Two Models of the Civil Litigant

Using examples from the law of res judicata, class actions, and personal jurisdiction, I show how the model of the civil litigant that a decision maker chooses to embrace has significant implications for procedural design. I also question whether the Roberts Court’s autonomous individual model should have prevailed to the extent that it has. Judge Weinstein’s procedural vision harkens from another era, one that tolerated creative procedural experiments as courts tried to harness litigation to respond to problems of a mass, globalized economy and society. This time has ended, but whether it should have lapsed remains unsettled. The Roberts Court’s procedural approach lacks a sufficient doctrinal, historical, or normative foundation to reject so decisively Judge Weinstein’s community member model

The Cross-platform Social Engagement of Students

With social media being a ubiquitous part of the way students engage with each other, this study explores how media, journalism, and publishing students use social media both in and outwith the classroom. It focuses on how cohorts use social media during class times – how they are speaking to each other and scrolling social feeds – and how they communicate about course related content after class. This research highlights the obligation that some students feel to answer questions that come into the group social channels, while linking that obligation to a sense of reciprocity. It shows how these issues are embedded it in the value exchange of emotional labour and its relationship to gender. Not all students feel obligated to take part and many indicate levels of frustration at the stream of questions, which can, in turn, exacerbate negative mental health issues in students

Disrupting the Digital Humanities

All too often, defining a discipline becomes more an exercise of exclusion than inclusion. Disrupting the Digital Humanities seeks to rethink how we map disciplinary terrain by directly confronting the gatekeeping impulse of many other so-called field-defining collections. What is most beautiful about the work of the Digital Humanities is exactly the fact that it can’t be tidily anthologized. In fact, the desire to neatly define the Digital Humanities (to filter the DH-y from the DH) is a way of excluding the radically diverse work that actually constitutes the field. This collection, then, works to push and prod at the edges of the Digital Humanities — to open the Digital Humanities rather than close it down. Ultimately, it’s exactly the fringes, the outliers, that make the Digital Humanities both heterogeneous and rigorous. This collection does not constitute yet another reservoir for the new Digital Humanities canon. Rather, its aim is less about assembling content as it is about creating new conversations. Building a truly communal space for the digital humanities requires that we all approach that space with a commitment to: 1) creating open and non-hierarchical dialogues; 2) championing non-traditional work that might not otherwise be recognized through conventional scholarly channels; 3) amplifying marginalized voices; 4) advocating for students and learners; and 5) sharing generously and openly to support the work of our peers

Reckoning with Race and Disability

Our national reckoning with race and inequality must include disability. Race and disability have a complicated but interconnected history. Yet discussions of our most salient socio-political issues such as police violence, prison abolition, healthcare, poverty, and education continue to treat race and disability as distinct, largely biologically based distinctions justifying differential treatment in law and policy. This approach has ignored the ways in which states have relied on disability as a tool of subordination, leading to the invisibility of disabled people of color in civil rights movements and an incomplete theoretical and remedial framework for contemporary justice initiatives. Legal scholars approach the analysis of race and disability principally as a matter of comparative subordination (race and disability; race as disability; disability as race). More recent scholarship, however, incorporates critical race and intersectionality to identify connections and center those most marginalized within racial justice and disability rights movements. This body of emerging legal scholarship creates fruitful points of entry, but still situates disability as an analytical tool for understanding racial subordination without due attention to disability’s co-constitutive function and its remedial lessons. This Essay argues that aesthetic theories of disability discrimination offer a comprehensive, unifying lens to understand the roots of both race and disability discrimination, the nature of the harms experienced by those with intersectional identities, and, perhaps most useful, the construction of remedies that can meaningfully address the endemic aesthetic origins of inequality. First, an aesthetics lens shows how deeply rooted biases mark people of color with and without disabilities as deviant, incompetent, and unequal. These biases trigger affective responses that, at first blush, appear to be biological and visceral when, in fact, they are products of centuries of structural subordination. Second, aesthetics help explain why norms of race and disability together are especially resistant to change. Third, aesthetic theories surface a misplaced faith in the quintessential socio-legal prescription for inequality: training and education. While such interventions may be necessary, this Essay cautions against their remedial sufficiency and calls for training and education designed with due attention to the lessons of aesthetics

