Media Mentions

An op-ed by Noah Feldman. When French President Francois Hollande said Friday's attacks on Paris were an “act of war,” he was following a script set by George W. Bush in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. Rhetorically, invoking the language of war to describe a terrorist attack sends a message of seriousness and outrage. But as U.S.’s post 9/11 wars show, it isn’t always wise to elevate a terrorist group to the level of the sovereign entities that traditionally have the authority to make war. This was a mistake with respect to al-Qaeda, but it’s a greater mistake when it comes to Islamic State, whose primary aspiration is to achieve statehood. By saying that Islamic State is in a war with France, Hollande is unwittingly giving the ragtag group the international stature it seeks.

The veracity of one of this year’s most talked about documentaries, “The Hunting Ground,” has been attacked by 19 Harvard Law School professors, who say the film’s portrayal of rape on college campus is distorted, specifically when it comes to their school’s handling of one particular case...“The documentary has created an important conversation about campus sexual assault,” said Diane L. Rosenfeld, a Harvard law lecturer who also appears in the film and did not sign the letter. “We need to be rolling up our sleeves and really figuring out what kind of preventative education programs to develop which create a culture of sexual respect.” But in their letter, the law professors, who include Laurence H. Tribe, Randall L. Kennedy and Jeannie C. Suk, said the film “provides a seriously false picture both of the general sexual assault phenomenon at universities and of our student,” specifically a male Harvard law student whose case is included in “The Hunting Ground.”...“This is a young human being whose life has been mauled by this process for years, and now he has to walk around campus with people saying, ‘Oh, you’re a repeat sexual offender,’ and he’s not,” said Janet Halley, one of the letter’s authors. “It’s not a documentary. It’s propaganda."

An op-ed by Laurence Tribe. The principle of “equal dignity in the eyes of the law” articulated by the Supreme Court’s extraordinary same-sex marriage ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges earlier this year — that all individuals are deserving in equal measure of personal autonomy and are entitled not to have the state define their personal identities and social roles — lays the groundwork for an ongoing political and legal dialogue about the meaning of equality and an evolving understanding of the indignities that our Constitution cannot tolerate. In securing these dignitary rights of all people, Obergefell is an important landmark. But it cannot be the last word if Obergefell’s push for equal dignity for LGBTQ individuals is to point a way forward in the unending struggle for equal rights for all. If that doctrine is to signal the beginning of the end for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression – in the workplace, in housing and education, in athletics and public accommodations, in immigration and adoption, and in the construction of families — then the struggle will have to be waged not just in the courts but in regulatory and legislative bodies, as well as in the cultural arena of public discourse.

The U.S. Justice Department is considering a new policy that gives companies a clearer idea of what to expect when self-reporting foreign corruption violations to the government, a move strikingly similar to a corporate-minded approach to criminal liability advocated by law professor Jennifer Arlen at New York University....Harvard law professor Matthew Stephenson described the process of calibrating corporate liability as finding a balance of carrots and sticks. But he has warned such a corporate pass policy may encourage companies to push compliance responsibility solely to individuals. Companies might have “much weaker incentives to invest substantial resources in effective training, integrity promotion, or other activities designed to prevent bribe-paying,” Mr. Stephenson wrote recently.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman. The violence in the Terai plain of Nepal over the last six weeks may not be on your radar screen. But the blockade of the Nepal-India border created by armed groups from the Madhesi ethnic minority actually has global significance. The reason is surprising: On Sept. 20, Nepal ratified a new constitution after a fitful and frustrating eight-year process. You'd think this would be good news, heralding an era of good feelings. Instead, ratification drove the Madhesis into something very like open revolt. Thus, a question of universal relevance: Why do some constitutions work, and others fail? Put another way, what's the essence of a constitutional deal that enables it to succeed?

A majority of Passcode Influencers said that Europeans should be allowed to sue in US courts if their personal data is misused. A new data-sharing agreement is currently in the works between the US and European Union, after the European Court of Justice struck down a the 15-year-old Safe Harbor agreement allowing companies to transfer data across the Atlantic....“If data is indeed being misused, there should be a remedy. What the question doesn’t ask is what should count as misuse. But there’s no reason to offer differing protections here based on the citizenship of the person whose data a company is handling,” said Jonathan Zittrain, a Harvard law professor. “And protection irrespective of country of origin is not only the right thing to do. It also gives US companies an important competitive advantage.”

