Today at the Fifth
UMass Interdisciplinary Legal Studies Colloquium in Boston, scholars talked about a range of intriguing work, from politics to climate change to drug
legalization, being done across the University of Massachusetts campuses—Amherst,
Boston, Dartmouth, and Lowell, and Law (at Dartmouth) and Medical (at
Worcester). Here’s a taste.
Law and Policy Inside the Beltway
Panel 1—Moderated by yours truly
Panel 1—Moderated by yours truly
Queer Sacrifice in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Jeremiah Ho, UMass Law.
Professor Ho explicated his theory of “interest convergence,” and how a lack
thereof explains the result in the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in the LGBTQ-rights
cakeshop case. His research shows how images—sometimes
literally—of gay identity have informed public and judicial perception of LGBTQ
rights cases. Three more cases lie on
the horizon, in the Court’s next term, Ho said, so stay tuned. Meanwhile preview his "Queer Sacrifice" work, just out in the Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, at SSRN.
Can Presidents Influence Public Attitudes Toward
the Supreme Court? Evidence from a Survey Experiment, Paul M. Collins, Jr.
(blog), Department of Political Science, UMass Amherst.
Collins’s long-term research digs deep into how statements and action by
the President of the United States exert influence over public perception of
the U.S. Supreme Court and its decisions.
What the President says matters; consider, Collins proffers, the White
House has a whole office dedicated to SCOTUS spin. Collins also notes that low public knowledge of
the Court is a factor in allowing public opinion to be influenced by forces
external to the Court. I can’t help but
think about the Court’s intransigence on cameras and public access. Anyway, Collins has discovered that the public
is more easily influenced on “low salience” issues, but less so on “high
salience” (I’d say “hot button”) issues, such as immigration.
On the Supreme Court of the United States of America (and Congruent Agencies and Ministries in the Term of President Donald Trump), Judge Francis Larkin, UMass Law. Judge Larkin shared observations of recent events in President-Court interaction. He recalled FDR’s Court-packing plan, relative to its recent resurgence in politics (e.g., WaPo).
Forcing Disclosure, Justine Dunlap, UMass Law. Professor Dunlap is looking at mandatory disclosures under Title IX, especially faculty duties. She observes that the evolution of Title IX over recent decades, under administrations from both sides of the aisle, have fairly sought to respond to a real problem of unredressed sexual harassment and assault on college campuses. But the responses have not always been well tuned. And mandatory reporting, however well intentioned, can put faculty in the impossible bind of having to betray student trust. (Professor Julie Baker in Q&A aptly noted also that the consequences of ill-tuned reporting schemes for accused perpetrators are not always conducive to dispute resolution or justice.) Dunlap talked about a system being implemented at the University of Oregon that contemplates a third class of potential “reporter”—rather than all or nothing, a “student-directed reporter.”
Recovery, Resiliency, and Equality in Economic Development
Panel 2—Moderated by Professor Justine Dunlap, UMass Law
Panel 2—Moderated by Professor Justine Dunlap, UMass Law
Opening for Business: Tax-Haven Economy and the State of Exception in Puerto Rico, Jose Atiles, Department of Political Science, UMass Amherst. Professor Atiles is working on Puerto Rico and U.S. development strategies. He explained that there are two prevalent approaches to development policy concerning the island, one the “blank canvas” approach, which encourages recovery investment on the selling point that, more or less, my words: there’s nothing there at present; two the “PR is open for business” approach, which seeks to exploit the island’s legal status as a tax haven. Both of these representations are animated by a “neoliberal-colonial rationality,” and that troubling mindset is reflected in the law that facilitates these strategies.
I’m reminded of the colonial
terra nullius doctrine with
respect to the blank canvas, and the local-policy-characteristic Everett
casino debate with respect to “open for business.” Puerto Rico and its people are not our
offshore plaything. In Q&A, I asked Atiles
what it would take for us to start thinking about PR more like we do Missouri. Statehood and independence each have advantages
and drawbacks, which he explained summarily; what won’t save PR, he said, is
the status quo.
A “Least Regrets”
Framework for Coastal Climate Change Resiliency Through Economic Development, Chad McGuire
and Michael Goodman, College of Arts and Sciences, UMass
Dartmouth. Professor McGuire continues
his renowned work on environmental conservation and climate change, and now he’s
brought public policy numbers wizard Professor Goodman (also president of the UMass
Dartmouth Faculty Senate) onto the team to look at the economics. They’re attacking the problem of aligning shorter-term
economic incentives with the longer-term public interest in saving the human
race from extinction.
