Cass Sunstein

An op-ed by Cass Sunstein. Last month, the University of Chicago appeared to pick sides in the latest iteration of America's culture wars. But it was really announcing just how silly those culture wars are -- and how to get past them. The school informed incoming students that its “commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called 'trigger warnings,' we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual 'safe spaces' where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own." Conservatives saw the letter as a political intervention, a courageous stand against “political correctness” -- as if the University of Chicago shared the concern of Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and others about left-wing orthodoxy on campus, in the media and political debates. But the letter’s real lesson lies elsewhere. It’s a political intervention that doesn't involve contemporary political issues at all.

An op-ed by Cass Sunstein. Almost immediately after a new administration takes office, it must decide on its approach to releasing information. In early 2017, incoming officials should mount an unprecedentedly aggressive transparency initiative -- above all, to disclose online, promptly and even automatically, the final products of their own fact-finding and policy-making processes. If you are skeptical about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, you will think that such an initiative is unlikely. But hear me out. It could well turn out to be appealing to both of them.

Harvard Law professors rank highest nationwide in the judicial impact of their legal scholarship, according to a new study examining citations of law review articles by U.S. high courts, but no women scholars across the country placed in the top 25. The study ranked the top 25 law professors according to the number of judicial citations their scholarly works receive, and Harvard Law School professors Richard H. Fallon, Cass R. Sunstein ’75, and John F. Manning ’82 claimed the top three spots...Fallon described the challenge law professors face in trying to bridge two groups—“practicing lawyers and judges” and “more theoretically minded professors and students”—whose interests often diverge. “I would like to think that we at Harvard Law School do a good job at keeping a foot successfully in both camps.”...Manning, who wrote in an email that he believes that judicial citations are not the most meaningful measure of scholarly impact, thinks that women should already rank higher. “By any reasonable measure of quality of legal scholarship (which citation counts capture only very imperfectly), there are certainly women who belong in the top 25,” he wrote.

Chief Justice John Roberts may not think much of legal scholarship coming out of the academy these days, but judges (or at least their clerks) do read law reviews. That much is apparent in a new study gauging the judicial impact of articles published in peer-reviewed and student-edited law journals. ...Below is the paper’s ranking of professors by judicial citations. The top three all come from Harvard law school: constitutional scholars Richard Fallon and Cass Sunstein and administrative law professor John Manning. UCLA professor and Washington Post legal blogger Eugene Volokh and Yale professor Akhil Amar follow right below them.

An op-ed by Cass Sunstein...Which brings us to Donald Trump. No one should deny that Islamic terrorists want to kill Americans, and Trump is right to emphasize the need for careful screening procedures to keep Americans safe. But by branding his political opponents as in league with terrorists, and in calling for a new kind of Cold War, Trump is engaging in a form of 21st-century McCarthyism. In some ways, he’s outdoing McCarthy. The most alarming line in Trump’s national security speech this week has received far too little attention. It wasn’t his claim that we should admit only those people who “share our values.” Nor was it his vague proposal for a new “immigration screening test.” The most alarming line was his identification of “the common thread linking the major Islamic terrorist attacks that have recently occurred on our soil,” which turns out to be “that they have involved immigrants or the children of immigrants.”

In nearly eight years in office, President Obama has sought to reshape the nation with a sweeping assertion of executive authority and a canon of regulations that have inserted the United States government more deeply into American life. Once a presidential candidate with deep misgivings about executive power, Mr. Obama will leave the White House as one of the most prolific authors of major regulations in presidential history...The new president had a skeptical streak when it came to the value of regulation, influenced by his friend Cass R. Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor who had long argued that the government should more rigorously assess the benefits of new regulations. Mr. Obama liked that idea so much that he named Mr. Sunstein to lead the White House office that oversees rule-making.

