Media Mentions

Harvard Law School researchers published a sweeping study Wednesday that confirmed what many people of color and criminal justice reform advocates have been saying for years: Black and Latino people make up a disproportionately high percentage of criminal cases in Massachusetts and, when convicted, are given longer sentences than their white counterparts...According to the study, which reviewed criminal cases that passed through Massachusetts courts between 2014 and 2016, Black people account for 6.5 percent of the state’s population, but 17.1 percent of criminal court cases; Latinos are 8.7 percent of the Massachusetts population, but accounted for 18.3 percent of the cases. White people, who make up 74 percent of the Massachusetts population, accounted for 58.7 percent of criminal court cases. Black people are also imprisoned at a rate 7.9 times that of white people and Latinos at 4.9 times than white people. Researchers considered factors other than race that may have contributed to the longer sentences received by people of color, including the defendants' criminal history and demographics, initial charge severity, court jurisdiction, and neighborhood characteristics. “Even after accounting for these characteristics, Black and Latinx people are still sentenced to 31 and 25 days longer than their similarly situated White counterparts, suggesting that racial disparities in sentence length cannot solely be explained by the contextual factors that we consider and permeate the entire criminal justice process,” researchers wrote...The study took four years to complete, and turned out to be a laborious undertaking. Researchers often encountered missing data, difficult-to-compile paper records and PDF files, public safety agencies that did not respond to their records requests, and the limitations of the state’s antiquated record-keeping system. In all, It took painstaking work to fill in gaps, said Brook Hopkins, executive director of the Criminal Justice Policy Program at Harvard Law School. “We were able to provide what I think is a good analysis, but that was hard. And it shows how the administrative criminal justice data is not collected in a way that makes this kind of analysis easy to do," Hopkins said.

Black and Latino defendants in Massachusetts are more likely than white defendants to be locked up for drug and weapons offenses and get longer sentences than white people sent to prison for similar crimes, researchers at Harvard Law School said in a report released Wednesday. In a yearslong study sought by the chief justice of Massachusetts’ highest court, Harvard researchers found significant racial disparities in the handling of weapons and drug cases, crimes they noted “carry longstanding racialized stigmas.” The disparities remain even “after controlling for charge severity and additional factors,” according to the report from the law school’s Criminal Justice Policy Program. The researchers found that racial disparities in the length of sentences are driven largely by the fact that that Black and Latino defendants tend to face more serious initial charges than white defendants. That puts Black and Latino defendants at risk of harsher punishments and can influence their decisions in plea negotiations, they wrote. “The penalty in incarceration length is largest for drug and weapons charges, offenses that carry longstanding racialized stigmas. We believe that this evidence is consistent with racially disparate initial charging practices leading to weaker initial positions in the plea bargaining process for Black defendants, which then translate into longer incarceration sentences for similar offenses,” the researchers wrote. The report comes amid a racial reckoning across the U.S. sparked by the killing of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police earlier this year. “At this time of national reckoning about race, we hope this report will inspire Massachusetts to confront the racial disparities that permeate our criminal system,” Brook Hopkins, executive director of the Criminal Justice Policy Program, said in an emailed statement.

A new report prompted by the huge overrepresentation of blacks and Latinos in Massachusetts prisons zeroes in on disparities at various stages of the court system’s handling of cases that are factors behind the disparate incarceration rates. The report, commissioned by Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Ralph Gants and carried out by researchers at Harvard Law School, found that among those who are incarcerated, black and Latinx defendants receive sentences that are, on average, about five months longer than sentences for white defendants. Meanwhile, white defendants are more likely than black and Latinx defendants to have cases resolved through pretrial probation or other dispositions that don’t lead to incarceration. Four years ago, Gants highlighted the huge racial disparities in incarceration rates in his annual address on the state of the judiciary, and announced that Harvard Law School dean Martha Minow had agreed to launch an independent evaluation of the factors driving those inequities. In the report released on Wednesday, researchers from the Criminal Justice Policy Program at Harvard Law School found that racial and ethnic differences in the type and severity of the initial criminal charge against defendants account for over 70 percent of the disparities in sentence length. “The initial charging decision is in fact a huge driver of these large disparities in who is incarcerated,” said Felix Owusu, a Harvard PhD student and co-author of the report. It was already well known that people of color are overrepresented in Massachusetts state prisons. A 2014 report of the Massachusetts Sentencing Commission found that the state was imprisoning black people at a rate of 7.9 times that of white people and Latinx residents at 4.9 times the rate of whites. The new report, using administrative data from the Massachusetts Trial Court, Department of Criminal Justice Information Services, and Department of Correction, attempts to break down racial disparities at various points as defendants move through the legal system.

