Podcast appearances and mentions of Kenneth L Marcus

Due to impending inclement weather this event has been converted to a webinar. Please feel free to join our live (virtual) audience on Wednesday, February 12th at 12:30 PM ET via the Zoom registration link or catch the discussion via livestream! Panel: David BernsteinFounder & CEO, Jewish Institute for Liberal Values Kimberly Hermann, Executive Director, Southeastern Legal Foundation Prof. Yascha Mounk, Professor of the Practice of International Affairs, Johns Hopkins University;Contributing Editor, The Atlantic; Senior Fellow, The Council on Foreign Relations Nicole Neily, President, Parents Defending Education (Moderator) Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman,Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law ---Does DEI rise and fall due to cultural fads that tend to come and go, or is DEI mainly driven by substantive provisions of civil rights law that are much harder to unravel? Are DEI programs morphing from a primarily race-based focus to a gender and sex-based focus, or does their focus remain on race and ethnicity? This panel will discuss how DEI is impacting federal civil rights issues, consider federal, state, and local levels, and debate whether DEI has passed its high-water mark. Featuring:David Bernstein, Founder & CEO, Jewish Institute for Liberal ValuesKimberly Hermann, Executive Director, Southeastern Legal FoundationProf. Yascha Mounk, Professor of the Practice of International Affairs, Johns Hopkins University; Contributing Editor, The Atlantic; Senior Fellow, The Council on Foreign RelationsNicole Neily, President, Parents Defending Education(Moderator) Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

Lawless uses the author, Ilya Shapiro’s, “lived experience” with Georgetown as a jumping-off point to discuss what he describes as the warping of legal education and the legal profession. He argues that law schools used to teach students how to think critically, advance logical arguments, and respect opponents. Now they produce lawyers who can’t tolerate disagreement and reject the validity of the law itself. He claims the problem is bigger than radical students and biased faculty; it’s institutional weakness. Law schools produce the next generation of gatekeepers for our legal and political institutions: America’s future judges, prosecutors, politicians, and presidents. Shapiro argues it’s a big deal and discusses the failure of ideology, leadership, and bureaucracy—and what we can do about it.Featuring: Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute(Moderator) Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

“Despite decades of a US Department of Education, we're not doing any better in educating our students. If anything, we're now doing worse ... I think the question is how the American people can best be served. The goal shouldn't be to preserve jobs of bureaucrats. The goal shouldn't be to preserve the status quo. We should ask, how can we best serve students and their families?”As part of our special series on the U.S. presidential transition period, I'm sitting down with Kenneth L. Marcus, former assistant secretary of education for civil rights and the founder and chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law.Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Over the past year, college campuses have been filled with student protests and demonstrations. A large number of these protests involved students camping out on campus for weeks, taking over administrative and academic buildings, harassing and threatening other students and faculty members, and destruction of property. Many administrators have refused to discipline students or enforce their policies because of First Amendment concerns. Instead, they contend the First Amendment prohibited them from punishing the students or enforcing their policies because the students were engaged in protected speech. When it comes to protests and demonstrations, what does the First Amendment protect? When does protected speech cross the line into unprotected conduct? What duties does a public university have to protect its students from harassment and intimidation? How does a university determine what speech is likely to incite imminent violence?This panel will examine the scope and limits of the First Amendment, especially as it relates to public colleges and universities.Featuring:Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under LawDean Thomas J. Miles, Dean & Clifton R. Musser Professor of Law and Economics, The University of Chicago Law SchoolProf. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, Emerita, New York Law School; Former President, American Civil Liberties UnionProf. Eugene Volokh, Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution; Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Distinguished Research Professor, UCLA School of LawModerator: Hon. David R. Stras, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Discussions of the dangers of Artificial Intelligence (AI) have long included concerns about AI systems’ potential to discriminate against racial minorities, women, and other groups said to be disadvantaged. But more recently, there have been increasing concerns about the dangers of Woke AI. Because generative AI models learn from large amounts of real-world data, which is primarily gleaned from internet content and thus tends to reflect dominant cultural views, is some degree of political bias in these models inevitable? If not, what can be done to avoid such bias?Increasingly, politicians and other policymakers are proposing laws, regulations, and guidelines aimed at preventing bias against minority groups in AI systems. Do we need similar laws to protect against the biases of Woke AI and if so, what should those laws look like?Please join us as an expert panel discusses these questions and more.Featuring:Prof. Vincent Conitzer, Professor of Computer Science & Director, Foundations of Cooperative AI Lab (FOCAL), Carnegie Mellon UniversityNicholas P. Garcia, Senior Policy Counsel, Public KnowledgeCurt Levey, President, Committee for Justice(Moderator) Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

