Media Mentions

An op-ed by Lawrence Lessig. There’s a bunch of chatter about imminent action by the special prosecutor. Some of that chatter suggests evidence of a real tie with Russia during the election. By “real tie” I mean more than that the Russians tried to help. A “real tie” would be real evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. I don’t know if I believe it. I certainly haven’t seen clear evidence of it. And I don’t think it’s appropriate to speculate about whether there is clear evidence of it or not.

Deconstructing the multifarious and complex questions around migration and globalization may be the most direct route to a solution for the migration crisis facing the world today, Harvard experts said last week. Questions about its ethical, legal, social, cultural, and economic implications were the focus of the Harvard Global Institute’s second annual symposium on effecting resolution to critical issues...Panelist Sabrineh Ardalan, assistant director at the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program and assistant clinical professor of law at Harvard Law School, said her work at the clinic gives her an up-close view of the burdens on asylum seekers to prove their eligibility for protection, demonstrate creditability, and provide corroborating evidence. Applications for asylum have doubled since 2014, with 260,000 filed last year. “Every day, our clinic gets at least one phone call, and usually many more, from someone desperate looking for a place to call home, lost in the bureaucratic mess of our immigration system,” she said.

An essay by Jeannie Suk Gersen...The removal of Trump using the Twenty-fifth Amendment is the aim of a newly launched social movement composed of mental-health professionals. The group, called Duty to Warn, claims that Donald Trump “suffers from an incurable malignant narcissism that makes him incapable of carrying out his presidential duties and poses a danger to the nation.” On Saturday, the organization held coördinated kickoff events in fourteen cities, where mental-health experts spoke out about Trump’s dangerousness and, in several, took to the streets in organized funereal marches, complete with drum corps.

In the media world, as in so many other realms, there is a sharp discontinuity in the timeline: before the 2016 election, and after. Things we thought we understood—narratives, data, software, news events—have had to be reinterpreted in light of Donald Trump’s surprising win as well as the continuing questions about the role that misinformation and disinformation played in his election...In June 2014, Harvard Law scholar Jonathan Zittrain wrote an essay in New Republic called, “Facebook Could Decide an Election Without Anyone Ever Finding Out,” in which he called attention to the possibility of Facebook selectively depressing voter turnout. (He also suggested that Facebook be seen as an “information fiduciary,” charged with certain special roles and responsibilities because it controls so much personal data.)

An unprecedented effort to force President Trump and other White House hopefuls to disclose their personal income tax returns was blocked by Gov. Jerry Brown on Sunday, who argued the plan would likely be overturned by the courts. Brown's veto of Senate Bill 149 put him at odds with legislative Democrats who insisted its mandate for five years of income tax information would help voters make an informed choice...Laurence Tribe, a Harvard University law professor, insisted that the California bill would pass constitutional muster. He and two other legal scholars wrote that the proposal fell on the side of being constitutionally allowed when evaluating "permissible ballot access laws and impermissible attempts to add qualifications."

We know the number of blacks in the profession is still abysmal, but what about those who graduate from tippy-top law schools? Do they enjoy an advantage? The short answer is yes—with qualifiers. That's the finding of Harvard Law School's 2016 study of its black alumni authored by Harvard law professor David Wilkins, the report takes an exhaustive look at the career patterns of black graduates from 2000-2016, painting a picture that's both hopeful and ominous...In fact, respondents to the survey rated HLS's prestige factor (the "H-Bomb") as "extremely important" to their career advancement, outranking all diversity initiatives. "It provides credential and network—and those things are way more important if you're black," says Wilkins.

An op-ed by Phil Caruso `18. In 2014, during my second deployment to Afghanistan, I stood and watched the sun set over Iran. Tensions were high over Iran’s nuclear program, and I knew that if a solution could not be reached, the U.S. military might be called upon to denuclearize Iran forcefully. Thankfully, that day never came. Now, however, I wonder again.

An op-ed by Patricia Smith and Sharon Block. The clock is ticking. Will the Labor Department appeal a judge’s recent decision that could deny overtime pay to millions of Americans? Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta has been clear that he doesn’t like the Obama administration’s overtime rule, insisting that he wants to reconsider it and possibly make one of his own. But he needs to appeal the judge’s decision regardless, otherwise he’s creating uncertainty that isn’t good for anyone. This summer, the Labor Department issued a formal “request for information” to get public feedback on which white collar employees should get overtime pay.

An op-ed by Benjamin Sachs. Last Sunday, Jerry Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys, said he would bench players who did not stand during the national anthem. This threat was publicized nationally and applauded on Twitter by President Trump, who summarized the two men’s shared view: “Stand for Anthem or sit for game!” On Wednesday, the president elaborated on his views, telling Fox News that the NFL “should have suspended” Colin Kaepernick for kneeling during the anthem because “you cannot disrespect our country, our flag, our anthem — you cannot do that.” It is quite possible the players have First Amendment protection against retaliation of this kind.

In what was hailed as a major victory for labor unions, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in 2015 redefined what constitutes a “joint employer,” ruling that any company that has “indirect” control over a business can be held responsible if that business violates labor law. In practice this has meant that a corporation such as McDonald’s can be held liable if its franchises are illegally withholding pay to employees or otherwise breaking the law. Now, a new bill could reverse that decision and make it much harder to hold large corporations accountable...“It’s really disingenuous and not truthful to say that what this bill does is undo [the NLRB’s] decision,” Sharon Block, executive director of the Labor and Worklife Program at Harvard Law School, tells In These Times.

