what is a new reality.  Groups and individuals from the extreme ends of the political spectrum have made clear their readiness and intention to utilize violent tactics in support or in protest of certain speakers at UC Berkeley. In early February, a speaker’s presence on campus ignited violent conflict and significant damage to campus property. In March, political violence erupted on the streets of Berkeley.  In April opposing groups again violently clashed on the edge of our campus. While some seem inclined to use these events and circumstances to draw attention to themselves, we remain focused on the needs, rights, and interests of our students and our community. We cannot wish away or pretend that these threats do not exist.

The strategies necessary to address these evolving threats are also evolving, but the simplistic view of some – that our police department can simply step in and stop violent confrontations whenever they occur – ignores reality.  Protecting public safety in these circumstances requires a multifaceted approach.  This approach must take into account the use of “time, place, and manner” guidelines, devised according to the specific threats presented.  Because threats or strategic concerns may differ, so must our approach.  In all cases, however, we only seek to ensure the successful staging of free speech rights; we make no effort to control or restrict the content of expression, regardless of differing political views.

This is a University, not a battlefield. We must make every effort to hold events at a time and location that maximizes the chances that First Amendment rights can be successfully exercised and that community members can be protected. While our commitment to freedom of speech and expression remains absolute, we have an obligation to heed our police department’s assessment of how best to hold safe and successful events.

In relation to the invitation made by a student group for Ann Coulter to speak at Berkeley this week, we have therefore to take seriously the intelligence UCPD has regarding threats of violence that could endanger our students, our community, and perhaps even Ms Coulter herself. It is specific, significant, and real.  Yet, despite those threats we have, and will remain ready, to welcome her to campus, and assume the risks, challenges, and expenses that will attend her visit.  That is demanded by our commitment to Free Speech.  What we will not do is allow our students, other members of the campus community, and the public to be needlessly endangered by permitting an event to be held in a venue that our police force does not believe to be protectable.  If UCPD believes there is a significant security threat attendant to a particular event, we cannot allow it to be held in a venue with a limited number of exits; in a hall that cannot be cordoned off; in an auditorium with floor to ceiling glass; in any space that does not meet basic safety criteria established by UCPD.  This is the sole reason we could not accommodate Ms. Coulter on April 27^th, and the very reason we offered her alternative dates in early May and September, when venues that satisfy safety requirements are available.

Contrary to some press reports and circulating narratives, the UC Berkeley administration did not cancel the Coulter event and has never prohibited Ms. Coulter from coming on campus.  Instead, we received a request to provide a venue on one single day, chosen unilaterally by a student group without any prior consultation with campus administration or law enforcement.  After substantial evaluation and planning by our law enforcement professionals, we were forced to inform the group that, in light of specific and serious security threats that UCPD’s intelligence had identified, there was no campus venue available at a time on that date where the event could be held safely and without disruption.  We offered an alternative date for the event (which was rejected) and offered to work with the group to find dates in the future when the event could occur. Throughout this process our effort has been to support our students’ desire to hold their event safely and successfully. 

Sadly and unfortunately, concern for student safety seems to be in short supply in certain quarters. We believe that once law enforcement professionals determine there are security risks attendant to a particular event, speakers need to focus on what they actually want to achieve. If it is to speak to a large audience, to make a case for their positions, to engage students in discourse, we stand ready to make that work on any date when a protectable venue is available. If, on the other hand, the objective is stir up conflict and violence without regard for the safety, rights, and interests of others in order to advance personal interests we cannot abandon our commitment to the safety of our community members.

We will work cooperatively with members of our campus community who would sponsor events to ensure that those events can occur and that the campus can actually benefit from the dialogue their invited speakers might generate. To this end, we are working to clarify our policies and practices so that all know what is expected and how sponsors can best engage us to facilitate the success of their planned events. We trust that cooperation and good will among the members of our own community can help us jointly defend our campus against the threats to both speech and safety currently being posed by outside groups.