On President Biden's first day in office, he signed Executive Order 13985: Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government. He then signed Executive Order 14035: Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce later that year on June 25, 2021. Taken together, these orders outline what President Biden has described as an “ambitious whole-of-government equity agenda.” Executive branch agencies are now charged with creating, implementing, and assessing a large variety of DEI initiatives. As examples, agencies have been encouraged to hire a Chief Diversity Officer, workforce DEI training programs have been implemented and expanded, and federal health benefits have been augmented to include “comprehensive gender-affirming health care” for employees and their dependents. These initiatives cost time, money, and resources, and they are not without controversy. Some question the legal grounding of these initiatives and assert that they run afoul of constitutional guarantees to equal protection of the law. A separate concern is whether federal DEI priorities fail on a utilitarian calculus and drain the federal government's financial and manpower resources. Still, many Americans support the executive branch initiatives in both theory and practice. Should the executive branch maintain such a robust focus on DEI initiatives? Is the current administration's focus constitutional? Is it appropriate? Does it serve the American people?Featured Speakers:Veronica Venture, Deputy Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Director of Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity, Department of Homeland Security (DHS)Hans von Spakovsky, Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative, Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage FoundationDevon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal OpportunityDean Todd Clark, Dean, Delaware Law School[Moderator] Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, Former Assistant U.S. Secretary of Education for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education

The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights has launched an investigation into the legality of state bans forbidding schools from imposing mask mandates on their students. OCR indicated two major bases for potential illegality: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which prohibit discrimination against students on the basis of a disability and guarantee students with disabilities access to a public education. Opponents of the mask mandate bans argue that students with disabilities cannot access public education if other students and staff are not required to be masked. Proponents of the bans argue that parents should not be deprived of the right to make health decisions for their children. Other arguments concern the proper scope and limits on federal involvement in school matters.Join Professor Robert Dinerstein, Professor of Law at American University Washington College of Law and Director of the Disability Rights Law Clinic and Sarah Perry, Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation's Edwin Meese Center and author of a recent relevant article, to discuss.Featuring:-- Prof. Robert Dinerstein, Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law-- Sarah Perry, Legal Fellow, Heritage Foundation, Edwin Meese Center-- Moderator: Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

Has American higher education gone too far — or in the wrong direction — in how it sanctions normatively disfavored conduct? Some of these sanctions (“cancellations," as they are sometimes called) are ephemeral and others career-ending. Some are based on transgressions that almost all condemn, others on conduct that some find praiseworthy. Is higher education now more intolerant than it once was, or is it just intolerant about different things? And if academia is now intolerant about different things, has the change been beneficial or harmful? If the answer depends on how we feel about free speech, do “cancelations” — however understood -- impair free speech or advance it?Join us for Part 1 of a thoughtful series discussing cancel culture and its effect on American culture featuring:J.C. Hallman, an acclaimed author who wrote a piece entitled “In Defense of Cancel Culture” following the publication of the Harper's Magazine letter on Justice and Open Debate. Dr. Charles Murray, the F.A. Haye Chair Emeritus in Cultural Studies at the American Enterprise Institute who experienced academic and social backlash notably his publication of The Bell Curve. Featuring: -- J.C. Hallman, Author and Columnist-- Dr. Charles Murray, W.H. Brady Scholar, American Enterprise Institute-- Moderator: Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

Professor George La Noue joins us to discuss his recently published article, “The Race Card in ARPA's Food Supply Deck,” published by the Federalist Society Review on July 12, 2021. In his article, Professor La Noue discusses the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, which appropriated $1.9 trillion, $28.6 billion of which would be administered by the Small Business Administration. Since passage, numerous lawsuits have been filed against the SBA on Fifth Amendment grounds alleging unconstitutional sex-based and race-based discrimination. Other suits have been filed against the United States Department of Agriculture for an allegedly unconstitutional loan forgiveness scheme on the same Fifth Amendment grounds. Read Professor La Noue's analysis of the arguments and country-wide pending litigation is here.Featuring: -- Professor George La Noue, Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Professor Emeritus of Public Policy, University of Maryland Baltimore County -- Moderator: Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