One of the country's leading scholars on race and justice issues offered simple answers to complex questions during a Wednesday evening talk in Portland. Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree Jr., speaking on Veterans Day about the Black Lives Matter movement, mixed personal anecdotes about his upbringing in central California with pointed responses to questions during a moderated discussion at a downtown Portland church. Ogletree's talk came on a day when Oregon made national news with the revelation that the state had conducted surveillance on Oregonians using the Black Lives Matter social media hashtag and, in Virginia, video emerged of a black man dying in police custody after repeated Tasering while shackled. "It has to stop," Ogletree said, citing repeated deaths of black men and women in police custody. "It just keeps happening."

Harvard Law Student Bill Barlow [`16] on free speech, political correctness and the protests on college campuses in the U.S.

Arthur Mitchell walks gingerly now. He once moved gracefully across dance stages around the world...He's been called the Jackie Robinson of Ballet. Mitchell gained renown as the first African American to be a permanent member of a major ballet company when he joined the New York City Ballet in the mid-1950s. But his most influential achievement arguably came in 1969 when he co-founded the Dance Theater of Harlem...Much of his time is now spent going through sixty years of pictures, programs and letters — archives that he's donated to Columbia University, where he was the subject of a symposium and much praise from his former students, like Harvard Law School Dean of Students Marcia Sells. "He gave us a possibility to think and to dream," Sells said. "As he says, you have to have that. It is something I have carried with me."

A group of Harvard Law School professors have started a publicity campaign to challenge the depiction of the school’s sexual assault grievance process in "The Hunting Ground," a documentary film about campus sexual assault that CNN is scheduled to air on Nov. 19...Janet E. Halley, one of the Law School professors challenging “The Hunting Ground” and a signatory of the 2014 Globe letter, said the group will launch a website and upload documents about Winston’s case to further challenge the documentary. Halley argued that CNN’s decision to name Winston constituted “an attack” and that she and the other professors felt compelled to come to his defense.

Sometime in the past 20 years, people soured on email. Culturally, it went from delightful to burdensome, a shift that’s reflected in the very language of the inbox. In the 1990s, AOL would gleefully announce, “You’ve got mail!” Today, Gmail celebrates the opposite: “No new mail!” So what happened to email? What happened to us? These are some of the questions that come up in the new technology podcast Codebreaker, the first season of which is fixated on the question, “Is it evil?”...“Email is the last great unowned technology,” said the Harvard law professor Jonathan Zittrain in the first episode of Codebreaker, “and by unowned I mean there is no CEO of email... it’s just a shared hallucination that works.”

An op-ed by Noah Feldman. At the embattled University of Missouri, where the president and chancellor are stepping down, university police sent students an e-mail Tuesday urging them to call and report if they “witness incidents of hateful and/or hurtful speech.” The e-mail urged witnesses to provide descriptions of the speakers and, if safe, snap pictures of them with their phones. The First Amendment applies at a state university campus, and those who speak hatefully or hurtfully can't be criminally punished. But they can be penalized or expelled if they create an environment that's hostile on the basis of race or sex. There's a serious tension between these interests, and the Missouri e-mail raises a pressing question: Does the use of campus police to enforce anti-discrimination advance the goal of knowledge or detract from it?

An op-ed by Noah Feldman. In the post-Ferguson era, the details of a police shooting that kills a fleeing defendant are all-important -- and you might think we would want juries, not judges, to consider them. But on Monday, eight justices of the U.S. Supreme Court made it harder for police shooting cases to reach a jury. The court held that a Texas state trooper couldn't be sued for using his rifle to shoot the driver of a car that led police on an 18-minute chase. Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who’s emerging as the court’s conscience on race, thought the suit should be able to go forward.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman. If you’re arrested and charged with a white-collar crime, can the government freeze the assets you need to pay for a lawyer to prove your innocence? Remarkably, there's no definitive legal answer to this question, which the U.S. Supreme Court will take up Tuesday. It’s established that the government can freeze tainted assets that it traces to your alleged crime, and that you don’t get to challenge that determination. But Tuesday's case will answer the further question of whether the government can freeze any of your assets up to the value of what it says you stole -- not just assets it identifies as tainted proceeds.

Nineteen Harvard Law professors have written a letter condemning "The Hunting Ground," a film purporting to be a documentary about campus sexual assault. The film has been getting some Oscar buzz, and CNN is preparing to air the program next week. In a press package for the film, CNN singled out a story in the film about a sexual assault accusation at Harvard. The press packet named the accused student, even though he was not identified in the film. The 19 professors want to be sure viewers are aware that the film is highly misleading...The 19 professors include feminist icon Nancy Gertner; outspoken critics of campus rape hysteria Elizabeth Bartholet, Janet Halley and Jeannie Suk; as well as President Obama's former mentor Charles Ogletree.