Sincerely,

Nick Dirks
Chancellor

And here is the statement issued today by FIRE (boldface in original):

FIRE statement on the cancellation of Ann Coulter’s speech at UC Berkeley

By FIRE April 26, 2017

Today, Ann Coulter announced that she will no longer attempt to speak at the University of California, Berkeley tomorrow, Thursday, April 27, because of safety concerns. This latest success for those willing to threaten or engage in violence in order to silence a campus speaker establishes a genuinely dangerous precedent.

Public colleges and universities have a legal duty to protect First Amendment rights. They also have a responsibility to do their best to protect all those present on campus from threats to their physical safety. But curtailing the rights of a speaker in the name of safety is wrong unless absolutely necessary, and canceling a speech must be the very last resort. Otherwise, restricting or silencing a speaker is simply a capitulation to violence or threats.

No university may be considered “safe” if speakers voicing unpopular ideas on its campus incur a substantial risk of being physically attacked. A university where people or viewpoints are likely to be opposed with fists rather than argumentation is unworthy of the name. Granting those willing to use violence the power to determine who may speak on campus is an abdication of UC Berkeley’s moral and legal responsibilities under the First Amendment.

In the wake of the violence at UC Berkeley on Feb. 1, we at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) counseled patience, given that UC Berkeley professed to have been caught off-guard and that it promised an investigation into what happened. Nearly two months later, and after multiple incidents of political violence in the adjoining City of Berkeley, the university still appears to be unprepared to ensure the safety of a controversial speaker, attendees, or peaceful protesters.

Moving forward, UC Berkeley must be properly prepared to host and protect speakers of all stripes. FIRE also calls for UC Berkeley’s promised investigation to go forward with thoroughness and transparency, and that its findings be made public without delay. The health of our democracy demands no less.

 

Academic Publishing

Here are two videos from the Emory University Center for Faculty Development and Excellence.  The first video is a presentation by Eric Schwartz of the Columbia University Press, explaining how academic presses operate:

 

 

The second presentation, about writing proposals, is by Jessica Papin of Dystel and Goderich Literary Management:

 

The presentations were on April 18, 2016.

Seventy-Five Years

Seventy-five years ago today, a chilly Saturday, my great-uncle Leopold and his wife Irene were marched through the streets of Wurzburg from a park to the train station for deportation to Poland.

 

This is a photo of the procession. Leo and Irene are in that pack somewhere. Try as I have over the years, in this and other photos of the deportation march, I haven't managed to find them. I'm pretty sure I'd recognize Leo even though I never met him; he had an arm in a sling. World War I injury. Fighting for Germany.

 

This wasn't a hidden event, something the Nazis kept from the public. Look past the tree on the right. See the Saturday morning strollers and shoppers lined up to watch the parade?

 

Never forget.

 

And never stop asking yourself this question: "What am I watching march by?"

 

That -- moreso than "will you remember me?" -- is the question I like to think Leo and Irene would want me to ask myself.

ClassCrits at Ten: Mobilizing for Resistance, Solidarity, and Justice CFP

ClassCrits at Ten: Mobilizing for Resistance, Solidarity, and Justice: Call For Papers and Participation

 Sponsored by the Tulane University School of Law, New Orleans, LA , November 10 & 11, 2017

Ten years ago, a group of scholar-activists organized a series of conversations about law and economic class.  Building on “outsider” jurisprudence that has moved inequalities of race, gender, and sexuality from the margins to the center of law, the group proposed a jurisprudence of economic inequality. To foreground economic justice, the group sought to critique mainstream law and economics and to focus on the lives of poor and working class people. 

Rejecting the neoliberal ideology of scarcity, and reclaiming the possibilities presented by the commons and by collective action, ClassCrits was born.  Our name, “ClassCrits,” reflects our ties to critical legal analysis and our goal of addressing economic class in the multiple intersecting forms of subordination. We confront the roots of economic inequality in divisions such as race and gender and in legal and economic systems destructive to the well-being of humanity and the planet.

