210 research outputs found

    Dalliances, Defenses, and Due Process: Prosecuting Sexual Harassment in the Me Too Era

    Get PDF
    While the heightened awareness of sexual predation in the workplace is, in many ways, a welcome development, the new norms currently being promulgated and implemented have already fallen prey to the law of unintended consequences, not to mention the limitations of law itself. Perhaps the most remarkable result of the plethora of prosecutions—especially those taking place on American campuses— is that, despite widespread recognition of their lack of rudimentary due process, so little has been done to correct the failures. Just as cultural attitudes have changed toward politics, entertainment, and literature, so too have perspectives on relationships in corporate boardrooms, university campuses, and common workplaces. Just as uninvited sexual encounters contribute to the growing spate of allegations concerning improprieties both subtle and overt, what might well have begun as a traditional college or office romance—where casual dalliances can and often do lead to marriage—may just as easily turn from serious to sour. In the wide world of the law, meanwhile, the growing phenomena of uncorroborated allegations—especially those that result in suspensions or dismissals—present serious questions of fairness and remedy. In the spheres of public education and employment, everyone with a healthy respect for traditional American values might be justifiably dismayed by the almost total absence of due process. In the private arena, where the concept of due process is much less applicable, there are few viable remedies for the unfairly accused. In recent years, there have been over 150 law review articles addressing the problem, yet it persists and is growing. Could the circumstance be that such academic analyses go widely unread and unheeded, or is there some other cause for the endemic recalcitrance? This Article will likewise examine the prosecution of sexual harassment in what has come to be called the Me Too Era, not only by analyzing the constitutional application and limitations of due process, the promulgation of Title IX policies4 on campuses and their effect on public students and employees, and the limited remedies available to workers in private entities, but to suggest as well ways by which academics can move their message beyond theory and into pragmatic solutions with greater impact

    UB Law Professor: Learn From History, Don\u27t Whitewash it

    No full text

    The Decline of Free Speech on the Postmodern Campus: The Troubling Evolution of the Heckler\u27s Veto

    Get PDF
    The Twenty-First Century has presented new challenges to the traditional ways that free speech in America has been encouraged and protected. While the right to express one’s opinions has become increasingly problematic in society at large, it is particularly imperiled in the very places that pride themselves as being open marketplaces of ideas – on college and university campuses.Today we’re faced with numerous campus speech codes that substantially limit First-Amendment rights. They are ubiquitous and often cavalierly invoked. For civil libertarians the good news is that not one of the few such codes that have been tested in court has been found constitutional; the bad news is that few have been tested. Moreover, the current codes come with new catch-phrases like “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” and “cultural appropriation” – all calculated in one way or another to shelter students and others from the honest give-and-take of discussion and debate about topics that might be controversial.Those with opinions that might challenge campus orthodoxies are rarely invited, and often disinvited after having been scheduled, or shouted down or otherwise disrupted. When protestors embroil visiting speakers, or break in on meetings to take them over and list demands, or even resort to violence, administrators often choose to look the other way. Students have come to take it for granted they will face little or no discipline for such disorderly conduct.The so-called heckler’s veto, once rarely invoked, is now commonplace. In popular parlance, the term is used to describe situations where hecklers or demonstrators are able to silence a speaker with little or no intervention by the law. In many cases the police arrest the speaker (not the heckler) for disturbing the peace. Although a number of courts have backed them up, case law over the years regarding heckler’s vetoes has been mixed: some decisions say that the speaker’s actions cannot be pre-emptively stopped for fear that hecklers will interrupt, but others assert that in the face of impending violence, authorities can quell the hecklers by forcing the speaker to stop. The latter-day dilution of free speech has been generated at least in part by the rise of postmodernism. While encompassing a broad range of ideas, that phenomenon is generally defined by skepticism, irony, or distrust towards traditional narratives, ideologies, and Enlightenment rationality, including various perceptions of human nature, morality, social progress, objective reality, absolute truth, and the whole concept of reasoned discourse. Instead, postmodernism asserts that knowledge and truth are products of unique social, historical, or political interpretations. On the other hand, postmodernism itself is difficult to define because to do so would violate its proponents’ premise that there are no definite terms, boundaries, or absolute truths. Over the past few years scholars of note have come to espouse distinctly opposing views regarding the rights and responsibilities of colleges and universities toward their students regarding freedom of speech on campus.This article traces the evolution of the case law surrounding hecklers’ vetoes, examines the erosion of free speech over the past half-century (particularly analyzing the debates among scholars about the causes and effects of postmodernism), and suggests ways by which speech can be protected on the contemporary campus without offending traditional Constitutional principles

    The Decline of Free Speech on the Postmodern Campus: The Troubling Evolution of the Heckler\u27s Veto