A new stock exchange backed by Silicon Valley heavyweights is opening for business Wednesday. The Long-Term Stock Exchange can now trade all U.S. exchange-listed stocks, and it will now start soliciting new listings from companies that commit to policies around diversity, sustainability and long-term planning...Silicon Valley entrepreneur and "Lean Startup" author Ries designed the exchange to reward founders and investors who are thinking years down the road. Quarterly reports are still an SEC regulation, but the LTSE requires companies who list on the exchange to agree to a set of five principles designed to promote long-term thinking, including which stakeholders are important, a company's environmental and community impact, a company's approach to diversity, how a company invests in its own employees, and how it rewards them for its long-term success. The exchange doesn't set strict quotas or standardized rules, like requiring a woman on the board, but companies interested in listing have to set up policies that adhere to the principles to be eligible to list... "I'm in favor of experimentation, innovation and more competition — so I applaud those trying to make the LTSE work," Harvard professor Jesse Fried told Marker in February. "However, I have trouble seeing why the LTSE is necessary. R+D spending by public firms is at a record high in absolute terms and relative to revenues. Long-term investors have done and continue to do very well."

An article by Lucian Bebchuk and Roberto Tallarita: In The Illusory Promise of Stakeholder Governnace, which we will present at the Stigler Center’s Political Economy of Finance conference later this week, we critically examine “stakeholderism,” the increasingly influential view that corporate leaders should give weight to the interests of non-shareholder constituencies (stakeholders).  Acceptance of stakeholderism, we demonstrate, would not benefit stakeholders as supporters of this view claim. Corporate leaders have incentives, and should therefore be expected, not to use their discretion to benefit stakeholders beyond what would serve shareholder value. Furthermore, over the past two decades, corporate leaders have in fact failed to use this kind of discretion to protect stakeholders. Our analysis concludes that acceptance of stakeholderism should not be expected to make stakeholders better off. Embracing stakeholderism, we find, could well impose substantial costs on shareholders, stakeholders, and society at large. Stakeholderism would increase the insulation of corporate leaders from shareholders, reduce their accountability, and hurt economic performance. In addition, by raising illusory hopes that corporate leaders would on their own provide substantial protection to stakeholders, stakeholderism would impede or delay reforms that could bring meaningful protection to stakeholders. Stakeholderism would therefore be contrary to the interests of the stakeholders it purports to serve and should be opposed by those who take stakeholder interests seriously.

On the eve of Labor Day, as we pay tribute to workers’ contributions to the strength and well-being of America, and grieve for the millions who have lost their jobs in the pandemic, can we also shed a tear at the sad news of the unexpected death of David Graeber, author of the landmark book, Bullshit Jobs: A Theory (Simon + Schuster, 2018)? Graeber, a professor of anthropology at the London School of Economics, put his finger on an uncomfortable fact: our society is riddled with useless jobs that no one wants to talk about...Graeber put his finger on an even more worrying issue: the holders of these pointless positions, often know that their work is pointless. “Could there be anything more demoralizing than having to wake up in the morning five out of seven days of one’s adult life to perform a task that one secretly believed did not need to be performed — that was simply a waste of time or resources, or that even made the world worse ? Would this not be a terrible psychic wound running across our society?” ...Why didn't all the big old firms embrace Agile management? It was largely because they were hooked on the world's dumbest idea—maximizing shareholder value (MSV)...After the Business Round Table of August 2019, which condemned MSV, the executives had to pretend that they were actually helping all the stakeholders, even society as a whole, when the underlying reality remained the same: maximizing shareholder value. Thus, important research by Harvard Law professor Lucian Bebchuk and colleagues shows that firms that profess to be acting in the interests of all the stakeholders are mostly acting in the interest of the shareholders and the executives. Stakeholder capitalism is there “just for show.”