Procedural Justice and Relational Theory

This book bridges a scholarly divide between empirical and normative theorizing about procedural justice in the context of relations of power between citizens and the state. Empirical research establishes that people’s understanding of procedural justice is shaped by relational factors. A central premise of this volume is that this research is significant but needs to be complemented by normative theorizing that draws on relational theories of ethics and justice to explain the moral significance of procedures and make normative sense of people’s concerns about relational factors. The chapters in Part 1 provide comprehensive reviews of empirical studies of procedural justice in policing, courts and prisons. Part 2 explores empirical and normative perspectives on procedural justice and legitimacy. Part 3 examines philosophical approaches to procedural justice. Part 4 considers the implications of a relational perspective for the design of procedures in a range of legal contexts. This collection will be of interest to a wide academic readership in philosophy, law, psychology and criminology

Disrupting the Digital Humanities

All too often, defining a discipline becomes more an exercise of exclusion than inclusion. Disrupting the Digital Humanities seeks to rethink how we map disciplinary terrain by directly confronting the gatekeeping impulse of many other so-called field-defining collections. What is most beautiful about the work of the Digital Humanities is exactly the fact that it can’t be tidily anthologized. In fact, the desire to neatly define the Digital Humanities (to filter the DH-y from the DH) is a way of excluding the radically diverse work that actually constitutes the field. This collection, then, works to push and prod at the edges of the Digital Humanities — to open the Digital Humanities rather than close it down. Ultimately, it’s exactly the fringes, the outliers, that make the Digital Humanities both heterogeneous and rigorous. This collection does not constitute yet another reservoir for the new Digital Humanities canon. Rather, its aim is less about assembling content as it is about creating new conversations. Building a truly communal space for the digital humanities requires that we all approach that space with a commitment to: 1) creating open and non-hierarchical dialogues; 2) championing non-traditional work that might not otherwise be recognized through conventional scholarly channels; 3) amplifying marginalized voices; 4) advocating for students and learners; and 5) sharing generously and openly to support the work of our peers

Whose Dispute Is It Anyway? A Philosophical and Democratic Defense of Settlement (In Some Cases)

I have often thought myself ill-suited to my chosen profession. I love to argue, but I am often too quick to say both, yes, I see your point and concede something to the other side, and to say of my own arguments, yes, but, it\u27s not that simple. In short, I have trouble with polarized argument, debate, and the adversarialism that characterizes much of our work. Where others see black and white, I often see not just the grey but the purple and red-in short, the complexity of human issues that appear before the law for resolution. In the last decade or so, a polarized debate about how disputes should be resolved has demonstrated to me once again the difficulties of simplistic and adversarial arguments

Crowdsourced online dispute resolution

Solving disputes often takes a considerable amount of time and money. That holds for everyone involved. A new type of dispute resolution called Crowdsourced Online Dispute Resolution (CODR) seems to have the potential to offer a cheap, fast, and democratic dispute resolution procedure. Since it is currently not clear whether CODR procedures comply with the requirements of procedural fairness, the attractiveness and the acceptance of CODR procedures may be in discussion. This thesis aims to establish whether CODR can fairly resolve disputes. First, it provides a framework of CODR, analyses the differences between CODR and other dispute resolution schemes, and constructs interpretation of procedural fairness that merges objective and subjective procedural fairness. Second, the research investigates whether the current CODR procedures are fair and proposes a model of a CODR procedure that complies with the interpretation of procedural fairness. The findings of the research indicate that CODR can be designed to fairly resolve disputes.Exploring the Frontiers of International La