In a January 26, 2021 White House Memorandum, President Biden directed the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to reexamine actions taken during the Trump presidency, and ordering the Secretary to ensure the 1968 Fair Housing Act, which bans discrimination, was being properly administered. On that initiative, Housing Secretary Marcia Fudge moved to reinstate two Obama-era Fair Housing rules rejecting former Secretary Ben Carson's previous directives.Secretary Fudge rescinded Secretary Carson's interpretation of the disparate impact rule, rescinded the Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice Rule, and reinstated the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule. Here to discuss the pros, cons, and implications of HUD's recent changes are several housing policy experts: Howard Husock, Bryan Greene, and Daniel Huff with moderator Ken Marcus. Featuring: -- Howard Husock, Senior Fellow, Domestic Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute -- Bryan Greene, Vice President, Policy Advocacy, National Association of Realtors -- Daniel Huff, former General Deputy Assistant Secretary, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development-- Moderator: Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

The national conversation over transgender students’ inclusion in student athletics and school facilities has received unparalleled levels of attention in the past weeks. Some transgender advocates argue affording equal rights to transgender students requires forcing public schools to allow transgender students access to the sports team, the locker room, and the bathroom that matches the gender the trans student identifies with. Others oppose such mandatory access, arguing that treating transgender boys who identify as girls the same as biological girls undermines hard-fought women’s gains in developing women’s sports and safety-protections.Join us for a discussion between Shannon Minter, transgender rights advocate and Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Lauren Adams, noted feminist advocate and Legal Counsel at Women’s Liberation Front. Featuring: -- Shannon Minter, Legal Director, National Center for Lesbian Rights-- Lauren Adams, Legal Counsel, Women's Liberation Front -- Moderator: Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

In this INSS podcast, dedicated to Holocaust Remembrance Day, INSS researcher Adi Kantor sits down with Prof. Kenneth L. Marcus, founder and chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and former Assistant U.S. Secretary of Education for Civil Rights, to discuss the issue of antisemitism and the role of education. Prof. Marcus is also the author of the article “Addressing Antisemitism Within and Through the Educational Systems in the United States,” a special publication in the framework of the INSS collection of articles on contemporary antisemitism in the United States. More than seven decades have passed since the last shell was fired in World War II, as the liberating allied soldiers stood still to the horrific sights of the systematic murder of six million European Jews by the Germans and their accomplices under the Nazi regime. But antisemitism has never really disappeared since then. Especially in the last decade, it seems that this phenomenon has increased and has become alarming. How should educators of our time approach this issue? Why do we see an increase in antisemitism in the education system in the US today? What is the relation between anti-Israel and anti-Zionism and antisemitism, and how is it reflected in contemporary American society ? And how should the Biden administration address this issue? https://www.inss.org.il/publication/antisemitism-education/