A group of prominent media veterans are advising a team of millennials who are launching a new company called "Column," which modernizes the placement of public notices. Why it matters: Public notices have been one of the biggest and most reliable revenue streams​ for local newspapers for centuries. Amid the pandemic, they are becoming more important to local papers that are seeing regular local advertising dry up. Catch up quick: Public notices are legally required updates from the government to citizens about different types of legal or regulatory proceedings, like ordinances, foreclosures, municipal budgets, adoptions, and public meetings. Like obituaries, the exact amount of revenue they deliver to the newspaper industry is debated, but they've long been considered a critical part of local newspaper businesses, due to a longstanding legal requirement for local governments to place them in newspapers...Details: The company has a full-time team of nine, and is supported and advised by many notable media experts, including David Chavern, CEO of the News Media Alliance and Nancy Gibbs, the faculty director of Harvard's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, and the former editor in chief of Time Magazine. It receives occasional informal advice from Marty Baron, executive editor of the Washington Post. The company is advised by several Harvard professors and entrepreneurs, including Jonathan Zittrain, co-founder of the Berkman Klein Center of Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, and Henry Ward, founder and CEO of Carta.

Switching from eating ‘land-hungry’ meat and dairy produce to foodstuffs like beans, lentils and nuts could remove 16 years’ worth of CO2 emissions by 2050. Researchers from the US calculated that broad uptake of such plant-based protein alternatives could free up land to support more ecosystems that absorb carbon. At present, around 83 per cent of the world’s agricultural land is given over to meat and dairy-based production — much of which only produce low yields. Reducing this figure, the team said, is a better way to combat climate change than waiting for ‘unproven’ large-scale technologies like atmospheric CO2 extractors. "The greatest potential for forest regrowth, and the climate benefits it entails, exists in high- and upper-middle income countries," said paper author and environmental scientist Matthew Hayek of New York University. These, he added, are "places where scaling back on land-hungry meat and dairy would have relatively minor impacts on food security." In the study, Professor Hayek and colleagues mapped out the areas of the globe where land use for animal-sourced food production has squeezed out native vegetation, such as forests. This allowed the team to determine where a shift in our diets to more plant-based foodstuffs could allow natural ecosystems to be restored — helping to offset global carbon dioxide emissions in the process... "We now know that intact, functioning ecosystems and appropriate wildlife habitat ranges help reduce the risk of pandemics," added environmental social scientist and Helen Harwatt of the Harvard Law School, a co-author on the study. "When coupled with reduced livestock populations, restoration reduces disease transmission from wildlife to pigs, chickens, and cows, and ultimately to humans." The full findings of the study were published in the journal Nature Sustainability.

An article by Cass Sunstein: Imagine, if you would, that it is Jan. 21, 2021, and that Joe Biden is president of the United States. The nation awaits his first executive order — a formal presidential decree, binding on the executive branch, that directs departments and agencies what to do. At 9 a.m., the executive order appears. Its name? “Scientific Integrity.” Here are its opening words: "Science and the scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my Administration on a wide range of issues, including improvement of public health, protection of the environment, increased efficiency in the use of energy and other resources, mitigation of the threat of climate change, and protection of national security." It continues: "The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions. Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions. If scientific and technological information is developed and used by the Federal Government, it should ordinarily be made available to the public." But that’s just the start. President Biden’s order gives unprecedented authority to the director of a relatively obscure White House office, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, to make scientific integrity real. It requires federal agencies to put new procedures in place, designed “to identify and address instances in which the scientific process or the integrity of scientific and technological information may be compromised.” To ensure that political leaders do not politicize science, it calls for protection of whistle-blowers.