The documentary "The Hunting Ground" provides "a seriously false picture both of the general sexual assault phenomenon at universities" and of a case involving Harvard University students, 19 Harvard law professors said in a statement Wednesday...Along the way, the documentary takes frequent detours to call out a number of other institutions for mishandling or ignoring the issue, including Harvard. That section of the film focuses on an assault allegedly committed by a law student there named Brandon Winston. On Wednesday, a week before the documentary is set to air on CNN, the Harvard professors released a lengthy statement criticizing the the film's portrayal of the accused student's case..."Mr. Winston was finally vindicated by the Law School and by the judicial proceedings, and allowed to continue his career at the Law School and beyond. Propaganda should not be allowed to erase this just outcome." Diane Rosenfeld, a Harvard law lecturer who did not sign Wednesday's statement, said that she disagrees with her colleagues and agrees with documentary's findings..."I fully support 'The Hunting Ground' film, which is all about ending the silencing of survivors," she said.

After the GOP debate, a look at the power and limitations of money and super PACs in presidential politics this season...Guests...Lawrence Lessig, Roy L. Furman professor of law and leadership at the Harvard Law School and former Democratic candidate for President.

When BHP Billiton Ltd. and Vale SA started a joint iron-mining venture in rural Brazil nearly 40 years ago, the mining giants created a new corporate entity: a limited-liability company that, in theory, protected its owners from litigation in case of disaster. But in practice, Brazilian authorities and lawyers say, the corporate structure does little to shield its parents from big fines, cleanup and legal costs after two tailings ponds owned by the joint venture—called Samarco Mineracao SA—burst last week. At least six people were killed, 21 are still missing, and farms and villages were destroyed...Such suits have become more difficult to bring in recent years after Supreme Court decisions limited the scope of cases involving foreign parties to serious violations like human-rights abuses, and forced plaintiffs to prove more distinct U.S. connections to bad behavior abroad, said Susan Farbstein, a professor at Harvard Law School who has represented plaintiffs in such cases.

Harvard Law School Dean Martha L. Minow defended race-based affirmative action for law school admissions in an amici curiae brief filed for the the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin. Minow filed the brief Yale Law School Dean Robert C. Post ’69 last week. Harvard has also submitted an amicus brief for the Fisher case offering similar pro-affirmative action argument...In 32-page brief, which was penned by their counsel, Minow and Post contend that law schools should continue to consider race as a factor in a holistic admissions process and that a ruling to the contrary would have “devastating” educational consequences.

Some students at Harvard Law School want it to change its official seal, citing its ties to an 18th-century slaveholder...Third-year law student Brian Klosterboer, who's behind the movement, said the crest is a "reminder of this vicious family." "People say we should remember the history, but I think a lot of people don't even know about it," Klosterboer said...Royall was a brutal slaveholder who was known for killing slaves, burning at least one at the stake, said Dan Coquillette, a visiting professor at Harvard's law school. Royall moved to Massachusetts after operating a plantation with hundreds of slaves in the West Indies, Coquillette said. Still, Coquillette, who explored Royall's history in a recent book, said he doesn't think the school should erase that history...Another third-year law student opposing the seal, Alexander Clayborne, said the effort is only the first part of a broader examination of the law school. "Our larger goals include decolonization of the law school in general," he said, "and decolonization of the law school curriculum."

Scathing commentary about the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has tended to focus on the court’s refusal to restrict corporate political spending. As you know, the justices struck down campaign finance reforms as an unconstitutional violation of corporations’ free speech rights, triggering an avalanche of predictions that corporate donors would wield outsized political influence. The other free speech beneficiaries of Citizens United – labor unions also subject to the invalidated campaign finance restrictions – haven’t been the subject of nearly as much fear and loathing. That’s going to change, at least a little, later this term when the Supreme Court hears Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association...The point of the amicus brief, according to law professor John Coates of Harvard, was to highlight the relative rights of union beneficiaries and shareholders, particularly because in this case, the justices are being asked to give non-union members even more control over political expenditures they don’t support. “It seemed like a good opportunity to intervene – even better than a corporate case,” said Coates, who said he wrote the initial draft of the brief and circulated it to likely co-signers. He said he was pleasantly surprised that so many corporate law professors – 19 in all – ended up joining a brief in a case that nominally has nothing to do with corporate law. (Among the amici are Lucian Bebchuk of Harvard...)