Podcasts about hilda friedman professor

The Supreme Court's latest term was one of its most significant for administrative law. The Court ended Chevron deference, declared a right to a jury trial in securities fraud adjudications at the Securities and Exchange Commission, and expanded the statute of limitations to challenge agency decisions. Other leading cases included a challenge to a major Trump-era rulemaking on guns and a challenge to a significant federal environmental implementation plan. The Court's opinions have raised important questions about the separation of powers, the role of Congress, and the future of regulatory governance in America. Now that the Court has issued its rulings, the panel considers: What comes next for the regulated public, Congress, executive branch agencies, and the States?FeaturingHon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLCProf. Cary Coglianese, Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science; Director, Penn Program on Regulation, Penn Carey Law, University of Pennsylvania Prof. Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolHon. Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, Judge, United States District Court, Middle District of FloridaModerator: Hon. Neomi Rao, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Chevron v. NRDC (1984) and subsequent precedents held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This “Chevron Deference” has been a topic of great debate, with many calling for it to be overturned, while others argue it is a vital part of how Courts address the complexity of law and agency actions. Experts on both sides argue it has implications on the role of judges, judicial independence, separation of powers, stare decisis, governmental accountability, and the rule of law.In two cases this term (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce) the Court will be asked whether that precedent should be overturned. Join us as a panel of experts give a preview of these two important cases in a discussion of what the Chevron doctrine has done, how these cases may affect it and the body of precedent surrounding it, and what they may mean moving forward. Featuring:Prof. John Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Philip Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; CEO, New Civil Liberties AllianceProf. Kristin Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School(Moderator) Hon. Stephen Alexander Vaden, Judge, United States Court of International Trade

December 1. 2023 Hoover Institution | Stanford University The Center for Revitalizing American Institutions (RAI) hosted its “State of American Institutions” conference on Thursday, November 30, and Friday, December 1. In this panel, scholars discuss the legitimacy of regulatory agencies in the executive branch. Concerns are raised about the unelected nature of the administrative state and its potential encroachment on the lawmaking authority of elected representatives. Scholars also address how regulatory agencies can bring technical expertise, emphasizing the integral role of presidential leadership and management in assessing the feasibility of agency decisions. It is further advanced that Congress could restrain regulatory agencies by bolstering its own staffing and resources, ensuring relevant expertise for effective oversight of executive branch decision making. For more information, visit https://www.hoover.org/events/state-american-institutions-center-revitalizing-american-institutions ABOUT THE SPEAKERS Philip Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School Michael McConnell, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution; and Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Stanford University Andrew Rudalevige, Thomas Brackett Reed Professor of Government, Bowdoin College Sharece Thrower, Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution; and Associate Professor of Political Science, Vanderbilt University Moderator: Daniel Kessler, Keith and Jan Hurlbut Senior Fellow and Director of Research, Hoover Institution; and Professor of Management and Law, Stanford University ABOUT THE CENTER FOR REVITALIZING AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS (RAI): In an objective, non-partisan spirit, the Center for Revitalizing American Institutions (RAI) draws on the Hoover Institution's scholarship, government experience, and convening power to study the reasons behind the crisis in trust facing American institutions, analyze how they are operating in practice, and consider policy recommendations to rebuild trust and increase their effectiveness. Learn more: https://www.hoover.org/research-teams/center-revitalizing-american-institutions

Public lecture titled: "How to Protect Free Speech from Big Tech", by Philip Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School. Presented by the Notre Dame Center for Citizenship & Constitutional Government on Thursday, March 24, 2022 at the University of Notre Dame. More information at constudies.nd.edu