A podcast by Noah Feldman: Adrian Hon, the CEO of the gaming company Six to Start, says the conspiracy theory QAnon is compelling to believers because it operates a bit like a virtual quest.

An article by Terri Gerstein: If you needed surgery and could choose your hospital, what questions would you ask in deciding where to go? You’d surely ask about insurance coverage and maybe about the success rate with your type of procedure. If you have enough money, you might ask about a private room. One question, though, that almost no one thinks to ask: Is the staff unionized? That omission is a mistake. Conservatives and corporations often paint a cartoonishly villainous picture of unions as greedily grabbing workers’ dues. This foolishness couldn’t be farther from the truth. Unions look out for their members, fighting for higher wages, better benefits and safer working conditions. They overwhelmingly deliver on those promises, including in the pandemic. But what’s discussed less often is the positive effects of unions that extend far beyond their members, benefiting the general public in surprising and unexpected ways. Want to improve health care? A study of California hospitals found that the risk of dying of a heart attack was 5.5 percent less in hospitals with unionized registered nurses. Another study compared patient outcomes at three sets of hospitals — those with successful, unsuccessful and no union drives — over a nine-year period. They found measurably better patient outcomes in the newly unionized workplaces in 12 of 13 categories potentially impacted by nursing care (urinary tract infections, hospital-acquired pneumonia or sepsis, wound infections and the like). Unions also fight for strict staffing ratios and higher wages, which can decrease adverse outcomes in nursing homes, including during the pandemic.

An article by Ben Waldman '23: Donald Trump bragged at the Republican convention that he “obliterated” ISIS “100 percent.” This victory has come despite Trump’s meddling, rather than as a result of it. In fact, he’s made many serious mistakes—and the sacrifice of others has camouflaged his blunders. For three years, Trump’s incompetence and affection for regional strongmen have endangered American lives and interests. Last month, even as Trump rehearsed his convention speech, four Americans were wounded during a confrontation with Russian forces in Syria. In the wake of Trump’s partial withdrawal from Syria last year, several nation-states and armed groups now struggle for territory—Russians, Syrians, Turks, Kurds, and Americans have dangerous encounters along Syria’s highways, jostling for regional control. In the most recent case, Russian vehicles charged at an American convoy, colliding with a U.S. vehicle at high speed. Northern Syria today is a gerrymandered mess, with different forces holding territory purely based on wherever they stood when Trump changed policy via tweet. In that jumbled terrain, Trump’s mismanagement has unthinkingly put Americans at risk, again and again. There’s been a clear pattern for Trump’s blunders in Syria: pro-authoritarian tweets from the White House, creating perilous experiences for American troops. Starting in 2017, Turkish-backed forces have continually shot at American patrols in northern Syria. U.S. troops sat exposed and outmatched in the town of Manbij, without the clear support of their own commander-in-chief, as Trump never condemned the treacherous behavior from a NATO ally. As we now know, Turkish president Recep Erdogan spoke to Trump as often as twice a week during this period. It’s unclear whether Trump was afraid, smitten, or some of each.

