Search

When the Supreme Court of the United States decided San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, the Court's five-to-four decision not only closed the door to federal courts to predominantly Mexican American low-income students seeking constitutional protection against unequal public education; it also rejected claims of federal constitutional right to equal educational opportunity, rebuffed calls for heightened judicial scrutiny of classifications drawn on the basis of wealth or poverty, and let stand unaltered school finance arrangements producing different per pupil expenditures depending solely on where students live. Setbacks though can inspire. Faced with the decision in Rodriguez, advocates pursued efforts in federal legislation reforms, expanded federal aid to schools with predominantly lowincome students, and state-based litigation and reform efforts. And because the Rodriguez decision rejected stringent judicial scrutiny of wealth-based classifications, it opened the door to the use of socioeconomic status as a priority for admission to educational programs. Such creative responses are also legacies of Rodriguez. Current serious challenges can and should similarly elicit resilient and inventive approaches, including the uses of digital and technology resources as well as greater self-direction for students and their teachers in a world soon to be reshaped by readily available artificial intelligence resources. Although disappointment with public schooling has led families of different racial, ethnic, and income groups to pursue charter schools, vouchers or tax credits for use in private schools or family-funded private schooling, and homeschooling, new technologies and resources can strengthen equal educational opportunities for all children in the nation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the United States, employers, schools, and governments can face two competing legal requirements regarding racial classifications: on the one hand, there are legal restrictions against conscious uses of racial classifications, and on the other hand, there are rules forbidding racially disparate impacts. Growing use of machine learning and other predictive algorithmic tools heightens this tension as employers and other actors use tools that make choices about contrasting definitions of equality and anti-discrimination; design algorithmic practices against explicit or implicit uses of certain personal characteristics associated with historic discrimination; and address inaccuracies and biases in the data and algorithmic practices. Justice Rosalie Abella's approach to equality issues, highly influential in Canadian law, offers guidance by directing decision makers to (a) acknowledge and accommodate differences in people's circumstances and identities; (b) resist attributing to personal choice the patterns and practices of society, including different starting points and opportunities; and (c) resist consideration of race or other group identities as justification when used to harm historically disadvantaged groups, but permit such consideration when intended to remedy historic exclusions or economic disadvantages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the United States, employers, schools, and governments can face two competing legal requirements regarding racial classifications: on the one hand, there are legal restrictions against conscious uses of racial classifications, and on the other hand, there are rules forbidding racially disparate impacts. Growing use of machine learning and other predictive algorithmic tools heightens this tension as employers and other actors use tools that make choices about contrasting definitions of equality and anti-discrimination; design algorithmic practices against explicit or implicit uses of certain personal characteristics associated with historic discrimination; and address inaccuracies and biases in the data and algorithmic practices. Justice Rosalie Abella's approach to equality issues, highly influential in Canadian law, offers guidance by directing decision makers to (a) acknowledge and accommodate differences in people's circumstances and identities; (b) resist attributing to personal choice the patterns and practices of society, including different starting points and opportunities; and (c) resist consideration of race or other group identities as justification when used to harm historically disadvantaged groups, but permit such consideration when intended to remedy historic exclusions or economic disadvantages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on government failed to encourage, and even forbade as anticompetitive, a proposal from the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) to self-regulate by capping advertisements per hour in the early 1960s. It mentions advocacy groups and governmental actors to explore industry self-regulation avenues for social media's targeted ads and content moderation. It also mentions propels misinformation and disinformation, and poses national security concerns.

The article discusses the role of law in conflicts over religion and equal treatment. It tackles the U.S. Supreme Court case 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, which challenged Colorado's public accommodation law that forbids a business from refusing to serve an individual or group on the basis of characteristics such as sexual orientation. It explores examples of disputes about religion and discrimination and considers alternative approaches including proportionality, federalism and negotiation.

“It has been my pleasure to be a sounding board and advisor to many people who consider becoming law professors and yet it has not always been easy to introduce people considering their own research projects to reflect on how their ideas connect with the varieties of legal scholarship. One day I decided to write up a ‘field guide,’ meant to be rather like the guides to birds that offer pictures and descriptions to assist the casual or serious birdwatcher. After sharing it and revising it, I have learned that this ‘guide’ now travels underground and electronically, so I thought it time to give it an official publication, and the Journal’s editors kindly agreed. The explosion of interdisciplinary research in law contributes to the variety of legal scholarship. So does the contrast between ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ thinking in law schools where we try both to equip people for practice and effectiveness within existing institutions and for roles as critics, institutional reformers, and scholars who may explain and analyze in terms quite different from those in the minds of actors operating within existing legal systems. So here with an invitation for supplements, critiques, and revisions is my Archetypal Legal Scholarship: A Field Guide.” So began the first published version of this guide, published after several years of underground distribution. Now taught in law school workshops on scholarship and shared across faculty and students, this guide deserves to be updated. With enlarged categories, additional and more recent examples, and further thoughts about the writing process, the guide now has a co-author, who has used it for years in advising students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]