Today Jeremy speaks with Philip Hamburger about the surprising origins of the IRS's restrictions on a charity's political speech, and why those restrictions ought to be regarded as unconstitutional. Philip Hamburger is the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, and President of the New Civil Liberties Alliance. He writes on constitutional law and its history—with particular emphasis on religious liberty, freedom of speech and the press, judicial office, administrative power, and unconstitutional conditions. He also studies Anglican, Baptist, and Quaker history, early secularism, and the Ku Klux Klan. He has twice received the Sutherland Prize for the most significant contribution to English legal history, and has been awarded the Henry Paolucci-Walter Bagehot Book Award, the Hayek Book Prize, and the Bradley Prize.Jeremy dives in by asking Philip about his book, Liberal Suppression: Section 501(c)(3) and the Taxation of Speech. His argument that the IRS essentially taxes speech is both compelling and provocative. Philip connects the origins of the 501(c)(3) free speech restrictions to former Ku Klux Klan imperial wizard Hiram Evans and his hatred of the Catholic Church. Philip argues that the net effect is that all theologically orthodox speech is treated as a threat to democracy. He continues that the mere history behind this tax law should cause Americans to pause and ask whether it is constitutional or not. All of this and more during this week's episode with Philip Hamburger.On this week's Practicalities segment, American Philanthropic partner Matt Gerken discusses the influence and importance of donor surveys for nonprofits. Donor surveys provide the unique opportunity to cultivate and identify major gift opportunities in your donor file. This allows your organization to understand donor priorities and learn what they believe and care about. Learn more about American Philanthropic's donor surveys here.Do you want to participate in the 2021 Performance Fundraising Survey that Jeremy mentioned at the end of the podcast? You can join the survey by clicking here. When you participate in this survey, you will receive a free digital copy of the final report and be entered into a drawing with prizes ranging $100-$3,000 in value. The survey closes October 31—participate before it is too late!You can find Givers, Doers, & Thinkers here at Philanthropy Daily, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts, Buzzsprout, and wherever you listen to p

This panel will address the textual questions of §230: is the statute correctly understood to permit discretionary content moderation on the part of social media platforms and other supporting tech entities, or does the text provide for a more limited range of moderation policies? Although several circuit courts have adopted a more expansive interpretation of the statutory protections, Justice Thomas has recently questioned whether the prevailing application is consistent with the text. Does viewpoint discrimination fall within the scope of §230 protection? Are decisions to ban individuals from participating on a platform covered by the statutory protections? To what extent does the statute preclude state regulatory initiatives to protect speech by platform users?Featuring: -- Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; President, New Civil Liberties Alliance-- Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law-- Mary Anne Franks, Professor of Law and Dean's Distinguished Scholar, University of Miami School of Law-- Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

RESOLVED: The Free Exercise Clause guarantees a constitutional right of religious exemption from general laws when such an exemption would not endanger public peace and good order.On November 16, 2019, the Federalist Society held the twelfth annual Rosenkranz Debate at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The participants discussed whether the Free Exercise Clause guarantees a constitutional right of religious exemption from general laws when such an exemption would not endanger public peace and good order.*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Featuring:Prof. Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law and Director, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Stuart Kyle Duncan, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth CircuitIntroduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President and CEO, The Federalist Society

RESOLVED: The Free Exercise Clause guarantees a constitutional right of religious exemption from general laws when such an exemption would not endanger public peace and good order.On November 16, 2019, the Federalist Society held the twelfth annual Rosenkranz Debate at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The participants discussed whether the Free Exercise Clause guarantees a constitutional right of religious exemption from general laws when such an exemption would not endanger public peace and good order.*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Featuring:Prof. Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law and Director, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Stuart Kyle Duncan, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth CircuitIntroduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President and CEO, The Federalist Society

The administrative state, with roots over a century old, was founded on the premise that Congress lacked the expertise to deal with the many complex issues facing government in a fast-changing country, and that it was unhelpfully mired in and influenced by politics, leading to bad outcomes when it did act. The alternative was to establish administrative agencies, each with assigned areas of responsibility, housing learned experts qualified to make policy decisions, deliberately insulated from political accountability. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), passed in 1946, both governs the manner in which agencies may adopt and enforce regulations, and provides for judicial review of agency action. Supporters of the administrative state point to the successes of agency actions leading to a cleaner environment, more sensible use of finite resources, healthier foods, safety on the roads and rails, and many other areas of improved quality of life. But even looking past structural separation of powers issues written into the bones of the administrative state, critics assert that in the ensuing 70 years the APA has become an ineffective limitation an agency power, as agencies bypassed its requirements by issuing sub-regulatory guidance, letters, FAQs, and more. Compounding the problem, the critics continue, the courts have adopted a policy of deference to agency actions that grant agencies even more latitude. Is it time to revisit the APA? If so, how should it be updated?Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of LawProf. Philip Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. Kathryn Kovacs, Professor of Law, Rutgers Law School Prof. Jon Michaels, Professor of Law, UCLA School Of LawModerator: Hon. Britt Grant, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