I just saw Dan Gardner on The Daily Show talking to Roy Wood Jr. (video embedded below) (let me remind everyone that I shook Roy’s hand in East Providence) talking about how our “caveman” brains don’t well process the threat of climate change because it’s too abstract, that we need more urgent messaging. McGuire and Goodman have it. As I’m wearing a sweater in May, McGuire observed: “Spring has become less of a thing, and winter moving into summer is becoming more of a thing.” We’ve lost 15-30 days of winter in New England, he shows with data, and seasonal transitions are becoming more abrupt. Then he directs us toward the view of Boston from our huge glass windows here in the 32nd floor of One Beacon Street. “Back Bay is called ‘Back Bay’ for a reason,” McGuire said. Boston sits on filled-in bay.
I just saw Dan Gardner on The Daily Show talking to Roy Wood Jr. (video embedded below) (let me remind everyone that I shook Roy’s hand in East Providence) talking about how our “caveman” brains don’t well process the threat of climate change because it’s too abstract, that we need more urgent messaging. McGuire and Goodman have it. As I’m wearing a sweater in May, McGuire observed: “Spring has become less of a thing, and winter moving into summer is becoming more of a thing.” We’ve lost 15-30 days of winter in New England, he shows with data, and seasonal transitions are becoming more abrupt. Then he directs us toward the view of Boston from our huge glass windows here in the 32nd floor of One Beacon Street. “Back Bay is called ‘Back Bay’ for a reason,” McGuire said. Boston sits on filled-in bay.
Human Rights
Responses to Economic and Social Inequalities—A Book Proposal, Gillian MacNaughton, School for Global
Inclusion and Social Development, UMass Boston. For my money—both figuratively and literally—Professor
MacNaughton’s work is what we need to save humanity from catastrophe—after and
assuming we figure out how to survive climate change. MacNaughton takes what we know and bemoan
about inequality of wealth and opportunity in the United States and runs writ
large with the problem. As she wrote in her
abstract: “The Global Wealth Report 2017 reveals that the wealthiest 1% of the
global population owns 50% of global assets, while the poorest 50% owns less
than 1%.” Building on the U.N. Sustainable
Development Goals, she plans to propose putting some punch behind international
treaty guarantees of social and economic equality, such as we might start to
address this problem on the global level. I’ve often lamented that our increasingly
disparate economic stratification will be our undoing in the United States if
we don’t address it. It’s worth being reminded
how much more desperate the situation already is worldwide. See also Professor MacNaughton's recent co-edited book, Economic and Social Rights in a Neoliberal World (Cambridge University Press 2019).
Drug Use and Abuse, and the Criminal Justice System
Panel 3—Moderated by Professor Julie Baker, UMass Law
Panel 3—Moderated by Professor Julie Baker, UMass Law
Is Marijuana the Gateway Drug? Maybe Not, But Its
Legalization Could Be, Nikolay
Anguelov, College of Arts and Science, UMass Dartmouth. Professor
Anguelov is known to many of my readers and former students as the author of
the 2015 book, The Dirty Side of the Garment
Industry: Fast Fashion and Its Negative Impact on Environment and Society
(CRC Press) (Amazon). I have heard him speak many times to
awestruck and sometimes squirming audiences about the connection between their affordable
clothing and Bangladesh waterways poisoned with dye and arsenic. Anguelov is more recently author of From Criminalizing to Decriminalizing
Marijuana: The Politics of Social Control (Lexington Books 2018) (Amazon). Anguelov is now fine-tuning his formidable research
into marijuana use. His early data
invite the conclusion that legalization—which I as a libertarian have favored—might
be contributing to the opioid epidemic at least by “contributing to the
cultural normalization of drug use and experimentation.” Ruh-roh, Shaggy. This is going to require further research,
and I’m anticipatorily squirming in my H&Ms.
Recovery Coaches in Opioid Use Disorder Care, Matthew Maughan,
UMass Medical. When opioid addiction turns to recovery, attorney
Matthew Maughan is the policy guru to turn to.
Informed by his multifaceted experience and research, he explained the
role and peculiar success of the “recovery coach.” It might be awkwardly unorthodox in terms of developing
a large-scale model, but sometimes a block grant for an activity tailored to a
person’s specific needs offers the best hope for recovery and might as well be
cost effective. Maughan recounted the
story of a recovery accomplished through mental clarity achieved on the water
on a kayak, under the guidance of a recovery coach. That’s got to cost less than any bill I’ve
ever gotten from a medical clinic.
