Saying Way More than Gay: Polarized Adoption of Ultimate Terms in U.s. Legislation

Due to rampant political polarization in the United States this thesis investigated the role of language in perpetuating opposing ideologies. A critical rhetorical cluster analysis of Florida’s House Bill 1557, political rhetoric, and public discourse reveals the contemporary power of ultimate terms. Within the United States terms such as “parental rights” and “Don’t Say Gay” operate to further divisive discourses due to their simultaneous perceptions as god and devil terms. In the United States such buzzwords are associated with vastly different valences dependent on individual ideological value systems, which often correlate with one’s political affiliations. Existing scholarship on the ideograph was used to guide this study which uncovered current methods of ideological influence in today’s hyperpolarized sociopolitical landscape

Information Fiduciaries and Political Microtargeting: A Legal Framework for Regulating Political Advertising on Digital Platforms

Digital technologies have taken individualized advertising to an unprecedented level. But the convenience and efficiency of such highly tailored content comes at a high price: unbridled access to our personal data. The rise of sophisticated data-driven practices, otherwise known as “Big Data,” enables large datasets to be analyzed in ways that reveal useful patterns about human behavior. Thanks to these novel analytical techniques, businesses can cater to individual consumer needs better than ever before. Yet the opportunities presented by Big Data pose new ethical challenges. Significant scholarly research has examined algorithmic discrimination and consumer manipulation, as well as the ways that data-driven practices undermine our democratic system by dramatically altering the news ecosystem. Current scholarship has especially focused on the ways illegitimate foreign and domestic operatives exploit the advertising tools of digital platforms to spread fake and divisive messages to those most susceptible to influence. However, more scholarly attention should be devoted to how these digital technologies are exploited by legitimate political actors, such as politicians and campaigns, to win elections. By combining data-driven voter research with personalized advertising, political actors engage in political microtargeting, directing communications at niche audiences. Political microtargeting fits within a broader conversation about data-privacy regulation, as individuals lack sufficient control over how digital companies handle their personal data. The First Amendment currently limits data-privacy reform, so any meaningful changes must reconcile data privacy with the First Amendment. Professor Jack Balkin has argued that online service providers should be defined as “information fiduciaries,” or businesses that, because of their relationship with another, have taken on special duties with respect to the information they obtain in the course of the relationship. Because online service providers receive sensitive information from their end users, Professor Balkin argues they should be subject to additional regulation. Treating online service providers as information fiduciaries provides a viable means to reconcile the First Amendment with data-privacy regulation: the First Amendment has not prevented the state or federal government from regulating how certain professionals, such as doctors and lawyers, interact with their clients and use their personal information because these professionals share a fiduciary relationship with their clients. Therefore, consistent with the First Amendment, the government should also be able to subject online service providers to reasonable restrictions on their handling of end-user data. This Note expands Professor Balkin’s information-fiduciary framework by arguing that federal legislation should place fiduciary duties on online service providers. In doing so, it responds to scholarly critiques of Professor Balkin’s theory, particularly the criticism that he failed to show how information fiduciaries might function in practice. Using political microtargeting on Facebook as an example, this Note spells out the ways that fiduciary duties might be enforced. This Note argues that holding Facebook and other digital platforms that engage in political advertising to an information-fiduciary standard would ameliorate some of the adverse effects of political microtargeting and promote electoral integrity in the digital age

Exhuming Franco: Polarization in the Debate over Historical Memory in Contemporary Spanish Politics

In this thesis, I examine political media to show the different ways that the Spanish right and the left have framed historical memory about Franco. In Chapter 2, I give an overview of the development of the HML and political reactions to the law. I then look at the progression of the law’s goals under the leadership of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy in Chapter 3, and in how the law was utilized in exhuming Franco, referenced in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 showcases, through quantitative and qualitative data, the overall relationship of how changing historical memory through exhumation elicited reactions from different political parties and impacted political polarization. Lastly, Chapter 6 provides information regarding the current manifestation of the historical memory debate throughout the Democratic Memory Law, and a more comprehensive look over the relationship between historical memory and polarization in Spain. Overall, I compare the difference between the framing and reception of the 2007 Historical Memory Law in comparison to the Democratic Memory Law of 2020. Both pieces of legislation pertain to historical memory of the dictatorship under Franco. However, the first law in 2007 elicited relatively neutral reactions from the political right and left while the second law was much more contentious and divisive. My thesis explores these laws as well as several key developments in between their drafting. This helps to show how Spanish politics have become more divided over the question of historical memory

Unsettled Law: Social-Movement Conflict, Stare Decisis, and Roe v. Wade

With President Donald Trump’s third Supreme Court nomination, the reexamination of Roe v. Wade has become a probability. An increasingly conservative Court will almost certainly not embrace the idea of abortion rights. Instead, the fate of abortion rights will likely turn on the meaning of stare decisis, a doctrine requiring the Court to pay some deference to its past decisions. Stare decisis has recently played a starring role in abortion jurisprudence. In his controlling concurrence in June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo, Chief Justice Roberts invoked stare decisis while gutting the substantive rule written into the precedent to which he proclaimed fidelity. This use of precedent might appear contradictory or even hypocritical. In truth, it emanates from decades of social-movement conflict about what defines a precedent—and what it means for a court to be bound by past decisions. This Article chronicles the surprising history of that conflict. Struggles over stare decisis and abortion produced a separation of stare decisis rhetoric from any obligation to adhere to precedent, a willingness to treat a decision’s divisiveness as a sign of its failings, and a conflation of one or more stare decisis factors with others. The result is a vision of stare decisis that is opaque, if not outright dishonest. This obfuscation is particularly troubling in the context of abortion jurisprudence, where popular constitutional engagement is intense. The Court has never been more than one participant in a broader dialogue about reproduction and the Constitution. If the Justices reverse Roe, they have a duty to do so in a way that facilitates, rather than undermines, public engagement