An article by Daniel Medwed and Samuel Magaram '21: It’s impossible to answer this question with precision. But, extrapolating from several studies that estimate the erroneous conviction rate nationwide at between 3 percent and 5 percent, Washington could be incarcerating upwards of 1,600 innocent people. Even if we don’t know the precise figure, we do know this: In a state rightfully proud of its progressivism, nearly nothing is being done to free them. This must change. Take the case of Deron Parks. Convicted of sexually assaulting a teenage boy and sentenced to life in prison, Parks secured his freedom only after petitioning the Washington state Supreme Court for a new trial. In the petition, Parks provided sworn statements from three witnesses that his appointed trial attorney failed to interview. They confirmed not only that Parks wasn’t there when the rape allegedly occurred, but also that the alleged victim had threatened Parks with false accusations. The puzzling aspect of Parks’s saga is not why he was convicted in the first place; rather, it is why prosecutors fought to keep him in prison so tenaciously and for so long in the face of compelling evidence of his innocence. The prosecutor who opposed Parks’ petition is still convinced of Parks’ guilt, explaining recently that she “believed the victim, and his account of what happened seemed credible.” This certitude illustrates the psychological factors and organizational pressures that prevent well-meaning prosecutors from recognizing wrongful convictions. Although judges are empowered to release wrongfully convicted persons, it is really prosecutors who can set the innocent free. Law professors Bruce Green and Ellen Yaroshefsky explain that “[t]he legal process holds out little hope for wrongfully convicted defendants … in the absence of help from prosecutors” to “evaluate, investigate, and respond to new exculpatory evidence.”

For 14 years, Cariol Holloman-Horne has held firm that she did the right thing when she tried to stop a fellow Buffalo cop who she says was choking a man he was trying to arrest. Horne lost her job and also her full police pension. She's worked odd jobs, mostly recently as a truck driver. At times, she has lived out of her car. She tried numerous times and through numerous avenues to try to get her pension and also pass laws to require police to intervene when another one is going too far...The cellphone video of George Floyd dying under the knee of a Minneapolis police officer set off a firestorm of outrage, not just at Derek Chauvin but also the three other police officers who are seen standing by and doing nothing to stop Chauvin. Suddenly, Horne’s story has new resonance...Horne recently gained powerful new allies: She is represented by a legal team that includes Ronald Sullivan and Intisar Rabb of Harvard Law School. Sullivan and his team represented the family of Michael Brown, a Black teenager whose shooting death by a white police officer in Ferguson, Mo., sparked unrest there in 2014. “Honored to now represent @CariolHorne – former Buffalo police officer terminated after she intervened when a fellow officer employed a chokehold against an unarmed black man,” he tweeted July 10. The Common Council appears poised to enact at least part of Horne's proposal by making the duty to intervene a law and not just a police department policy, as it is now.

For the most part, fictional characters rarely recognize when they’re trapped in a dystopia...To them, that dystopia is just life. Which suggests that—were we, at this moment, living in a dystopia ourselves—we might not even notice it...Is this, right here, the tech-dystopia we were worried about? For this week’s Giz Asks, we reached out to a number of experts with differing opinions...Jonathan Zittrain: "Yes, in the sense that so many of us feel rightly that instead of empowering us, technology is used against us—most especially when it presents itself as merely here to help. I’ve started thinking of some of our most promising tech, including machine learning, as like asbestos: it’s baked wholesale into other products and services so we don’t even know we’re using it; it becomes pervasive because it seems to work so well, and without any overlay of public interest on its installation; it’s really hard to account for, much less remove, once it’s in place; and it carries with it the possibility of deep injury both now and down the line. I’m not anti-tech. But I worry greatly about the deployment of such power with so little thought given to, and so few boundaries against, its misuse, whether now or later. More care and public-minded oversight goes into someone’s plans for an addition to a house than to what can be or become a multi-billion dollar, multi-billion-user online platform. And while thanks to their power, and the trust placed in them by their clients, we recognize structural engineers, architects, lawyers, and doctors as members of learned professions—with duties to their clients and to the public that transcend a mere business agreement—we have yet to see that applied to people in data science, software engineering, and related fields who might be in a position to recognize and prevent harm as it coalesces. There are ways out of this. But it first requires abandoning the resignation that so many have come to about business as usual."