Alternative visions and solutions have become even more essential in the contemporary moment. In the United States, 2017 has begun with historic dangers, global protests, and major constitutional litigation against the new federal administration.  The 2016 presidential election has exposed deep rifts in the foundations of law, economy, and society, reflecting a broad and deep discontent with neoliberal globalization.  Decades of bipartisan policies have focused on privatization and de-regulation of economic power.  Perceptions that established systems of law and economy are “rigged” against ordinary people have led to demands for change.  Some blame liberal “identity” politics for giving short shrift to those harmed by economic disruption.  Others rationalize increased inequality and insecurity as the inevitable results of innovation and potential growth that necessarily skews rewards to a privileged few.

What we cannot deny is the reality we are facing:  A counter-democratic revolution.  In response to this discontent, the prevailing response has been to take the neoliberal vision further. In place of principles and practices of law, democracy, and public service, this vision idealizes unaccountable authority aimed at unequal private gain.  Policy proposals include selling off public lands, privatizing the already fragile public education system with vouchers, and permitting private interests to foul the air and water held in common as fundamental to health and life on earth.  Promises to “Make America Great Again” seem to entail a rollback of civil rights protections for people of color, women, immigrants, religious minorities, and LGBTQ persons, along with an increase in militarization and an expanding carceral state, in the name of never ending foreign threats and geared toward hands of private profiteers. 

The new dangers of oligarchy and authoritarianism risk fostering hopelessness and cynicism. Many of us grope around silences to find reasoned words of persuasion.  Many struggle to find strategies for scholarship, teaching and advocacy sufficient to address emerging threats.

At the same time, this moment has sparked new voices and energy.  Whether it is attending town hall meetings, calling or writing democratically elected representatives, engaging in numerous strikes and protests, or filing lawsuits, a resurgence of public dissent and collective action suggests the possibility of alternative solutions.  Protests by indigenous persons at Standing Rock, by diverse groups of women marching in cities all over the world, by workers of color in the “Fight for Fifteen,” and by immigrants speaking out against the rising xenophobia and racism have inspired support and action challenging established boundaries of identity, interest, and policy.

During this exciting moment of possibility and struggle, we invite participants to submit applications to present at the 10^th Annual ClassCrits conference, held at Tulane University Law School.  We invite panel proposals, roundtable discussion proposals, paper presentations, poetry and fiction reading, and art that speak to this year’s theme, as well as to general ClassCrits themes.  We are also interested in receiving proposals from law clinicians who engage in activist lawyering as a core part of their curriculum design. See the following page for details.

Hemo the Magnificent

Last weekend’s March for Science got me thinking about the television show “Hemo the Magnificent,” produced by Bell Telephone and first broadcast on CBS in March 1957.  The hour long show – featuring Frank Baxter as Dr. Research and directed by Frank Capra – used animation to tell the story of blood and circulation.  The whole show is worth watching, even today.

Quite  notable, I think, is the great respect afforded to scientists in the 1950s, when there was a strong consensus across the political spectrum that science was accurate, forward looking, beneficial, and worth funding.  “Hemo” preceded the Soviet launch of Sputnik, in October 1957, by about six months, so the public interest in encouraging science was not wholly a product of competition with the Russians.

Equally interesting is the discussion of evolution that begins at approximately the 27:15 mark.  Prefaced with a fleeting disclaimer – “it’s only a theory” – Dr. Research begins with an analogy of blood to sea water, and then proceeds to outline the development of life from single-celled to complex organisms in an extended segment that lasts over seven minutes.  I wonder if such a frank and approving treatment of evolution could be shown on network television today without creating controversy.

You can watch all of “Hemo” below, or you can begin with the sea water and evolution segment here.

 

 

 The Bell Laboratories Science Series eventually produced nine prime-time specials that were later provided as films for use in schools. Dr. Research appeared in all but the last one, which instead featured Walt Disney.

 

Law & Markets Volume Is Out!

I’ve posted a few times about the Duke Project on Law and Markets (see here, here, and here), which was led last year by Joseph Blocher and me. Like the Custom and Law Project that preceded it, this Project culminated in an edited volume, published this time by Law & Contemporary Problems.  