Substantive Due Process and the Politicization of the Supreme Court

Substantive due process is one of the most cherished and elusive doctrines in American constitutional jurisprudence. The understanding that the Constitution of the United States protects not only specifically enumerated rights, but also broad concepts such as “liberty,” “property,” and “privacy,” forms the foundation for some of the Supreme Court’s most impactful—and controversial—decisions. This thesis explores the constitutional merits and politicizing history of natural rights jurisprudence from its application in Dred Scott v. Sandford to its recent evocation in Obergefell v. Hodges. Indeed, from slavery to same-same sex marriage, substantive due process has played a pivotal role in shaping our nation’s laws and destiny: But was it ever intended to? This paper first examines the legal arguments in favor of substantive due process to determine whether the judiciary was designed to be the “bulwark” of natural as well as clearly scribed law. Then, employing a novel framework to measuring judicial politicization, the thesis tracks the doctrine’s application throughout its most prominent case studies. Often arriving at nuanced conclusions, we observe that the truth is more often painted in some gradation of grey than in black or white

Experiential Learning and Assessment in the Era of Donald Trump

Law teaching is turning a critical corner with the implementation of new ABA accreditation standards requiring greater skills development, experiential learning, and student assessment. Years of debate and discourse preceded the adoption of these ABA Standards, followed by a surge in programming, conferencing, and listserv activity to prepare to implement these standards effectively. Missing from the dialogue about effective implementation of standards has been thoughtful consideration of how implementing these requirements will intersect with the challenges, realities, opportunities, and complexities of political divisiveness and polarization so prevalent in society and university campuses today. Law schools are notably implementing these pedagogical reforms in a time of great political division. From the divisive presidential election, to police-community relations, to a worldwide refugee crisis, political discourse is contentious, polarized, and fraught with both risk and opportunity. University campuses have particularly been the sites of difficult discussions about race, politics, gender, and the very role of academic communities in these conversations. Students and faculty alike seem less capable than ever to manage these complex dynamics, yet true experiential learning and assessment requires us to move into the eye of the storm for courses with politically grounded content like legislation, among many others in the law school curriculum. The stakes are high. Faculty must engage students in more active learning with real-time feedback designed around realistic and timely simulations. Yet, they must do this in a time of great divisiveness in law, society, and politics. In this modern reality, both faculty and students alike may not be comfortable, prepared, or equipped to navigate these challenges without savvy techniques and methods. This article discusses how law faculty might successfully implement experiential learning and assessment techniques with these modern dynamics in mind. It highlights a critical opportunity to transform our students into thoughtful problem-solvers and savvy lawyers. It identifies three critical components to a modern experiential learning course addressing topics of political relevance: (1) student-driven content, instead of faculty-driven content; (2) consistent and holistic student engagement, instead of sporadic or sequential engagement; and (3) vertically and horizontally structured feedback

Experiential Learning and Assessment in the Era of Donald Trump

Law teaching is turning a critical corner with the implementation of new ABA accreditation standards requiring greater skills development, experiential learning, and student assessment. Years of debate and discourse preceded the adoption of these ABA Standards, followed by a surge in programming, conferencing, and list-serv activity to prepare to implement these standards effectively. Missing from the dialogue about effective implementation of standards has been thoughtful consideration of how implementing these requirements will intersect with the challenges, realities, opportunities, and complexities of political divisiveness and polarization so prevalent in society and university campuses today. Law schools are notably implementing these pedagogical reforms in a time of great political division. From the divisive presidential election, to police-community relations, to a worldwide refugee crisis, political discourse is contentious, polarized, and fraught with both risk and opportunity. University campuses have particularly been the sites of difficult discussions about race, politics, gender, and the very role of academic communities in these conversations. Students and faculty alike seem less capable than ever to manage these complex dynamics, yet true experiential learning and assessment requires us to move into the “eye of the storm” for courses with politically grounded content like legislation, among many others in the law school curriculum. The stakes are high. Faculty must engage students in more active learning with real-time feedback designed around realistic and timely simulations. Yet, they must do this in a time of great divisiveness in law, society, and politics. In this modern reality, both faculty and students alike may not be comfortable, prepared, or equipped to navigate these challenges without savvy techniques and methods. This article discusses how law faculty might successfully implement experiential learning and assessment techniques with these modern dynamics in mind. It highlights a critical opportunity to transform our students into thoughtful problem-solvers and savvy lawyers. It identifies three critical components to a modern experiential learning course addressing topics of political relevance: (1) student-driven content, instead of faculty-driven content; (2) consistent and holistic student engagement, instead of sporadic or sequential engagement; and (3) vertically and horizontally structured feedback