An article by Ifeoma Ajunwa: With the resurgence of the #BlackLivesMatter movement, many organizations have found themselves examining issues of racial equity in the workplace. Just yesterday, President Trump called for federal government agencies to stop all anti-racism training sessions and called anti-racism training, “un-American.” About a month ago, an article in the New York Times magazine also questioned the efficacy of antiracism training for organizations. The central premise of this article seemed to be that antiracism was a scam. Prior to this, a Forbes article from earlier this year, also explicitly asked if organizational diversity and inclusion programs were scams. While the term “scam” seems to imply willful duplicity on the part of the antiracist training programs, I want to identify the actual organizational reasons why antiracism training might fail and what organizations can do about it. First, it’s important to understand that the problem of racial disparities in the workplace is organizational and not just a matter of a few bad apples or just changing the mindsets of bigoted employees. The sociologist Victor Ray has done important work theorizing the role of race in organizations as embedded in both the rules and resource allocation of the organization. That work builds upon the work of sociologists like Eduardo Bonilla Silva, who argues that racism is not just a matter of personal views, rather it’s about systemic practice. Given that racism can be entrenched in both the structure and culture of organizations, antiracism training alone can never be enough to change things. Rather, it is important to identify the organizational issues that could enable racial inequity within organizations. Here are some of those issues.

An article by Terri Gerstein: These are tough times for workers, with COVID-related risks layered atop a grossly distorted power disparity that has long enabled businesses to degrade working conditions and violate labor laws. Workers and unions have been fighting back with strikes, lawsuits, walkouts, and more. But they shouldn’t have to do it alone. One basic function of government is keeping people safe. Another is enforcing the law. Unfortunately, President Trump’s labor team has barely lifted a finger to help workers. Enter state attorneys general. In recent years, a number of them have been increasingly involved in workers’ rights, as documented in an Economic Policy Institute and Harvard Labor and Worklife Program report issued last month. State attorneys general (AGs) represent their states in court when they’re sued, and also bring legal cases to protect the general public. They’ve taken on heroic battles—fighting Big Tobacco in the 1990s and the opioid industry today—and also stopped more-prosaic consumer frauds and scams. Historically, protecting workers hasn’t been on their menu. But in the past several years, state AGs have begun bringing cases to protect working people, from big-headline lawsuits against Uber and Lyft, to more local cases involving a juice bar, a cleaning company, and a security guard business. They’ve fought wage theft by restaurants and home health agencies, the sexual harassment of women farmworkers and hard hats, and the misclassification of workers as independent contractors, rather than employees, by construction, education, and other companies. State AGs have also acted to preserve job mobility by fighting against the use of noncompete agreements, which prevent people from being able to take a job with their bosses’ competitors. In consequence, Jimmy John’s sandwich shops, the co-working company WeWork, and others curtailed their use of such agreements.

On a June afternoon in 2019, in front of a statue of George Washington at Federal Hall in New York City’s financial district, more than 100 construction workers and activists gathered for a First Amendment rally...The challenge to these workers came from a seemingly unlikely quarter: the National Labor Relations Board, a federal agency responsible for interpreting and enforcing labor law...But with management-side lawyers dominating the agency, which is run by a five-seat board and a general counsel, labor advocates say the NLRB is more stridently anti-labor than ever before and is sabotaging its own mission. Not only has Trump’s board consistently sided with bosses, but career civil servants at the NLRB’s regional branches say they are being deprived of funding and staff...Sharon Block, the director of Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and an NLRB member under Obama, said that during the pandemic, it was “incumbent on worker protection agencies like the [NLRB]…to be exceptionally vigilant on behalf of workers and attuned to violations of their rights, because it is so hard to feel secure enough to speak out. [But] this is a board that we watched operate for three years in a way that would not give that kind of security to workers.” Nonetheless, she added, the systemic problems with enforcing the National Labor Relations Act go beyond the Trump administration. “Even with board members…and a general counsel with the best of intentions who really believe in the spirit and the purpose of the act, it’s just a tool that doesn’t work anymore.” The Labor and Worklife Program wants to overhaul labor law and extend protections to domestic and undocumented workers. It also advocates for sectoral bargaining, which would enable workers in an industry to negotiate en masse.

