Optimizing a Law School’s Course Schedule

[Excerpt] “Just like other educational institutions, law schools must schedule courses by taking into consideration student needs, faculty resources, and logistical support such as classroom size and equipment needs. Course scheduling is an administrative function, typically handled by an Assistant Dean or an Associate Dean, who works with the faculty and the registrar to balance these considerations in advance of the registration process. Usually, the entire academic year is scheduled in advance, although the spring semester may be labeled tentative until registration begins for that semester. It’s hard to imagine, but some schools even publish a two-year schedule of upper-division courses so that students can plan their entire law school career in advance. In order to give assistance to those academics involved for the first time in the scheduling process, this article discusses the law school scheduling process and how a scheduling software package has worked to successfully automate what has been seen as one of the most abysmal administrative tasks of an Associate Dean. We first provide a background to course scheduling at a typical law school. We then present a review of the tools for, and literature on, course scheduling, followed by a discussion of how technology can be applied to course scheduling in general, and our outcomes of applying this technology in a law school environment. We close with a brief summary.

A Property Rights View: Commentary on “Property and Speech” by Robert A. Sedler

I begin by exploring whether the First Amendment, as a sword, obscures the difference between state and private action by constitutionally preventing private property owners from interfering with an individual’s free expression rights. Thus, private property owners, who are not otherwise held to constitutional standards, cannot block activities of others that invade their property interests because these activities are protected by the First Amendment. This Commentary will address an additional category, not mentioned by Professor Sedler in his Essay—the government’s use of eminent domain, which can be used as a “sword” against land uses protected by the First Amendment

Rails-to-Trails Potential Impact of Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States

Across the United States, over 20,000 miles of land that formerly housed railroad corridors has been converted and reappropriated into public-use trails through a federal program aptly dubbed, “Rails-to-Trails.” The viability of the “Rails-to-Trails” program has been threatened by the Supreme Court’s decision in Martin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States. In Brandt, the Court held that the underlying land in the “Rails-to-Trails” program constitutes an easement granted from the original private landowners to the railroad companies. Accordingly, once the railroad companies abandon the easement, the land reverts back to the original landowners, not the government. This Article analyzes the Brandt opinion and discusses the wide-ranging consequences of the Court’s holding. It begins by providing background on the original land conveyances in the eighteenth century that eventually gave rise to the current litigation in Brandt. It then proceeds to explain the Brandt decision and provide scholarly criticism of the Court’s opinion and reasoning. Finally, the Article concludes by discussing the practical implications of the decision: by holding that the underlying rail corridors are easements that revert to private landowners, the Court opens the door for these private landowners to bring Fifth Amendment Takings claims against the government for converting the rail corridors into public-use trails. Ultimately, this may require the taxpaying public to compensate the private landowners impacted by the “Rails-to-Trails” program

Zoning Away First Amendment Rights

To facilitate the tapering of local government regulation, this Article proposes that, as a matter of constitutional policy, the courts\u27 should analyze zoning as a prior restraint when the challenged regulation has the potential to impact First Amendment rights. Zoning actions invalidated by the Court as prior restraints can then be adjudicated as common law nuisance actions that address those actual harms caused by the alleged offending land use activities. Admittedly, this proposal turns current constitutional jurisprudence on its head. However, if courts can use secondary effects to give less protection to lower-level forms of expression, such as adult uses and commercial visual blight, then why shouldn\u27t courts use the doctrine of prior restraint to give an extra level of protection to higher-level First Amendment rights, such as religious exercise

One Professor\u27s Approach to Increasing Technology Use in Legal Education

Legal educators must increase the use of technology in legal education today Although some legal educators may disagree vehemently with this statement, most have accepted the fact that technology has and will become an even greater part of the fabric of our learning institutions. Students in kindergarten spend some portion of their week in the computer lab. By the time kids reach their middle- and high-school years, many are well-versed in word processing programs, e-mail, and surfing the Internet. Elementary school teachers are trained and encouraged to use multi-media software, the Internet, and other technology in their classrooms because not all students learn effectively using only auditory skills, nor do all students respond to a chalk and talk teaching style. Undergraduate professors in business, science, religion, and other subjects commonly use presentation software to illustrate substantive concepts with formulas, maps, and text. Students are encouraged and trained to utilize technology in class projects and presentations. Most law schools, however, are far behind the educational systems that send us our students in terms of integrating technology into the learning process. Certainly, legal educators have had WESTLAW and LEXIS/NEXIS at their disposal for years, but these tools do not demonstrate a commitment to technology. Even these automated legal databases have at times been viewed with scorn or caution by law professors and legal professionals. Law professors are rightfully concerned that students may rely on automated search techniques without understanding how to research a case or statute in the bound books. Similarly, some law firms would rather bill associate hours than bill clients for LEXIS or WESTLAW search charges. Law students, however, need to recognize the important role that technology plays in our society, and academicians should be the ones to guide them

Banishment of Sex Offenders: Liberty, Protectionism, Justice, and Alternatives

Although most sex offenses are committed by relatives or acquaintances of the victims, our public policy approach has been to focus on the stranger sex offender and punish sex offenders through residency restrictions. These residency restrictions effectively banish these locally undesirable and dangerous individuals from our communities in fear that they may reoffend in our neighborhoods. Rather than being thrust into some wilderness, sex offenders are “banished” to neighboring counties or states and into poor, minority neighborhoods where they often live in boarding houses with other sex offenders. Banishing sex offenders through these residential restrictions impacts individual liberty, our national structure, and social policy considerations. This Article offers a legal analysis of the adverse impacts these restrictions impose on the constitutional rights of both sex offenders and our communities, which for economic or political limitations do not have the appropriate representation to mitigate these consequences. This Article also examines what methods from the environmental justice movement might be available to deal with the “social justice” issue of sex offenders disproportionately burdening poor, minority communities. Finally, because there is not yet evidence to support the efficacy of residency restrictions on sex offender recidivism, this Article concludes that legislators should reexamine the current trend of using residency restrictions to address concerns about sex offender recidivism. Instead, public policy decision makers should look toward alternatives, such as individualized risk assessment and management of these individuals, so that public resources can be properly directed to confine, monitor, and treat those sex offenders most likely to commit serious reoffenses