The administrative state, with roots over a century old, was founded on the premise that Congress lacked the expertise to deal with the many complex issues facing government in a fast-changing country, and that it was unhelpfully mired in and influenced by politics, leading to bad outcomes when it did act. The alternative was to establish administrative agencies, each with assigned areas of responsibility, housing learned experts qualified to make policy decisions, deliberately insulated from political accountability. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), passed in 1946, both governs the manner in which agencies may adopt and enforce regulations, and provides for judicial review of agency action. Supporters of the administrative state point to the successes of agency actions leading to a cleaner environment, more sensible use of finite resources, healthier foods, safety on the roads and rails, and many other areas of improved quality of life. But even looking past structural separation of powers issues written into the bones of the administrative state, critics assert that in the ensuing 70 years the APA has become an ineffective limitation an agency power, as agencies bypassed its requirements by issuing sub-regulatory guidance, letters, FAQs, and more. Compounding the problem, the critics continue, the courts have adopted a policy of deference to agency actions that grant agencies even more latitude. Is it time to revisit the APA? If so, how should it be updated?Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of LawProf. Philip Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. Kathryn Kovacs, Professor of Law, Rutgers Law School Prof. Jon Michaels, Professor of Law, UCLA School Of LawModerator: Hon. Britt Grant, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

We live in a system where regulators make rules, investigate alleged violations of the rules, and then adjudicate those violations before an Administrative Law Judge who is a member of the agency. When agency decisions are appealed to the traditional court system, judges are obligated to “defer” to the agency on both its legal and factual conclusions. Many opponents of this scheme have criticized the system for “placing a thumb on the scales of justice” by encouraging judicial bias. Many of the same critics assert that the current system of administrative law offends the rule of law, due process, and separation of powers. In April 2018, Arizona passed first-of-its-kind legislation, developed by the Goldwater Institute, that eliminates this legal deference in state courts.This live podcast will explore this new law, discuss how it might change state agency rulemaking and enforcement, and also examine how the law might address concerns regarding judicial bias and other issues. Importantly, this program will also consider whether this legislation can serve as a model for the rest of the country, and the federal government.Featuring:- Philip Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School- Jonathan Riches, Director of National Litigation, Goldwater InstituteVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

We live in a system where regulators make rules, investigate alleged violations of the rules, and then adjudicate those violations before an Administrative Law Judge who is a member of the agency. When agency decisions are appealed to the traditional court system, judges are obligated to “defer” to the agency on both its legal and factual conclusions. Many opponents of this scheme have criticized the system for “placing a thumb on the scales of justice” by encouraging judicial bias. Many of the same critics assert that the current system of administrative law offends the rule of law, due process, and separation of powers. In April 2018, Arizona passed first-of-its-kind legislation, developed by the Goldwater Institute, that eliminates this legal deference in state courts.This live podcast will explore this new law, discuss how it might change state agency rulemaking and enforcement, and also examine how the law might address concerns regarding judicial bias and other issues. Importantly, this program will also consider whether this legislation can serve as a model for the rest of the country, and the federal government.Featuring:- Philip Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School- Jonathan Riches, Director of National Litigation, Goldwater InstituteVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

The Sixth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference is scheduled for Tuesday, April 17 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. and will examine the increase in federal regulatory activity and the legal and practical considerations of regulatory reform. This daylong conference will feature plenary panels, addresses, and breakout panels.Hon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLPMr. Todd Gaziano, Director, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal FoundationProf. Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. Jonathan Turley, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law; Director of the Environmental Law Advocacy Center; Executive Director, Project for Older Prisoners, The George Washington University Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Greg Katsas, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

The Sixth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference is scheduled for Tuesday, April 17 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. and will examine the increase in federal regulatory activity and the legal and practical considerations of regulatory reform. This daylong conference will feature plenary panels, addresses, and breakout panels.Hon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLPMr. Todd Gaziano, Director, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal FoundationProf. Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. Jonathan Turley, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law; Director of the Environmental Law Advocacy Center; Executive Director, Project for Older Prisoners, The George Washington University Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Greg Katsas, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