Good morning, you're listening to the Daily Apple, your source for the latest in Education News. I'm your host Jim Kent, the date is December 13, 2019. Before we get into the news of the day, I'd like to take a moment to thank our sponsor, VictoryXR. VXR's award-winning content, helps kids experience science and engineering in a way that they have never been able to before, while making sure to cover everything within the NextGen Science Standards, and they've made it accessible on every kind of VR headset you can think of. To find out more, check out VictoryXR.com But now for the news.NPR reports that documents they've obtained shed new light on a bitter fight between defrauded student borrowers and U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.These borrowers — more than 200,000 of them — say some for-profit colleges lied to them about their job prospects and the transferability of credits. They argue they were defrauded and that the Education Department should erase their federal student loan debt under a rule called "borrower defense."DeVos disagrees: She says most student borrowers still got value from these schools and deserve only partial relief from their federal loans. Now, internal Education Department memos obtained by NPR show that career staff in the department's Borrower Defense Unit came down firmly on the side of defrauded borrowers.Until now, these internal department memos have been hidden from public view. Lawmakers had previously requested access to them, but DeVos and her department refused to hand them over. DeVos has argued for years that the Obama administration's full-relief interpretation of the borrower defense rule was too lenient. DeVos' new plan is the department's second attempt at resolving the more than 200,000 outstanding borrower defense claims. The first attempt was blocked in May 2018 by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco. Devos testified yesterday, in front of congress to defend her plan.https://www.npr.org/2019/12/11/786367598/betsy-devos-overruled-education-dept-findings-on-defrauded-student-borrowers  According to The New York Times, An executive order signed Wednesday that extends civil rights protection to Jews is likely to strengthen the hand of President Trump's Education Department, where the department's civil rights chief has been investigating some of the nation's most elite universities for anti-Jewish bias. Mr. Trump, at a Hanukkah celebration at the White House, opened the door on a case-by-case basis to essentially defining Judaism as a race or national origin, not just a religion, under the Civil Rights Act. His order also expanded the definition of anti-Semitism to include some anti-Israel sentiments. Both moves had been pushed by Kenneth L. Marcus, the head of the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights, for years. Jewish groups were largely supportive, with some liberal organizations opposing it. Palestinian rights groups were incensed. The issue arises as campuses have become hotbeds of racial and cultural strife. In a 2018 report, the Anti-Defamation League found an 89 percent increase in reported episodes of anti-Semitism on college campuses in one year, as well as a steady rise in white-supremacist propaganda. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/us/politics/trump-anti-semitism-judaism-nationality.htmlAccording to Fox61 in Connecticut, The Killingly Board of Education voted late Wednesday night to temporarily not have a mascot given the different opinions on whether it should be the Redmen or the Red Hawks.Before that vote, the board initially voted for the Redmen and that is when most of the crowd left in an uproar. Those who oppose Redmen said the name is racially inappropriate and disrespectful to the Native American culture. State Police and Killingly Police made their presence known at the Board of Education meeting knowing the crowd has been aggressive in past meetings.Killingly High School's mascot was formerly known as The Redmen. In July, the Board of Ed decided to allow a mascot change. In October, students voted to change the mascot to the Red Hawks.However, the controversy returned when Newly-elected Republicans on the board decided to change it back to the Redmen. Members with the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe said the Redmen image is offensive because it displayed a Native American in a headdress and feathers were adorned on the helmets of football players. A special meeting will be held next Wednesday to further discuss this controversy.https://fox61.com/2019/12/12/crowd-leaves-in-an-uproar-as-killingly-board-of-education-votes-not-to-have-mascot/The Dothan Eagle reports that Alabama's State Department of Education voted to replace Common Core math standards on Thursday. Suzanne Culbreth, former Alabama Teacher of the Year (2013), and member of the Math COS committee, said she believes the hard work and dedication that went in to developing the new math standards will bode well for Alabama students and their educational achievement for years to come. Alabama joins eight other states that do not teach Common Core state standards, either because they never adopted or have since replaced or repealed it. https://www.dothaneagle.com/news/education/alabama-state-department-of-education-vote-to-replace-common-core/article_e075fad9-4f99-576c-9981-50dfdd5dbeda.htmlIn Toronto, the Globe News Wire reports that four unions representing teachers and education workers across Ontario's publicly funded education system have filed court challenges against the Ontario government's Bill 124, the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act. Given the content and timing of the legislation, in the midst of negotiations for the renewal of collective agreements in the education sector, the unions contend that Bill 124 is a direct attack on free collective bargaining in the education sector, and a violation of sections 2(b) and 2(d) of the Charter, which guarantee freedom of expression and the freedom of association. In addition, they believe the legislation violates the duty of the Crown to bargain in good faith. The Ontario government has said that the purpose of the bill, which would moderate the compensation of public employees, is to “ensure public sector compensation reflects the province's current fiscal reality.”https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/12/12/1959885/0/en/Education-Unions-Launch-Charter-Challenge-Against-Ford-Government.htmlAccording to reporting by the AP, The University of Phoenix and its parent company have agreed to pay $50 million in cash and cancel $141 million in student debt to settle allegations of deceptive advertisement brought by the Federal Trade Commission.The deal, announced Tuesday, settles a dispute over an ad campaign the for-profit college launched in 2012 touting partnerships with companies including Microsoft, Twitter and Adobe. It suggested the school worked with those companies to create job opportunities for students, even though there was no such agreement, investigators found.The Federal Trade Commission said the settlement is the largest the agency has ever obtained against a for-profit college. Under the settlement, the University of Phoenix and Apollo will cancel all remaining debt for students who first enrolled between Oct. 1, 2012, and the end of 2016. Letters will be sent to borrowers saying they no longer owe payments to the school. The school is also barred from making false claims about its relationships with companies or employers.The FTC says the $50 million payment will be used to help consumers who were misled by the ads.https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-phoenix-agrees-cancel-141-million-student-loan-debt-n1099681  CBS Minnesota reports that Bethel University announced this week that it will cut administrative staff and faculty in order to deal with declining student enrollment. In a statement Tuesday, the Arden Hills-based Christian college says that staff cuts will be announced next month and that faculty cuts will be made public in April. Affected faculty will stay on until the end of the 2020-2021 academic year, the university says. Teach-out programs will be offered for students affected by the curriculum changes. Bethel did not say which departments would be affected by the cuts. Bethel says it's among many colleges across the nation facing financial difficulty due to the declining undergraduate enrollment numbers. https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2019/12/11/citing-declining-student-enrollment-bethel-university-to-cut-staff-faculty/ And that rounds it up for todays headlines. Thanks again to VictoryXr for making this all possible. You can find the full transcript of today's episode, along with links to the full stories, in the description of the episode. If you have any questions, comments, or stories of your own that deserve to be broadcast, let us know on social media at dailyapplepod or by email at dailyapplepod@gmail.comThanks for listening. We'll see you tomorrow morning, bright and early