Locating Cannabis Equity: Defining Areas Impacted by Drug Criminalization, Michael Johnson, Professor and Chair, McCormack Graduate School, UMass Boston, and Jeffrey Moyer, doctoral candidate in public policy, UMass Boston. Moyer is working with Professor Johnson to study the intersection of enforcement and anti-discrimination. Specifically, he asks whether the Massachusetts “Cannabis Control Commission’s use of a race-neutral variable is effective in selecting areas disproportionately impacted by criminalization.” Part of the work has entailed mapping all drug arrests, which generates some compelling graphics when overlaid with demographic data. I am reminded of being a journalism intern at WJZ-TV in Baltimore in the early 1990s, when we made an analog map—this was when we were still working on DOS-based computers—literally putting color pushpins in a map of Baltimore to look at the coincidence of murders with factual and demographic elements. That was a time when we were first talking about the problem of race and policing “where the crime is.” We also walked five miles to school, uphill both ways.
Moyer shows analysis of geographic data on police enforcement, obtained in part through a public record request. |
To Plea or Not to Plea: A Virtual Simulation
of Plea-Bargain Scenarios, Miko M.
Wilford, Psychology Department, UMass Lowell; Annabelle Frazier, doctoral
candidate in applied psychology, UMass Lowell; Kelly Sutherland, doctoral
candidate in applied psychology and prevention science, UMass Lowell. With doctoral candidates
on a new applied psychology track at UMass Lowell, Professor Wilford is taking
a behavioral look at plea bargaining, that irksome feature of the criminal
justice system that we don’t like to talk about, even while we know it results in
some guilty pleas calculated to avert draconian outcomes (my take). Really they’re looking at the research of
plea bargain research, trying to refine how we learn about people's decision-making
processes in these high-stakes circumstances.
Perhaps no surprise once you think about it, it is difficult to simulate having so much at stake with volunteers in psychology-lab
experiments. The team is working on new,
high-tech models using animations to engender empathy and generate better results. See
more at the project website, Pleajustice.org.
Personal Rights at the
Borders
Panel 4—Moderator: Misty Peltz-Steele, UMass Law
Controlling
Asylum: A Genealogical Analysis of Gender and Race Intersectionality, Phil
Kretsedemas, College of Liberal Arts, UMass Boston. Professor
Kretsedemas is studying the status of domestic violence survivors and Latin
American asylum seekers relative to Matter
of A-B, an AG-Sessions opinion “that dramatically curtails asylum
protections for survivors of domestic violence, and for many other people who
have been persecuted by non-state actors.”
A U.S. District Court has lately pushed back on Sessions’s conclusions,
Kretsedemas said, as he investigates the problem from critical dimensions of
gender and racial equality.
Kretsedemas’s approach is further informed by comparative law, as he
draws on parallel legal perspectives from foreign tribunals, including the U.K.
House of Lords, and from parallel cultural perspectives, such as Guatemalan
views on gender roles within families.
Present policies, focusing for example unduly on familial cohesion, have
gravely injurious impact, for example failing to protect women from female
genital mutilation. Kretsedemas locates
these policies in a context that includes family separation, though the latter
issue has garnered greater public attention.
Troubling Bodies: The Office of Refugee Resettlement
and the Unaccompanied Pregnant Teen, Shoshanna
Ehrlich, College of Liberal Arts, UMass Boston. Also examining
a perhaps under-recognized issue within our vast immigration policy debate,
Professor Ehrlich is studying the federal government’s “literal refusal to
release [young women] from . . . custody so they may access abortion
care,” plainly violating their civil rights, Ehrlich asserts. Even the U.S. Government waived argument in
the courts as to whether the teens involved here enjoy U.S. constitutional
rights. Yet in government memos
discovered in ACLU litigation, Ehrlich shared in her presentation, Scott Lloyd,
director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), opined that abortions
desired even by teens impregnated by rape are not in the young women’s best
interests. Lloyd was removed from his
post and “transferred to HHS’s Center for Faith and Opportunity Initiatives,” Rolling Stone reported in
November 2018. He was later summoned to
testify in Congress about family separations, Politico reported in
February 2019. Ehrlich told of
interviewing parents the government separated from their children, and the
trauma that resulted, wondering how the government could at the same time
justify refusing abortions on the rationale that mothers should not be
separated from their unborn children, despite their personal circumstances and
decisions.
No comments:
Post a Comment