    Get PDF
    The Twenty-First Century has presented new challenges to the traditional ways that free speech in America has been encouraged and protected. While the right to express one’s opinions has become increasingly problematic in society at large, it is particularly imperiled in the very places that pride themselves as being open marketplaces of ideas – on college and university campuses.Today we’re faced with numerous campus speech codes that substantially limit First-Amendment rights. They are ubiquitous and often cavalierly invoked. For civil libertarians the good news is that not one of the few such codes that have been tested in court has been found constitutional; the bad news is that few have been tested. Moreover, the current codes come with new catch-phrases like “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” and “cultural appropriation” – all calculated in one way or another to shelter students and others from the honest give-and-take of discussion and debate about topics that might be controversial.Those with opinions that might challenge campus orthodoxies are rarely invited, and often disinvited after having been scheduled, or shouted down or otherwise disrupted. When protestors embroil visiting speakers, or break in on meetings to take them over and list demands, or even resort to violence, administrators often choose to look the other way. Students have come to take it for granted they will face little or no discipline for such disorderly conduct.The so-called heckler’s veto, once rarely invoked, is now commonplace. In popular parlance, the term is used to describe situations where hecklers or demonstrators are able to silence a speaker with little or no intervention by the law. In many cases the police arrest the speaker (not the heckler) for disturbing the peace. Although a number of courts have backed them up, case law over the years regarding heckler’s vetoes has been mixed: some decisions say that the speaker’s actions cannot be pre-emptively stopped for fear that hecklers will interrupt, but others assert that in the face of impending violence, authorities can quell the hecklers by forcing the speaker to stop. The latter-day dilution of free speech has been generated at least in part by the rise of postmodernism. While encompassing a broad range of ideas, that phenomenon is generally defined by skepticism, irony, or distrust towards traditional narratives, ideologies, and Enlightenment rationality, including various perceptions of human nature, morality, social progress, objective reality, absolute truth, and the whole concept of reasoned discourse. Instead, postmodernism asserts that knowledge and truth are products of unique social, historical, or political interpretations. On the other hand, postmodernism itself is difficult to define because to do so would violate its proponents’ premise that there are no definite terms, boundaries, or absolute truths. Over the past few years scholars of note have come to espouse distinctly opposing views regarding the rights and responsibilities of colleges and universities toward their students regarding freedom of speech on campus.This article traces the evolution of the case law surrounding hecklers’ vetoes, examines the erosion of free speech over the past half-century (particularly analyzing the debates among scholars about the causes and effects of postmodernism), and suggests ways by which speech can be protected on the contemporary campus without offending traditional Constitutional principles

    Defending Truth: The Quest for Honesty about Jews and Israel

    No full text
    The quest for truth has long been central to Western civilization and the academic enterprise, a prerequisite for honest discourse about ethics, law, and social order. So too have the problems and paradoxes of antisemitism persisted through the ages – as has the notion that they are endemic to the human condition and have been around for so long it is fruitless to fight them. But the countervailing urge to understand and explain the scourge of racial hatred and anti-Zionism, as well as the conviction that they can be substantially eradicated by sowing truth and honesty, likewise remains strong among freedom-loving people everywhere. DEFENDING TRUTH focuses on three areas that reflect the demonization of Jews and Israel over the past century: the continuing phenomenon of Holocaust denial, entrenched media bias in Mideast reporting, and the current worldwide effort to impose boycotts, divestment, and sanctions against Israeli academic, business, and state enterprises. By describing in detail the use of Big Lies and purposeful distortions to accomplish those ends, this book engages the difficult but necessary pursuit of an answer to the eternal query, how best can Truth be defended?https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/fac_books/1102/thumbnail.jp

    Why Trump Should Move US Embassy to Jerusalem

    No full text
    If President-elect Donald Trump is as much a man of his word as he says he is, he’ll move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem shortly after he takes office. There are good diplomatic and constitutional reasons for him to do so.Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act in 1995, which firmly asserted that “Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel” and that our embassy should be established there “no later than May 31, 1999.” (The vote was 93-5 in the Senate and 374-37 in the House.) But the law was never implemented – because presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama all came to view it as a congressional infringement on the executive branch’s constitutional authority over foreign policy, and consistently exercised a built-in presidential-waiver clause based on their perception of national security interests

    Sacred Cows, Holy Wars: Verities and Vagaries in Deciding What\u27s Kosher and What\u27s Not

    No full text
    All religions have their sacred cows and holy wars. None are more colorful or intriguing than what goes on in the burgeoning world of kosher food supervision. This book tells a colorful tale of religion, politics, and filthy lucre to present a spellbinding picture of canons and curiosities as well as a sobering examination of the limitations of law, the vagaries of religious disputes, and the verities of business ethics. From intrigues in the abattoirs to brawls in the boardrooms and shenanigans in the supermarkets, here is a compelling chronicle that should be of interest to readers regardless of their faiths or food preferences.https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/fac_books/1104/thumbnail.jp

    Session B: Is Law Review Scholarship Passé?

    No full text
    Led by Kenneth Lasson, University of Baltimore School of La

    Session B: Is Law Review Scholarship Passé?

    No full text
    Led by Kenneth Lasson, University of Baltimore School of La

    Religious Freedom and the Church-State Relationship in Maryland

    Get PDF
    • …
    corecore