An op-ed by Cass Sunstein. At the Olympics, we’re witnessing some serious cases of public shaming. Victorious competitors are publicly ostracizing those who once used performance-enhancing drugs. To take just one example, Australian Mack Horton, gold medalist in the 400-meter freestyle, pointedly refused even to acknowledge China’s silver medalist Sun Yang, who had been suspended for doping. “I don’t have time or respect for drug cheats,” Horton said later. Horton and others are aggressively asserting the social norm against drug use. By ostracizing those who violate that norm, they’re giving some important clues about the functions of norms in general -- and how they can be fortified.

An op-ed by Cass Sunstein. A federal court this week upheld the approach that the government uses to calculate the social cost of carbon when it issues regulations -- and not just the cost imposed on Americans, but on people worldwide. It’s technical stuff, but also one of the most important climate change rulings ever. The social cost of carbon is meant to capture the economic damage of a ton of carbon emissions. The assumptions that go into the analysis, and the resulting number, matter a lot, because they play a key role in the cost-benefit analysis for countless regulations

An op-ed by Cass Sunstein. Improbably, the U.S. Constitution has become a runaway bestseller. The reason, of course, is Khizr Khan’s speech at the Democratic convention, and in particular these words posed to the Republican presidential nominee: “Let me ask you: Have you even read the United States constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy.” Pointedly, Khan added, “In this document, look for the words 'liberty' and 'equal protection of law.'” Khan’s words have pointed the Constitution's thousands of fresh readers toward a text that might well surprise them. Still, James Madison, father of the founding document, would be pleased.

An op-ed by Cass Sunstein. When President Barack Obama is trying to persuade Americans not to do something, he has a go-to line: “That’s not who we are.” Whether the issue involves discrimination, immigration, torture, criminal violence or health care, he invokes the nation’s very identity. And he likes to follow it by adding, “We are better than that.” In this way, throughout his political career, Obama has embraced the American tradition of rugged individualism, while arguing that it has always been bound by “an enduring sense that we are in this together.” America, he says, is “sustained by the idea that I am my brother’s keeper and I am my sister’s keeper.” Indeed, Obama’s constant emphasis on “who we are” is his most original contribution to presidential rhetoric.

An op-ed by Cass Sunstein. Donald Trump last night offered a funhouse mirror version of one of the greatest speeches in American history: Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s first inaugural address, in 1933. In the midst of a genuine crisis, the Great Depression, FDR began by emphasizing his “firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror.” Trump sought to foster exactly that. For Trump, “America is a more dangerous environment for everyone than frankly I have ever seen and anybody in this room has ever watched or seen." Quietly and wryly, Roosevelt observed, “We are stricken by no plague of locusts.” He added: “Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for.”

Harvard law professor and author Cass R. Sunstein took a break from his typically complex, footnote-filled texts to write a book analyzing one of the biggest pop culture phenomena of all time: "Star Wars." In "The World According to Star Wars", Sunstein breaks down the origins of the "Star Wars" mythology, the reasons it became (and is still) so successful and also finds myriad parallels between the events chronicled in the science fiction saga and those happening in today's geopolitical landscape. We asked Sunstein if he sees any parallels between "Star Wars" and the rise of presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump.

An op-ed by Cass Sunstein. Many Democrats do not merely disagree with the Republican Party platform and with the speakers at this week’s convention. They may even struggle to understand what they are reading and hearing. That’s a problem for Republican politicians, who hope to connect with Democratic voters, but even more for Democrats, who hope to keep the presidency and to capture the Senate. The reason is that Republicans are appealing to deep and honorable strands in American political culture, which Democrats ignore at their peril.

An op-ed by Cass Sunstein. In recent years, Republicans have argued that Congress is a more responsible policymaker than the executive branch. But when it comes to regulation, Congress is often much worse, and for just one reason: Executive agencies almost always focus on both costs and benefits, and Congress usually doesn’t. As a case in point, consider the Senate’s recent vote, by a margin of 63-30, in favor of a new law to require national labels for foods containing genetically modified organisms. The House is expected to pass the bill in the near future. However popular it might be, the coming law would almost certainly fail the minimal requirements that American presidents -- from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama -- have imposed on federal regulators before they can finalize similar rules.

