Statistical Proof and Theories of Discrimination

We live in a tightly knit world. Our emotions, desires, perceptions and decisions are interlinked in our interactions with others. We are constantly influencing our surroundings and being influenced by others. In this thesis, we unfold some aspects of social and economical interactions by studying empirical datasets. We project these interactions into a network representation to gain insights on how socio-economic systems form and function and how they change over time. Specifically, this thesis is centered on four main questions: How do the means of communication shape our social network structures? How can we uncover the underlying network of interests from massive observational data? How does a crisis spread in a real financial network? How do the dynamics of interaction influence spreading processes in networks? We use a variety of methods from physics, psychology, sociology, and economics as well as computational, mathematical and statistical analysis to address these questions

A Syllabus of Errors

Modern American society is pervasively regulated. It is also religiously diverse to a degree that is probably unprecedented in the history of the world. It is inevitable that some of these diverse religious practices will violate some of these pervasive regulations, and equally inevitable that if we ask whether all these regulations are really necessary, sometimes the answer will be no. If we take free exercise of religion seriously, sometimes it will make sense to exempt sincere religious practices from generally applicable laws - but only some laws, and only some applications. Hardly anyone thinks that human sacrifice should be exempted from the murder laws. And hardly anyone thinks that the government should compel Catholics to ordain female priests, or forbid children to take a sip of communion wine. Other cases provoke more disagreement. Who should decide, and on what criteria? The legal claim in God vs. the Gavel is that only legislatures may decide, and that judges may not. The legislature must enact specific rules for religious exemptions; it may not enact religious exemptions under a generally applicable standard to be interpreted by judges. Professor Marci Hamilton briefly argues for this claim in Chapter Ten

Legislators on Executive-Branch Boards are Unconstitutional, Period

Virginia statute makes legislators categorically “ineligible to serve on boards, commissions, and councils within the executive branch of state government who are responsible for administering programs established by the General Assembly.” But with increasing frequency, the General Assembly has enacted exceptions to this policy. There is a general exception for bodies “engaged solely in policy studies or commemorative activities,” and perhaps such bodies need not be in the executive branch at all. But the Assembly has also enacted exceptions for twenty-one specific boards and commissions, many of which clearly have executive authority. This list of exceptions is a miscellany with no obvious pattern, but it includes six educational boards, one of which is a Board of Visitors. The legislation creating the Board of Visitors of the Virginia School for the Deaf and Blind explicitly acknowledges that it is in the executive branch, and it requires that four legislators serve on the eleven-member board. There are rumors in Richmond that some legislators would like to put legislators on the Boards of Visitors of other public universities in the Commonwealth. Such appointments violate the separation of powers and are unconstitutional. I reach this conclusion on the basis of the clear text of the Virginia Constitution, on the decisions of the Virginia Supreme Court, on the practical consequences, and on decisions interpreting separation-of-powers provisions in federal law and in other states. The question is not close. Much of the analysis here would apply to the constitutional law of nearly every state, and to any board or commission in the executive branch, but my focus will be on the Boards of Visitors of Virginia’s public universities

A Syllabus of Errors

Modern American society is pervasively regulated. It is also religiously diverse to a degree that is probably unprecedented in the history of the world. It is inevitable that some of these diverse religious practices will violate some of these pervasive regulations, and equally inevitable that if we ask whether all these regulations are really necessary, sometimes the answer will be no. If we take free exercise of religion seriously, sometimes it will make sense to exempt sincere religious practices from generally applicable laws - but only some laws, and only some applications. Hardly anyone thinks that human sacrifice should be exempted from the murder laws. And hardly anyone thinks that the government should compel Catholics to ordain female priests, or forbid children to take a sip of communion wine. Other cases provoke more disagreement. Who should decide, and on what criteria? The legal claim in God vs. the Gavel is that only legislatures may decide, and that judges may not. The legislature must enact specific rules for religious exemptions; it may not enact religious exemptions under a generally applicable standard to be interpreted by judges. Professor Marci Hamilton briefly argues for this claim in Chapter Ten