An essay by Jeannie Suk Gersen. In 2010, as Cyrus Vance, Jr., took office as Manhattan’s new District Attorney, he promised that “crimes committed by the affluent, the powerful, or by public officials will be investigated and prosecuted as vigorously as street crimes.” Today, his office’s failures to prosecute the affluent and the powerful threaten to define Vance’s tenure as D.A., even as he heads for unopposed reëlection to his third term, on November 7th.

An op-ed by Cass Sunstein. On Oct. 9, Richard Thaler of the University of Chicago won the Nobel Prize for his extraordinary, world-transforming work in behavioral economics. In its press release, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences emphasized that Thaler demonstrated how nudging – or influencing people while fully maintaining freedom of choice – “may help people exercise better self-control when saving for a pension, as well in other contexts.” In terms of Thaler’s work on what human beings are actually like, that’s the tip of the iceberg – but it’s a good place to start...Some skeptics have raised concerns that nudging can be akin to manipulation. My research shows most people disagree – and welcome nudges that help them live better lives.

An op-ed by Lawrence Lessig and Richard Painter. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer had just described a system in which “if party A wins a majority of votes, party A controls the legislature. That seems fair,” he said. Chief Justice John Roberts then jumped in: “If you need a convenient label for that approach,” Roberts offered, “you can call it ‘proportional representation,’ which has never been accepted as a political principle in the history of this country.” Most Americans would agree with Breyer that in a democracy, it is only “fair” that the party that gets more votes gets more seats. But Roberts was making a narrower point: His claim could not have been — because it would have been absurd — that in our tradition of representative democracy, the winner shouldn’t win.

An op-ed by Cass Sunstein. When a company emits a ton of carbon dioxide, what damage has it caused, exactly? The answer is called the “social cost of carbon,” which may be the most important number that you’ve never heard of. If the number is large, regulation of greenhouse gas emissions will be amply justified. If it is small, not so much. In proposing to scrap the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, the Environmental Protection Agency recently announced that the social cost of carbon is close to zero. Well, a bit higher than that, but not a lot.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman. There’s a fight brewing on Capitol Hill over whether to put to rest the “blue slip” custom that allows senators to block judicial nominees who would have jurisdiction over their states. The intraparty fight, between Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, poses a serious question that should be decided independent of party: Are the blue slips a good idea? Do they promote moderation in the federal courts, or are they an undemocratic relic of senatorial privilege that should go the way of the dodo?

As National Football League team owners consider President Trump’s call to fire players who refuse to stand for the national anthem, they have stumbled into one of the most consequential debates in today’s workplace: How far can workers go in banding together to address problems related to their employment? In principle, the answer in the N.F.L. and elsewhere may be: Quite far. To the extent that most people think about the reach of federal labor law, they probably imagine a union context — like organizing workers, or bargaining as a group across the table from management...“Workers without a traditional organization that is meant to protect them at work are kind of scrambling around for new ways of protecting themselves,” said Benjamin Sachs, a labor law professor at Harvard University.

More than 175 Harvard Law School students and alumni penned an open letter to Law School Dean John F. Manning Wednesday asking the school to improve a program meant to provide financial stability to alumni who pursue careers in public service...Kenneth Lafler, the school’s Assistant Dean for Student Financial Services, wrote in a statement that the school has been in contact with some of the students who signed the letter over the past year to discuss their thoughts about LIPP. He said that many students benefit from the flexibility of Harvard’s program...Alexa Shabecoff, the school’s Assistant Dean for Public Service, wrote in a statement that LIPP’s growing enrollment numbers proves its popularity. “LIPP's steadily growing enrollment, and the diverse and interesting career paths of those who participate in it, show that the program is supporting its participants,” Shabecoff wrote.

Hundreds of friends, family members, and colleagues of Law School professor Charles J. Ogletree Jr. celebrated his lifetime of legal work at an event announcing a professorship endowed in his honor earlier this month. Law School professor David B. Wilkins said the idea of endowing a Law School professorship in Ogletree’s honor came about during a discussion between some of Ogletree’s good friends, including Harvard Corporation members Kenneth I. Chenault and Ted V. Wells...Tomiko Brown-Nagin, a Law School professor and the current faculty director of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute, also emphasized Ogletree's work regarding sexual harassment..."He also helped raise consciousness about the sexual harassment of working women—an enduring issue for women across a range of industries—through his representation of Professor Anita Hill,” Brown Nagin wrote in an email.

What if the algorithm is racist? As computers shift from being helpmates that tackle the drudgery of dense calculations and data handling to smart machines informing decisions, their potential for bias is increasingly an area of concern...Christopher Griffin, research director of the Law School’s Access to Justice Lab, described pretrial detention systems that calculate a person’s risk of flight or committing another crime — particularly a violent crime — in making bail recommendations...Jonathan Zittrain, the George Bemis Professor of International Law and faculty chair of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, which sponsored the event, said the danger of these systems is that the output of even a well-designed algorithm becomes biased when biased data is used as an input.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman. President Donald Trump can’t carry out his threat to take away the National Football League’s tax-exempt status aimed at making the league force players to stand for the national anthem. That would be a clear violation of the First Amendment. It’s true that the NFL had voluntarily given up its tax break two years ago, which means that Trump’s threat wouldn’t have practical effect even if he could make it stick. But as the Supreme Court recently held, even an effort to violate free speech based on a factual mistake is illegal.

An op-ed by Paul Butler. “A pack of rabid animals.” That’s how John McNesby, president of the Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police, described local Black Lives Matter activists who picketed outside the home of a Philly cop who shot black suspects in the back on two separate occasions. After the officer was suspended, the local FOP had a fund-raiser for him, with proceeds from the $40-per-ticket event going toward the officer’s living expenses.