An op-ed by Cass Sunstein. Facebook has a lot to learn from John Stuart Mill, one of history’s greatest thinkers about freedom and democracy. In 1834, Mill wrote, “It is hardly possible to overstate the value, in the present low state of human improvement, of placing human beings in contact with other persons dissimilar to themselves, and with modes of thought and action unlike those with which they are familiar. . . . Such communication has always been, and is peculiarly in the present age, one of the primary sources of progress.” Last week Facebook announced a change in its News Feed service, designed to put human beings in contact with people similar to themselves, and with modes of thought and action like those with which they are familiar. That is not progress.

An op-ed by Cass Sunstein. Whether or not it was justified, Britain's vote to leave the European Union was rooted, in large part, in a widespread sense of outrage. To understand the underlying political psychology, and see how to respond to it, it’s important to know something about outrage in general. A few years ago, Daniel Kahneman of Princeton, David Schkade of the University of San Diego and I teamed up to study how ordinary people think about punishment. We looked in particular at punitive damages, which juries award in the face of egregious misconduct -- say, when tobacco companies have hidden information about the health risks of smoking, or when a manufacturer has sold toys that it knows are dangerous to children. One important thing we learned was that people’s judgments are driven mainly by outrage.

An op-ed by Cass Sunstein. In refusing to strike down a race-conscious admissions plan at the University of Texas at Austin on Thursday, the Supreme Court did more than uphold an affirmative action program. Just as important, it struck a much-needed blow for judicial modesty. The justices showed an awareness that others might know better than they do. We could use a lot more of that. The crucial part of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion came toward the end. “Considerable deference is owed to a university," he wrote, "in defining those intangible characteristics, like student body diversity, that are central to its identity and educational mission.”

An op-ed by Cass Sunstein. Who's better, Michael Jordan or LeBron James? (Jordan, because he'd rip your heart out.) Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Delano Roosevelt? (FDR, because he saved the country twice, and because he was cheerful rather than melancholy, and more characteristically American.) Taylor Swift or Adele? (Swift, by a million miles, because her sense of mischief and fun ensures that she is never, ever saccharine.) Ronald Reagan orBarack Obama? (Obama, but I worked for him for four years, so I'm biased.) "Star Wars" or "Star Trek"?

An op-ed by Cass Sunstein. Congress is in the midst of a breakdown in longstanding institutional norms. The latest example is the Senate’s refusal to hold confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court -- a refusal that is probably without precedent. But something broader is occurring, and it threatens to undermine the federal government’s ability to carry out its central functions. To see what has happened and what might be done about it, we should say something about norms in general.

Cass R. Sunstein is a professor at Harvard Law School, a former official in the Obama administration, an expert in behavioral science and constitutional jurisprudence, and the author of many books, including the best-selling (and somewhat controversial) “Nudge.” He is, in other words, a formidably accomplished intellectual, an authority on matters that lie beyond the ken of most ordinary citizens. But he is also a regular guy: a son, a father and a big fan of the “Star Wars” movies. His latest book, “The World According to Star Wars,” a kind of lay sermon on a sacred pop-cultural text, tries to fuse the strands of his identity, to bring his intelligence and expertise to bear on a phenomenon that is widely known and easily understood and to use that phenomenon to illuminate more arcane matters.

An op-ed by Cass Sunstein. Bernie Sanders won't be the Democratic presidential nominee, yet so far he refuses to concede to Hillary Clinton, pledging to "continue to fight for every vote and every delegate we can get.” This is more than just stubbornness: Even if he bows out soon, Sanders and his supporters appear to believe more strongly than ever that the system is rigged against him and that Clinton is a captive of the banks -- and that Democratic voters have been rising up in support of his “political revolution, ” regardless of the actual vote count. What happened? The Sanders campaign has become a classic example of the phenomenon of “group polarization,” arguably more so than any campaign in recent memory -- even Donald Trump's, which has greatly benefited from the same phenomenon.