Those wanting a more detailed description of the Project and papers in the volume can read the Foreword, but here’s a taste:

We started the Law and Markets Project at Duke Law School in the summer of 2015 in an effort to better understand the relationship between the legal system on the one hand and markets on the other. That relationship is central to understanding the nature and practical impact of legal rules, the degree to which those rules are shaped by economic forces, and the ways in which law and markets should or can operate independently. Further, it inevitably raises foundational and difficult questions. What are (or should be) the limits of markets? When, and through what mechanisms, should the law restrict the free exchange of goods and services? To what extent, and how, should the legal system address market driven inequalities in income, wealth, or access to goods and services like health care and education?

By addressing these questions, we hoped to generate interesting conversations that would deepen people’s understandings of their own and each other’s work and set the stage for collaboration going forward. We chose to focus our efforts on the Duke community, so as to help build those conversations and relationships. Given our colleagues’ broad and deep substantive and methodological expertise, this hardly felt like a limitation.

* * *

We held a symposium in early May 2016, the proceedings of which are collected in this issue. Duke faculty authored or co-authored all of the pieces, and the breadth of the topics demonstrates some of the many facets of the relationship between law and markets—from the sale (and tax treatment of) body parts to moral economies in the early Chinese land market; from the supply and demand of anticorruption enforcement to evaluating financial regulation; from markets and the environment to markets for sovereignty itself.

The volume table of contents are below, and the papers can all be downloaded here. The photos throughout this post are highlights from the Project’s workshop and reading groups, which are described in prior posts: here, here, and here.

I’ll be back in due course with more to say about my contribution to the volume, coauthored with Wenhao Liu (Stanford University, Department of Management Science & Engineering; Strategic Decisions Group International) and Marc Melcher (Stanford University, Department of Surgery): Contract Development in a Matching Market: The Case of Kidney Exchange.

 

SEALS Conference: Prospective Law Teachers Workshop

From an email message which I received in recent days:

Each year, SEALS hosts a Prospective Law Teachers Workshop, which provides opportunities for aspiring law teachers to network and participate in mock interviews and mock job talks — prior to the actual teaching market. The Committee also schedules 1-on-1 sessions for candidates to receive faculty feedback on their CVs. This year’s Prospective Law Teacher’s Workshop will be held at The Boca Resort in Boca Raton, Florida on Wednesday, August 2 and Thursday, August 3. On Wednesday, there will be mock interviews between 8 and 10 AM with CV review sessions at 1:00. On Thursday, mock job talks will take place from 8 to 10 AM. And at 3:00 on Thursday, we will have a panel entitled “Navigating the Hiring Process” which will feature recent tenure track hires who will give advice about getting hired in this “new" market. There are also many excellent panels on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday that are targeted to newer law professors, which prospective law professors will also find helpful. See http://sealslawschools.org/submissions/program/programwp.asp. If you are interested in participating in this year’s workshop, please send your CV to professor Brad Areheart (Tennessee) at brad.areheart@tennessee.edu, who co-chairs the committee along with Leah Grinvald (Suffolk). Applications are due by May 15, 2017. Many of the past workshop participants have gone on to obtain tenure-track positions in legal academia and now teach at a wide variety of schools, including Tulane, South Carolina, UNC, Cal Western, Oklahoma, Boston U, Idaho, Colorado, Louisville, and others.

New Law Dean At Akron

The University of Akron has announced that Christopher J. (C.J.) Peters will become its new law school dean.  The press release is here.

Pittsburgh Tax Law Review

With some room still remaining in its coming fall issue, the peer-reviewed Pittsburgh Tax Review invites the submission of articles and essays for publication in the journal’s Fall 2017 issue. Submissions can be sent directly to Anthony Infanti at infanti@pitt.edu, preferably prior to June 1, 2017. All submissions sent by that date will receive a prompt review and decision from the journal’s faculty editors.

Judge Noonan, RIP

I was sad to hear that Judge John Noonan passed away recently.  Though I know he was a towering figure on the Ninth Circuit, I am much more familiar with his work before he went on the bench -- his work as a legal historian while teaching at Berkeley.  I am a big fan of two of his books, Persons and Masks of the Law (which deals in part with one of my heroes on the bench, George Wythe) and also his book on The Antelope, which is an absolutely fascinating case for so, so many reasons -- not the least of which was the lottery run by the trial judge to determine who would be freed and who would be kept in slavery.

Anyway, my friend Diane Amann at the University of Georgia has an extended post about her appearance before Judge Noonan when she was a federal defender, which I know you will enjoy.

Whittier Law Trustees Vote To Shutter School; Faculty Sue To Enjoin

The trustees of Whittier Law School have voted to close the school, taking the first step of declining to admit a new 1L class this fall.  The school, which was fully accredited in 1985, is determining how to fulfill its teach-out responsibilities to the existing student body.  In recent years, the admissions predictors for entering students plunged at Whittier - from a median LSAT of 152 in 2012 to a median of 146 in 2016.  Earlier this year, Whittier College sold the property upon which the law school sits.  Thanks to the Paul Caron, we know that tenured faculty are a suing to keep the school open.  (The filing has lots of good background information.)

Update: I have taken down comments.  It's clear that their productive value has been achieved and they have moved into the negative quadrant of utility.

"Right to Try" Legislation

I blogged last week about the website Science Based Medicine, where you will find unfailingly interesting articles about the intersection of science and medical practice.  I now want to recommend an article by David Gorski about so-called "Right-to-Try" legislation that has been enacted in 33 states and has recently been introduced in Congress.  It is a long piece that exposes both the fallacies and dangers inherent in the legislation.  In brief, right-to-try laws purport to allow terminally ill patients access to potentially life-saving drugs that have passed Phase I trials.  In reality, the state statutes do nothing, because drug approval is an exclusively federal issue under the FDA. Here is how Gorski puts it:

Basically, right-to-try laws are a solution looking for a problem or, as I like to call them, placebo legislation. They make lawmakers feel good, but they do nothing concrete to help actual patients. It’s also important to remember that the real purpose of right-to-try laws is not to help patients, but to neuter the FDA’s ability to regulate certain drugs, consistent with the source of this legislation. Passing state right-to-try laws is part of a strategy to build pressure to pass a federal right-to-try law and thus weaken the FDA.

Proponents of federal right-to-try legislation include President Trump, who said:

“One thing that’s always disturbed me is we come up with a new drug for a patient who is terminal, and the FDA says we can’t have this drug used on the patient. But the patient within four weeks will be dead . . . . They say ‘well we still can’t approve the drug and we don’t know if the drug works or if it doesn’t work but we can’t approve the drug because we don’t want to hurt the patient.’ But the patient is not going to live more than four weeks.”

Gorski, however, explains:

This is a fallacious argument frequently used by right-to-try advocates. Basically patients with only four weeks to live are highly unlikely to be helped by pretty much anything, experimental or otherwise. However, they can be harmed. Right-to-try proponents often ask, “What’s the harm?” or “How can it get worse?” It can. A terminally ill patient could lose those four weeks with his family or could suffer far more than he would have otherwise with palliative care.

Additionally, the nearly all of the right-to-try legislation provide that that insurers do not need to cover the drugs provided under the statutes, or even cover care necessary due to complications.  Patients may also lose hospice coverage, which could be devastating to their well-being.  Gorski also points out the problems with administering drugs that have only gone through phase 1 trials:

Anyone who knows anything about drug development knows that having completed a phase 1 trial is a dangerously low bar to clear to allow more widespread use of a drug. Basically phase 1 trials are small trials, usually consisting of less than 30 subjects, that look for major toxicities and adverse events. That is not enough to determine safety, nor is it intended to. Phase I trials are designed primarily to identify major side effects and to use a process known as dose escalation to determine what is commonly referred to as the “maximum tolerated dose.” It is utterly impossible for such a small clinical trial to determine the safety of a drug. Phase II and Phase III trials are needed to confirm safety. Think of phase I trials as a screening test looking for the most obvious toxicities, with phase II and III studies confirming them. Indeed, even phase III trials can’t always adequately demonstrate that a drug is safe; it’s not uncommon for less common adverse effects not to show up until post-marketing surveillance, when much larger numbers of patients receive the drug. Moreover, only 5% of all cancer drugs that enter clinical testing are ultimately approved for patient use. Among drugs tested in phase II trials, only 30% go on to phase 3.