An article by Noah Feldman: With each passing day, there is more reason to think that President Donald Trump’s Food and Drug Administration may issue an emergency use authorization for two or more Covid-19 vaccines in late October. In an ideal world, this would be terrific news. We are, after all, in the grip of a major global emergency. Roughly 1,000 Americans die from the virus every day, or roughly one every 80 seconds. A vaccine would save lives. Yet an emergency use authorization, or EUA, is likely to be met with pervasive skepticism by many Americans, and not only Democrats. The reason isn’t hard to see. Trump has tried over the last four years to politicize nearly every aspect of independent judgment by government officials. He has delegitimized agencies like the Department of Justice and the FBI, which he sees as threats, and attacked institutions from the judiciary to the post office when it has suited his political purposes. Now, Trump (and the rest of us) are about to inherit the whirlwind. At precisely the moment when we could benefit massively from public trust in independent agency judgment, our trust is shot. Trump critics have become accustomed to distrusting Trump’s agencies, much as Trump himself has somewhat successfully convinced his own supporters that there is no such thing as governmental objectivity or independence, but only politics all the way down. Even if there is good reason for the EUA to be issued and for people who have the opportunity to receive the vaccines to do so, some — perhaps many — rational people aren’t going to trust the FDA enough to make that choice.

An article by Cass Sunstein: The White House has powerful reasons to fear the electoral repercussions of reported comments by President Donald Trump in which he is alleged to have described fallen soldiers as “suckers” and “losers.” Those comments threaten his most important political advantage. To see why, we need to back up a bit. Jonathan Haidt, a social scientist at New York University, has specified some of the central differences between conservatives and liberals. He identified five foundations for moral judgments: harm, fairness, loyalty, authority and sanctity. Both the right and the left care about harm and fairness, even if they do not understand them the same way. But the right cares far more about loyalty, authority and sanctity. A mountain of evidence supports this conclusion. If, for example, people have been disloyal to their nation or their family, shown disrespect to their superiors, or done something disgusting, conservatives will be far more likely to show outrage. If you ask Americans how much they would have to be paid to burn their nation’s flag, or to curse their parents to their face, people on the left might demand a lot of money. But people on the right will demand more, and they might say that no amount is high enough. Building on Haidt’s work, Harvard economist Benjamin Enke has studied the rhetoric of numerous recent presidential candidates, and found that one has done better than all others in emphasizing loyalty, authority and sanctity: Trump. On the same scales, Hillary Clinton was especially bad. (Barack Obama was far better.) Enke also found that Trump’s emphasis on these values mattered to many voters, and attracted them to his side.

Soon after learning that “Black Panther” star Chadwick Boseman had died at age 43, fans urged Marvel Studios not to recast the role, setting up a dilemma for the studio planning a sequel to Hollywood’s first major superhero film with a predominantly Black cast. Writers, academics and activists - speaking to Reuters about the film’s cultural impact and Boseman’s performance - believe Marvel and its parent company, Walt Disney Co, should honor Boseman’s legacy with a storyline that anoints a new Black Panther from the film’s existing cast or elsewhere in the Marvel Universe... “‘Black Panther’ the film was a huge cultural landmark,” said Alan Jenkins, a professor of practice at Harvard Law School. “One part of what made the film so important was the world of Wakanda and the idea of an African nation unchained by colonialism, slave trade, exploitation. It had dignity, brilliance and technology.” Today “Black Panther” is even more relevant, as Black Americans disproportionately suffer from COVID-19 and die at the hands of police, cultural experts say. The aspirational Wakanda provides an antidote to that suffering. “The film certainly didn’t cause the activism of today - that was from the tragic killing of George Floyd and others,” said Jenkins. “But it contributed to an environment where we can see new realities and imagine a world that is more just and equitable than the one in which we live.”