This panel will examine the history of the emergence of the Administrative State and will ask whether even in a reformed fashion such a state can ever be consistent with the separation of powers. The panelists will each comment on the separation of powers challenge to modern Administrative Law. Can modern Administrative Law be made consistent with the Framers' Constitution of 1787? The Framers envisioned a much smaller government. How does one govern and oversee in a meaningful way a government of this size? Is accountability practical? Does the idea of accountability need rethinking?Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law SchoolProf. Philip Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. John Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Gary Lawson, Philip S. Beck Professor of Law, Boston University School of LawProf. Kevin M. Stack, Lee S. and Charles A. Speir Chair in Law, Vanderbilt Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Kevin Newsom, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

This panel will examine the history of the emergence of the Administrative State and will ask whether even in a reformed fashion such a state can ever be consistent with the separation of powers. The panelists will each comment on the separation of powers challenge to modern Administrative Law. Can modern Administrative Law be made consistent with the Framers' Constitution of 1787? The Framers envisioned a much smaller government. How does one govern and oversee in a meaningful way a government of this size? Is accountability practical? Does the idea of accountability need rethinking?Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law SchoolProf. Philip Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. John Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Gary Lawson, Philip S. Beck Professor of Law, Boston University School of LawProf. Kevin M. Stack, Lee S. and Charles A. Speir Chair in Law, Vanderbilt Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Kevin Newsom, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Philip Hamburger, the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, and frequent writer on constitutional law, including religious liberty, freedom of speech and the press, administrative power, and unconstitutional conditions, sits down with ChangeUp Media's Ben Weingarten for Encounter Books to discuss his new book " The Administrative Threat." During the interview, Philip and Ben discuss a variety of topics including the administrative state's roots in King James' England, progressive regressivism, how the administrative state subverts the Constitution and turns our justice system on its head, stifles free speech, violates civil liberties, what can be done to restore constitutional order and much more. Read 'The Administrative Threat': tinyurl.com/mqn8xpn. 'Freeway' by Kurt Vile is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (aka Music Sharing) 3.0 International License. Download 'Freeway' here: tinyurl.com/p4tkyfb

Philip Hamburger, the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, and frequent writer on constitutional law, including religious liberty, freedom of speech and the press, administrative power, and unconstitutional conditions, sits down with ChangeUp Media's Ben Weingarten for Encounter Books to discuss his new book " The Administrative Threat." During the interview, Philip and Ben discuss a variety of topics including the administrative state's roots in King James' England, progressive regressivism, how the administrative state subverts the Constitution and turns our justice system on its head, stifles free speech, violates civil liberties, what can be done to restore constitutional order and much more. Read 'The Administrative Threat': tinyurl.com/mqn8xpn. 'Freeway' by Kurt Vile is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (aka Music Sharing) 3.0 International License. Download 'Freeway' here: tinyurl.com/p4tkyfb

Philip Hamburger, the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, and frequent writer on constitutional law, including religious liberty, freedom of speech and the press, administrative power, and unconstitutional conditions, sits down with ChangeUp Media's Ben Weingarten for Encounter Books to discuss his new book " The Administrative Threat." During the interview, Philip and Ben discuss a variety of topics including the administrative state's roots in King James' England, progressive regressivism, how the administrative state subverts the Constitution and turns our justice system on its head, stifles free speech, violates civil liberties, what can be done to restore constitutional order and much more. Read 'The Administrative Threat': tinyurl.com/mqn8xpn. 'Freeway' by Kurt Vile is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (aka Music Sharing) 3.0 International License. Download 'Freeway' here: tinyurl.com/p4tkyfb

Philip Hamburger, the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, and frequent writer on constitutional law, including religious liberty, freedom of speech and the press, administrative power, and unconstitutional conditions, sits down with ChangeUp Media's Ben Weingarten for Encounter Books to discuss his new book " The Administrative Threat." During the interview, Philip and Ben discuss a variety of topics including the administrative state's roots in King James' England, progressive regressivism, how the administrative state subverts the Constitution and turns our justice system on its head, stifles free speech, violates civil liberties, what can be done to restore constitutional order and much more. Read 'The Administrative Threat': tinyurl.com/mqn8xpn. 'Freeway' by Kurt Vile is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (aka Music Sharing) 3.0 International License. Download 'Freeway' here: tinyurl.com/p4tkyfb

Philip Hamburger, the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, and frequent writer on constitutional law, including religious liberty, freedom of speech and the press, administrative power, and unconstitutional conditions, sits down with ChangeUp Media's Ben Weingarten for Encounter Books to discuss his new book " The Administrative Threat." During the interview, Philip and Ben discuss a variety of topics including the administrative state's roots in King James' England, progressive regressivism, how the administrative state subverts the Constitution and turns our justice system on its head, stifles free speech, violates civil liberties, what can be done to restore constitutional order and much more. Read 'The Administrative Threat': tinyurl.com/mqn8xpn. 'Freeway' by Kurt Vile is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (aka Music Sharing) 3.0 International License. Download 'Freeway' here: tinyurl.com/p4tkyfb

Philip Hamburger, the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, and frequent writer on constitutional law, including religious liberty, freedom of speech and the press, administrative power, and unconstitutional conditions, sits down with ChangeUp Media's Ben Weingarten for Encounter Books to discuss his new book " The Administrative Threat." During the interview, Philip and Ben discuss a variety of topics including the administrative state's roots in King James' England, progressive regressivism, how the administrative state subverts the Constitution and turns our justice system on its head, stifles free speech, violates civil liberties, what can be done to restore constitutional order and much more. Read 'The Administrative Threat': tinyurl.com/mqn8xpn. 'Freeway' by Kurt Vile is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (aka Music Sharing) 3.0 International License. Download 'Freeway' here: tinyurl.com/p4tkyfb

Philip Hamburger, the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, and frequent writer on constitutional law, including religious liberty, freedom of speech and the press, administrative power, and unconstitutional conditions, sits down with ChangeUp Media's Ben Weingarten for Encounter Books to discuss his new book " The Administrative Threat." During the interview, Philip and Ben discuss a variety of topics including the administrative state's roots in King James' England, progressive regressivism, how the administrative state subverts the Constitution and turns our justice system on its head, stifles free speech, violates civil liberties, what can be done to restore constitutional order and much more. Read 'The Administrative Threat': tinyurl.com/mqn8xpn. 'Freeway' by Kurt Vile is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (aka Music Sharing) 3.0 International License. Download 'Freeway' here: tinyurl.com/p4tkyfb

Universities have long been thought of, and cherished, as places for the free exchange of ideas. This idea has, however, come under pressure. Student groups have now routinely exercised pressure to keep people who they disagree with off campus. And safe spaces and trigger warnings—which limit speech that some have deemed offensive—have become regular features at universities across the nation. -- Many see the climate of shouting-down or protesting the expression of others' viewpoints as the symbolic beginning of an era limiting the freedom of speech on college campuses. While surveys seem to show a majority of students disagree with universities curtailing speech, even when it is offensive, vocal minorities with opposing views have been the ones capturing news headlines and the attention of the public at large. -- With the accessibility to speech provided by the internet and viral sharing of information, expression and speech spread with more ease than ever, but this same technology creates opportunities for back-lash on social media and gives a larger stage to those who would threaten the free market of ideas at our nation's universities. -- The First Amendment protects principles which have always required vigilance to maintain, and today's world makes no exception. This panel will explore how these developments have affected intellectual discourse on campus and if they are conducive to a meaningful learning experience at our universities. -- This panel was presented at the 2017 National Student Symposium on Saturday, March 4, 2017, at Columbia Law School in New York City, New York. -- Featuring: Prof. Robert Post, Dean and Sol & Lillian Goldman Professor of Law, Yale Law School; Prof. Phillip Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; Prof. Suzanne Goldberg, Executive Vice President for University Life, Columbia University; Herbert and Doris Wechsler Clinical Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; and Prof. Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law; Director, Constitutional Law Center; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution. Moderator: Hon. Thomas Hardiman, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.