Gorski also explains why the FDA's existing "expanded access" program is sufficient to provide drugs to terminal patients for "compassionate use."

There is much more in the article, which is comprehensive, informative, and well-argued.  I say this, by the way, as someone who is quite eager to see the FDA approve a potential ME/CFS drug that has thus far not obtained the necessary votes from the relevant committee. But putting my personal interest aside, I think we are all better off when the FDA adheres to rigorous guidelines for drug approval.

Gregory Mandel Named Dean Of Temple Law

Temple Law announced today that interim dean Greg Mandel will be the law school's new permanent dean.  Mandel, who holds a JD from Stanford, joined the law school in 2007 and served as associate dean for research for seven years before taking over from now-provost JoAnne Epps. 

The Arkansas Death Penalty Saga

Things are indeed weird and complicated on the capital punishment front over in Arkansas. Corinna Lain does a nice job laying out the details over at Prawfs.  

Deeply Sad News From Alabama Law

The community of the University of Alabama School of Law has received the devastating news that two of its members, Liz Whipple, the interim director of the school's Domestic Violence Clinic, and Shelly Darling, a staff attorney in the school's Elder Law Clinic, were found dead in Lake Tuscaloosa on Saturday morning.  Their deaths are believed to have been accidental.  Our thoughts are with the families of the two women. 

SCOTUS and the Code of Judicial Conduct

I have an oped on CNN.com explaining why SCOTUS should adopt a Code of Judicial Conduct. Here is the gist:

While Supreme Court justices obviously face the same quandaries and dilemmas as all other judges, they alone have no set rules for resolving, or even addressing, ethics issues.

Members of Congress have repeatedly called on the justices to adopt an ethics code. Most recently, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut, and Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-New York, introduced the Supreme Court Ethics Act of 2017, which would give the court six months to "promulgate a code of ethics" based on the Code of Conduct for US Judges already in effect for the lower federal courts, along with any modifications that "the Supreme Court deems appropriate."

[T]he objective of a code would be to set discernible standards for the justices' conduct so that the public could know the norms to which the justices are holding themselves.

You can read the whole thing here.

Please Note: I am not responsible for the headline.

Racial Definition in World War II: Who Was Stricter? Germany or the USA?

Nazi Germany had to decide who was and who wasn't a Jew in order to know who could be targeted under its racial laws.

The United States had to make the same sort of decision about who was and who wasn't "Japanese."

Who do you think was stricter?

Obviously, I wouldn't be asking the question if the answer weren't surprising:  the United States was stricter.  By a lot.

Under the Nuremberg Laws, a person with at least three Jewish grandparents was a Jew, no further questions asked.  A person with only two Jewish grandparents was a Jew only if certain further conditions were met.

The rule in the United States was that any person with a Japanese ancestor was Japanese.  Regardless of degree.

U.S. Army Western Defense Command, "Japanese Evacuation from the West Coast, 1942: Final Report," p. 514.

And in actual operation the rules on curfew, exclusion, and detention touched people who had only one Japanese great-grandparent.

Final Report, p. 145.

This is a question (who was "Japanese" for the purposes of internment?) that is often asked but surprisingly hard to find the answer to.  So I thought I'd share it here.

Society Ties

Also today comes news that my co-author Thomas Howard and Owen Gallogly are about to publish Society Ties, about the Jefferson Literary Society at UVA.  I'm a big fan of this book and of the study of literary societies (and especially addresses given to them and of course of literary society debates).  One of these days -- maybe even one of these days this summer -- I'll get back to the paper on the Wake Forest literary society debates before the Civil War that I am writing with Elizabeth Carroll.  Those debates reflect the shifting (increasing) proslavery ideas on the Wake campus in the years leading into Civil War and also the increasingly strong support of southern nationalism and empire.  And one of these days soon the article Thomas and I wrote on proslavery (and sometimes antislavery) ideas on UVA's campus will be out -- and then down the road, not too many years from now I hope, so will a volume we're working on, on ideas about law, slavery, and constitutionalism in addresses to southern literary societies.