Kenneth L. Marcus, the Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights at the Department of Education, joins us to discuss the progress that has been made in the administration's first two years, as well as offer a look forward at some of the pressing matters that face the department inn the next few years.

Kenneth L. Marcus, the Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights at the Department of Education, joins us to discuss the progress that has been made in the administration's first two years, as well as offer a look forward at some of the pressing matters that face the department inn the next few years.

In The Definition of Anti-Semitism (Oxford University Press, 2015), Kenneth L. Marcus, the President and General Counsel of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, explains what it is at stake in how we define anti-Semitism. “Nowadays virtually everyone is opposed to anti-Semitism although no one agrees about what it means to be anti-Semitic,” Marcus writes (p. 11). Marcus discusses the global rise in anti-Semitism; in the United States, Marcus tells us, college campuses are frequently sites of frequent anti-Semitic–and anti-Israel–incidents. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Definition of Anti-Semitism (Oxford University Press, 2015), Kenneth L. Marcus, the President and General Counsel of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, explains what it is at stake in how we define anti-Semitism. “Nowadays virtually everyone is opposed to anti-Semitism although no one agrees about what it means to be anti-Semitic,” Marcus writes (p. 11). Marcus discusses the global rise in anti-Semitism; in the United States, Marcus tells us, college campuses are frequently sites of frequent anti-Semitic–and anti-Israel–incidents.

In The Definition of Anti-Semitism (Oxford University Press, 2015), Kenneth L. Marcus, the President and General Counsel of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, explains what it is at stake in how we define anti-Semitism. “Nowadays virtually everyone is opposed to anti-Semitism although no one agrees about what it means to be anti-Semitic,” Marcus writes (p. 11). Marcus discusses the global rise in anti-Semitism; in the United States, Marcus tells us, college campuses are frequently sites of frequent anti-Semitic–and anti-Israel–incidents. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Definition of Anti-Semitism (Oxford University Press, 2015), Kenneth L. Marcus, the President and General Counsel of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, explains what it is at stake in how we define anti-Semitism. “Nowadays virtually everyone is opposed to anti-Semitism although no one agrees about what it means to be anti-Semitic,” Marcus writes (p. 11). Marcus discusses the global rise in anti-Semitism; in the United States, Marcus tells us, college campuses are frequently sites of frequent anti-Semitic–and anti-Israel–incidents. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Definition of Anti-Semitism (Oxford University Press, 2015), Kenneth L. Marcus, the President and General Counsel of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, explains what it is at stake in how we define anti-Semitism. “Nowadays virtually everyone is opposed to anti-Semitism although no one agrees about what it means to be anti-Semitic,” Marcus writes (p. 11). Marcus discusses the global rise in anti-Semitism; in the United States, Marcus tells us, college campuses are frequently sites of frequent anti-Semitic–and anti-Israel–incidents. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices