Podcasts about mary harrison distinguished professor

In a world awash in “fake news,” where public figures make unfounded assertions as a matter of course, a preeminent legal theorist ranges across the courtroom, the scientific laboratory, and the insights of philosophers to explore the nature of evidence and show how it is credibly established. In the age of fake news, trust and truth are hard to come by. Blatantly and shamelessly, public figures deceive us by abusing what sounds like evidence.  In The Proof: Uses of Evidence in Law, Politics, and Everything Else (Harvard University Press, 2022), preeminent legal theorist Frederick Schauer proposes correctives, drawing on centuries of inquiry into the nature of evidence. Evidence is the basis of how we know what we think we know, but evidence is no simple thing. Evidence that counts in, say, the policymaking context is different from evidence that stands up in court. Law, science, historical scholarship, public and private decisionmaking—all rely on different standards of evidence. Exploring diverse terrain including vaccine and food safety, election-fraud claims, the January 2021 events at the US Capitol, the reliability of experts and eyewitnesses, climate science, art authentication, and even astrology, The Proof develops fresh insights into the challenge of reaching the truth. Schauer combines perspectives from law, statistics, psychology, and the philosophy of science to evaluate how evidence should function in and out of court. He argues that evidence comes in degrees. Weak evidence is still some evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but prolonged, fruitless efforts to substantiate a claim can go some distance in proving a negative. And evidence insufficient to lock someone up for a crime may be good enough to keep them out of jail. This book explains how to reason more effectively in everyday life, shows why people often reason poorly, and takes evidence as a pervasive problem, not just a matter of legal rules. Prof. Frederick Schauer is a David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia. He is also a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a corresponding fellow of the British Academy and a past recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship. Dr. Rine Vieth is a researcher studying how the UK Immigration and Asylum tribunals consider claims of belief, how claims of religious belief are evidenced, and the role of faith communities in asylum-seeker support. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In a world awash in “fake news,” where public figures make unfounded assertions as a matter of course, a preeminent legal theorist ranges across the courtroom, the scientific laboratory, and the insights of philosophers to explore the nature of evidence and show how it is credibly established. In the age of fake news, trust and truth are hard to come by. Blatantly and shamelessly, public figures deceive us by abusing what sounds like evidence.  In The Proof: Uses of Evidence in Law, Politics, and Everything Else (Harvard University Press, 2022), preeminent legal theorist Frederick Schauer proposes correctives, drawing on centuries of inquiry into the nature of evidence. Evidence is the basis of how we know what we think we know, but evidence is no simple thing. Evidence that counts in, say, the policymaking context is different from evidence that stands up in court. Law, science, historical scholarship, public and private decisionmaking—all rely on different standards of evidence. Exploring diverse terrain including vaccine and food safety, election-fraud claims, the January 2021 events at the US Capitol, the reliability of experts and eyewitnesses, climate science, art authentication, and even astrology, The Proof develops fresh insights into the challenge of reaching the truth. Schauer combines perspectives from law, statistics, psychology, and the philosophy of science to evaluate how evidence should function in and out of court. He argues that evidence comes in degrees. Weak evidence is still some evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but prolonged, fruitless efforts to substantiate a claim can go some distance in proving a negative. And evidence insufficient to lock someone up for a crime may be good enough to keep them out of jail. This book explains how to reason more effectively in everyday life, shows why people often reason poorly, and takes evidence as a pervasive problem, not just a matter of legal rules. Prof. Frederick Schauer is a David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia. He is also a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a corresponding fellow of the British Academy and a past recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship. Dr. Rine Vieth is a researcher studying how the UK Immigration and Asylum tribunals consider claims of belief, how claims of religious belief are evidenced, and the role of faith communities in asylum-seeker support. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In a world awash in “fake news,” where public figures make unfounded assertions as a matter of course, a preeminent legal theorist ranges across the courtroom, the scientific laboratory, and the insights of philosophers to explore the nature of evidence and show how it is credibly established. In the age of fake news, trust and truth are hard to come by. Blatantly and shamelessly, public figures deceive us by abusing what sounds like evidence.  In The Proof: Uses of Evidence in Law, Politics, and Everything Else (Harvard University Press, 2022), preeminent legal theorist Frederick Schauer proposes correctives, drawing on centuries of inquiry into the nature of evidence. Evidence is the basis of how we know what we think we know, but evidence is no simple thing. Evidence that counts in, say, the policymaking context is different from evidence that stands up in court. Law, science, historical scholarship, public and private decisionmaking—all rely on different standards of evidence. Exploring diverse terrain including vaccine and food safety, election-fraud claims, the January 2021 events at the US Capitol, the reliability of experts and eyewitnesses, climate science, art authentication, and even astrology, The Proof develops fresh insights into the challenge of reaching the truth. Schauer combines perspectives from law, statistics, psychology, and the philosophy of science to evaluate how evidence should function in and out of court. He argues that evidence comes in degrees. Weak evidence is still some evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but prolonged, fruitless efforts to substantiate a claim can go some distance in proving a negative. And evidence insufficient to lock someone up for a crime may be good enough to keep them out of jail. This book explains how to reason more effectively in everyday life, shows why people often reason poorly, and takes evidence as a pervasive problem, not just a matter of legal rules. Prof. Frederick Schauer is a David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia. He is also a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a corresponding fellow of the British Academy and a past recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship. Dr. Rine Vieth is a researcher studying how the UK Immigration and Asylum tribunals consider claims of belief, how claims of religious belief are evidenced, and the role of faith communities in asylum-seeker support. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

In a world awash in “fake news,” where public figures make unfounded assertions as a matter of course, a preeminent legal theorist ranges across the courtroom, the scientific laboratory, and the insights of philosophers to explore the nature of evidence and show how it is credibly established. In the age of fake news, trust and truth are hard to come by. Blatantly and shamelessly, public figures deceive us by abusing what sounds like evidence.  In The Proof: Uses of Evidence in Law, Politics, and Everything Else (Harvard University Press, 2022), preeminent legal theorist Frederick Schauer proposes correctives, drawing on centuries of inquiry into the nature of evidence. Evidence is the basis of how we know what we think we know, but evidence is no simple thing. Evidence that counts in, say, the policymaking context is different from evidence that stands up in court. Law, science, historical scholarship, public and private decisionmaking—all rely on different standards of evidence. Exploring diverse terrain including vaccine and food safety, election-fraud claims, the January 2021 events at the US Capitol, the reliability of experts and eyewitnesses, climate science, art authentication, and even astrology, The Proof develops fresh insights into the challenge of reaching the truth. Schauer combines perspectives from law, statistics, psychology, and the philosophy of science to evaluate how evidence should function in and out of court. He argues that evidence comes in degrees. Weak evidence is still some evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but prolonged, fruitless efforts to substantiate a claim can go some distance in proving a negative. And evidence insufficient to lock someone up for a crime may be good enough to keep them out of jail. This book explains how to reason more effectively in everyday life, shows why people often reason poorly, and takes evidence as a pervasive problem, not just a matter of legal rules. Prof. Frederick Schauer is a David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia. He is also a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a corresponding fellow of the British Academy and a past recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship. Dr. Rine Vieth is a researcher studying how the UK Immigration and Asylum tribunals consider claims of belief, how claims of religious belief are evidenced, and the role of faith communities in asylum-seeker support. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

In a world awash in “fake news,” where public figures make unfounded assertions as a matter of course, a preeminent legal theorist ranges across the courtroom, the scientific laboratory, and the insights of philosophers to explore the nature of evidence and show how it is credibly established. In the age of fake news, trust and truth are hard to come by. Blatantly and shamelessly, public figures deceive us by abusing what sounds like evidence.  In The Proof: Uses of Evidence in Law, Politics, and Everything Else (Harvard University Press, 2022), preeminent legal theorist Frederick Schauer proposes correctives, drawing on centuries of inquiry into the nature of evidence. Evidence is the basis of how we know what we think we know, but evidence is no simple thing. Evidence that counts in, say, the policymaking context is different from evidence that stands up in court. Law, science, historical scholarship, public and private decisionmaking—all rely on different standards of evidence. Exploring diverse terrain including vaccine and food safety, election-fraud claims, the January 2021 events at the US Capitol, the reliability of experts and eyewitnesses, climate science, art authentication, and even astrology, The Proof develops fresh insights into the challenge of reaching the truth. Schauer combines perspectives from law, statistics, psychology, and the philosophy of science to evaluate how evidence should function in and out of court. He argues that evidence comes in degrees. Weak evidence is still some evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but prolonged, fruitless efforts to substantiate a claim can go some distance in proving a negative. And evidence insufficient to lock someone up for a crime may be good enough to keep them out of jail. This book explains how to reason more effectively in everyday life, shows why people often reason poorly, and takes evidence as a pervasive problem, not just a matter of legal rules. Prof. Frederick Schauer is a David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia. He is also a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a corresponding fellow of the British Academy and a past recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship. Dr. Rine Vieth is a researcher studying how the UK Immigration and Asylum tribunals consider claims of belief, how claims of religious belief are evidenced, and the role of faith communities in asylum-seeker support. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

In a world awash in “fake news,” where public figures make unfounded assertions as a matter of course, a preeminent legal theorist ranges across the courtroom, the scientific laboratory, and the insights of philosophers to explore the nature of evidence and show how it is credibly established. In the age of fake news, trust and truth are hard to come by. Blatantly and shamelessly, public figures deceive us by abusing what sounds like evidence.  In The Proof: Uses of Evidence in Law, Politics, and Everything Else (Harvard University Press, 2022), preeminent legal theorist Frederick Schauer proposes correctives, drawing on centuries of inquiry into the nature of evidence. Evidence is the basis of how we know what we think we know, but evidence is no simple thing. Evidence that counts in, say, the policymaking context is different from evidence that stands up in court. Law, science, historical scholarship, public and private decisionmaking—all rely on different standards of evidence. Exploring diverse terrain including vaccine and food safety, election-fraud claims, the January 2021 events at the US Capitol, the reliability of experts and eyewitnesses, climate science, art authentication, and even astrology, The Proof develops fresh insights into the challenge of reaching the truth. Schauer combines perspectives from law, statistics, psychology, and the philosophy of science to evaluate how evidence should function in and out of court. He argues that evidence comes in degrees. Weak evidence is still some evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but prolonged, fruitless efforts to substantiate a claim can go some distance in proving a negative. And evidence insufficient to lock someone up for a crime may be good enough to keep them out of jail. This book explains how to reason more effectively in everyday life, shows why people often reason poorly, and takes evidence as a pervasive problem, not just a matter of legal rules. Prof. Frederick Schauer is a David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia. He is also a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a corresponding fellow of the British Academy and a past recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship. Dr. Rine Vieth is a researcher studying how the UK Immigration and Asylum tribunals consider claims of belief, how claims of religious belief are evidenced, and the role of faith communities in asylum-seeker support. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/journalism

In a world awash in “fake news,” where public figures make unfounded assertions as a matter of course, a preeminent legal theorist ranges across the courtroom, the scientific laboratory, and the insights of philosophers to explore the nature of evidence and show how it is credibly established. In the age of fake news, trust and truth are hard to come by. Blatantly and shamelessly, public figures deceive us by abusing what sounds like evidence.  In The Proof: Uses of Evidence in Law, Politics, and Everything Else (Harvard University Press, 2022), preeminent legal theorist Frederick Schauer proposes correctives, drawing on centuries of inquiry into the nature of evidence. Evidence is the basis of how we know what we think we know, but evidence is no simple thing. Evidence that counts in, say, the policymaking context is different from evidence that stands up in court. Law, science, historical scholarship, public and private decisionmaking—all rely on different standards of evidence. Exploring diverse terrain including vaccine and food safety, election-fraud claims, the January 2021 events at the US Capitol, the reliability of experts and eyewitnesses, climate science, art authentication, and even astrology, The Proof develops fresh insights into the challenge of reaching the truth. Schauer combines perspectives from law, statistics, psychology, and the philosophy of science to evaluate how evidence should function in and out of court. He argues that evidence comes in degrees. Weak evidence is still some evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but prolonged, fruitless efforts to substantiate a claim can go some distance in proving a negative. And evidence insufficient to lock someone up for a crime may be good enough to keep them out of jail. This book explains how to reason more effectively in everyday life, shows why people often reason poorly, and takes evidence as a pervasive problem, not just a matter of legal rules. Prof. Frederick Schauer is a David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia. He is also a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a corresponding fellow of the British Academy and a past recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship. Dr. Rine Vieth is a researcher studying how the UK Immigration and Asylum tribunals consider claims of belief, how claims of religious belief are evidenced, and the role of faith communities in asylum-seeker support. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications

In a world awash in “fake news,” where public figures make unfounded assertions as a matter of course, a preeminent legal theorist ranges across the courtroom, the scientific laboratory, and the insights of philosophers to explore the nature of evidence and show how it is credibly established. In the age of fake news, trust and truth are hard to come by. Blatantly and shamelessly, public figures deceive us by abusing what sounds like evidence.  In The Proof: Uses of Evidence in Law, Politics, and Everything Else (Harvard University Press, 2022), preeminent legal theorist Frederick Schauer proposes correctives, drawing on centuries of inquiry into the nature of evidence. Evidence is the basis of how we know what we think we know, but evidence is no simple thing. Evidence that counts in, say, the policymaking context is different from evidence that stands up in court. Law, science, historical scholarship, public and private decisionmaking—all rely on different standards of evidence. Exploring diverse terrain including vaccine and food safety, election-fraud claims, the January 2021 events at the US Capitol, the reliability of experts and eyewitnesses, climate science, art authentication, and even astrology, The Proof develops fresh insights into the challenge of reaching the truth. Schauer combines perspectives from law, statistics, psychology, and the philosophy of science to evaluate how evidence should function in and out of court. He argues that evidence comes in degrees. Weak evidence is still some evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but prolonged, fruitless efforts to substantiate a claim can go some distance in proving a negative. And evidence insufficient to lock someone up for a crime may be good enough to keep them out of jail. This book explains how to reason more effectively in everyday life, shows why people often reason poorly, and takes evidence as a pervasive problem, not just a matter of legal rules. Prof. Frederick Schauer is a David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia. He is also a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a corresponding fellow of the British Academy and a past recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship. Dr. Rine Vieth is a researcher studying how the UK Immigration and Asylum tribunals consider claims of belief, how claims of religious belief are evidenced, and the role of faith communities in asylum-seeker support. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

In a world awash in “fake news,” where public figures make unfounded assertions as a matter of course, a preeminent legal theorist ranges across the courtroom, the scientific laboratory, and the insights of philosophers to explore the nature of evidence and show how it is credibly established. In the age of fake news, trust and truth are hard to come by. Blatantly and shamelessly, public figures deceive us by abusing what sounds like evidence.  In The Proof: Uses of Evidence in Law, Politics, and Everything Else (Harvard University Press, 2022), preeminent legal theorist Frederick Schauer proposes correctives, drawing on centuries of inquiry into the nature of evidence. Evidence is the basis of how we know what we think we know, but evidence is no simple thing. Evidence that counts in, say, the policymaking context is different from evidence that stands up in court. Law, science, historical scholarship, public and private decisionmaking—all rely on different standards of evidence. Exploring diverse terrain including vaccine and food safety, election-fraud claims, the January 2021 events at the US Capitol, the reliability of experts and eyewitnesses, climate science, art authentication, and even astrology, The Proof develops fresh insights into the challenge of reaching the truth. Schauer combines perspectives from law, statistics, psychology, and the philosophy of science to evaluate how evidence should function in and out of court. He argues that evidence comes in degrees. Weak evidence is still some evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but prolonged, fruitless efforts to substantiate a claim can go some distance in proving a negative. And evidence insufficient to lock someone up for a crime may be good enough to keep them out of jail. This book explains how to reason more effectively in everyday life, shows why people often reason poorly, and takes evidence as a pervasive problem, not just a matter of legal rules. Prof. Frederick Schauer is a David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia. He is also a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a corresponding fellow of the British Academy and a past recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship. Dr. Rine Vieth is a researcher studying how the UK Immigration and Asylum tribunals consider claims of belief, how claims of religious belief are evidenced, and the role of faith communities in asylum-seeker support. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

We use evidence in many areas of our world: courtrooms, scientific laboratories, and legislative bodies that create policies. But the evidence in these different arenas is used in very different ways. For example, how lawyers present evidence in a courtroom varies from how historians use evidence to write about past events. University of Virginia law professor Frederick Schauer joins Greg to talk about the different ways we use evidence and how in some situations, we are too rigid and, in other ways, too lax when it comes to evidence. His new book, The Proof, dives into the topic of evidence and how it's used across our society. He also shares some insights from his older book, Thinking Like A Lawyer, which lays out how people outside of the legal profession can adopt some of the mindsets lawyers do (like cross-examining ideas we already believe and questioning people we tend to automatically trust). Frederick Schauer is a David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia. He has previously taught law at Harvard University and the University of Michigan. He's written numerous books about the law, ranging from the topics of evidence, free speech, and how philosophy plays a role in the legal system. Episode Quotes:Can the probabilities be reduced to numbers?20:40: Can the probabilities be reduced to numbers? One view is by reducing them to numbers, you make something appear more certain than it actually is, but there's another view. And actually, there are distinguished judges on both sides of this debate that say, "Yes, it's hard to get it exactly right," but trying to translate very fuzzy terms, like "clear and convincing evidence," "balance of the probabilities," or "proof beyond the reasonable doubt," into numbers can clarify things, however uncertain the numbers might be. Maybe they're a bit more certain and a bit more clarifying than just using the fuzziness of language. 05:59: To understand the law of evidence, you really have to understand exclusions. To understand the science of evidence, you have to understand inclusions—how everything might be relevant.Law is heavily dependent on testimony33:04: Law, except in very rare cases, doesn't do direct observation, doesn't do direct experimentation even when it could. So it relies even more heavily on what somebody has said. It's like history, but unlike a lot of science. It's unlike a lot of empirical inquiry. It's unlike a lot of experimentation.The different view of the law in criminal law15:26: One of the important issues in evaluating evidence is what turns on it. And if we have a criminal law model, what turns on it is that someone is going to go to prison for a long time or possibly even be executed. We are really worried about making a certain kind of mistake. And because of that, the law, especially in criminal law, has a different evaluation of false positives versus false negatives than other people.Show Links:Guest Profile:Faculty Profile at University of VirginiaContributor's Profile on The Federalist SocietyHis Work:Frederick Shauer on Google ScholarThe Proof: Uses of Evidence in Law, Politics and Everything ElseThe Force of LawProfiles, Probabilities, and Stereotypes Thinking Like A Lawyer

Law schools are the gatekeepers of the legal profession and thus wield substantial influence on the law’s future shape. In recent times, law schools have increasingly viewed themselves less as charged with training lawyers to serve their clients’ needs and more as engines of social justice. Is that an appropriate role for law schools? How compatible are the two missions? Does the highly and increasingly ideologically homogeneous character of law school faculties, as shown in many studies, exacerbate the tension between those missions?Featuring:Dean Mark Alexander, Arthur J. Kania Dean and Professor of Law, Charles Widger School of Law, Villanova UniversityProf. Joshua Kleinfeld, Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of LawProf. Paul G. Mahoney, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawDean Dayna Matthew, Dean and Harold H. Greene Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Neomi Rao, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Join Dr. Cain Elliot, Alex Pearson, and Professor Fred Schauer as they discuss the finer points of Fred Schauer's latest book, The Proof: Uses of Evidence in Law, Politics, and Everything Else. Frederick Schauer (born 15 January 1946) is an American legal scholar who serves as David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. He is also the Frank Stanton Professor emeritus of the First Amendment at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. He is well known for his work on American constitutional law, especially free speech, and on legal reasoning, especially the nature and value of legal formalism.   Read Full Transcript

This week on “The Learning Curve,” as the nation prepares for the likely confirmation of its first Black female U.S. Supreme Court justice, Cara Candal and Gerard Robinson talk with Dr. G. Edward White, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, and author of the three-volume book, Law in American History. Professor White draws on his... Source

This week on “The Learning Curve,” as the nation prepares for the likely confirmation of its first Black female U.S. Supreme Court justice, Cara Candal and Gerard Robinson talk with Dr. G. Edward White, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, and author of the three-volume book, Law in […]

This week on “The Learning Curve,” as the nation prepares for the likely confirmation of its first Black female U.S. Supreme Court justice, Cara Candal and Gerard Robinson talk with Dr. G. Edward White, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, and author of the three-volume book, Law in American History. Professor White draws on his... Source

There is a folk wisdom that connects the American War of Independence’s “no taxation without representation” with today’s skepticism of Washington, DC and centralized power. The Anti-Federalists were a broad coalition, but most Anti-Federalists shared a dislike of a strong centralized government and believed that many small republics would best protect the individual. Some Anti-Federalists argued that without a bill of rights the Constitution would not be able to sufficiently protect the rights of individuals and the states. Even after ratification, some Founders, such as Jefferson, Mason, and Henry, maintained that the Federalists had in fact “betrayed” the “popular Revolutionary Spirit of ’76” and its desire for “general and individual liberty.” However, once the Jefferson-led Democrat-Republicans—primarily made up of and appealing to the old Anti-Federalist coalition—took office they did not seek to abolish, or significantly alter, this new form of governance. Why not? Did the Anti-Federalists plant the seeds, and prefer to nurture the growth of populism in America?Featuring:Moderator: The Honorable Lisa Branch, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh CircuitProf. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University Prof. Michelle Kundmueller, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Old Dominion UniversityProf. G. Edward White, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law

The fifth panel of the Federalist Society's COVID-19 & the Law Conference discussed "Regulation or 'Don't Let a Good Crisis Go to Waste'". The panel took place via teleconference on Friday, June 12, 2020.During this crisis government has assumed new powers that no one would claim it has except in an emergency. Will government cease exercising all these powers when the emergency passes? Historically government has almost always increased its power during crisis and then kept some of that power afterward. Will people try to invoke COVID-19 powers to address other pressing issues, such as drugs, climate change, crime, terrorism etc, on the ground that these too are very serious problems? On the flip side, there are also regulations that have been lifted. Should they remain lifted in some situations? FDA approvals: tests (restricting to CDC), drugs, devices, PPE? Occupational licensing/Practice of medicine across state lines. Some government contracting rules? What regulatory obstacles are still proving to be an issue? (e.g. food supply questions) Would a new BRAC commission make sense for this purpose? In general, to what extent does it make sense to reason – in either a pro-regulatory or deregulatory fashion -- from crisis situations to general notions of governmental role?Featuring:Prof. Sally Katzen, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence; Co-Director of the Legislative and Regulatory Process Clinic, New York University School of LawDr. Roger D. Klein, Faculty Fellow, Center for Law, Science & Innovation, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State UniversityProf. Erika Lietzan, Associate Professor of Law, Center for Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship, University of Missouri School of LawProf. Paul G. Mahoney, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Cass Sunstein, Robert Walmsley University Professor, Harvard Law SchoolModerator: Prof. Susan E. Dudley, Director, GW Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, The George Washington University*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

The fifth panel of the Federalist Society's COVID-19 & the Law Conference discussed "Regulation or 'Don't Let a Good Crisis Go to Waste'". The panel took place via teleconference on Friday, June 12, 2020.During this crisis government has assumed new powers that no one would claim it has except in an emergency. Will government cease exercising all these powers when the emergency passes? Historically government has almost always increased its power during crisis and then kept some of that power afterward. Will people try to invoke COVID-19 powers to address other pressing issues, such as drugs, climate change, crime, terrorism etc, on the ground that these too are very serious problems? On the flip side, there are also regulations that have been lifted. Should they remain lifted in some situations? FDA approvals: tests (restricting to CDC), drugs, devices, PPE? Occupational licensing/Practice of medicine across state lines. Some government contracting rules? What regulatory obstacles are still proving to be an issue? (e.g. food supply questions) Would a new BRAC commission make sense for this purpose? In general, to what extent does it make sense to reason – in either a pro-regulatory or deregulatory fashion -- from crisis situations to general notions of governmental role?Featuring:Prof. Sally Katzen, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence; Co-Director of the Legislative and Regulatory Process Clinic, New York University School of LawDr. Roger D. Klein, Faculty Fellow, Center for Law, Science & Innovation, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State UniversityProf. Erika Lietzan, Associate Professor of Law, Center for Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship, University of Missouri School of LawProf. Paul G. Mahoney, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Cass Sunstein, Robert Walmsley University Professor, Harvard Law SchoolModerator: Prof. Susan E. Dudley, Director, GW Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, The George Washington University*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

The Free Speech Century: A Retrospective and a Guide. Professor Lee Bollinger, President Columbia University. Respondents: • Professor Rae Langton (Professor of Philosophy, Cambridge) • Professor John Powell (Professor of Law and Professor of African American Studies and Ethnic Studies at the University of California, Berkeley) • Fred Schauer (David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia) Dinner is open to invitees and attendees of the lecture.

Professor Lee Bollinger, President Columbia University. Respondents: - Professor Rae Langton (Professor of Philosophy, Cambridge) - Professor John Powell (Professor of Law and Professor of African American Studies and Ethnic Studies at the University of California, Berkeley) - Fred Schauer (David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia)

Professor Lee Bollinger, President Columbia University. Respondents: • Professor Rae Langton (Professor of Philosophy, Cambridge) • Professor John Powell (Professor of Law and Professor of African American Studies and Ethnic Studies at the University of California, Berkeley) • Fred Schauer (David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia)

In this episode of Bookshelf, Prof. Keith Whittington, the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics at Princeton University, and Prof. Frederick Schauer, the David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia, discuss Prof. Whittington’s new book Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech. In Speak Freely, Prof. Whittington argues that universities have a distinctive and important mission in American society, one that has been recently challenged due to campus free speech debates. Prof. Whittington articulates the university as that which assembles and nurtures an open and diverse community of scholars, teachers, and students dedicated to the production and dissemination of knowledge. Moreover, he asserts, the robust protection of free speech and civil discourse is essential to that mission. In Speak Freely, Whittington argues that a better understanding of the relationship between the critical functions of the university and the principles of free speech can help guide us in resolving the difficult challenges that confront the members of modern universities. Our conversation begins with Prof. Whittington’s short introduction to his book, and is followed by Prof. Schauer’s comments to which Prof. Whittington will respond. The two authors will then engage in a bit of a back-and-forth dialogue. As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. We hope these broadcasts, like all our programming, will serve to stimulate discussion and further exchange on the topics they address.

In this episode of Bookshelf, Prof. Keith Whittington, the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics at Princeton University, and Prof. Frederick Schauer, the David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia, discuss Prof. Whittington’s new book Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech. In Speak Freely, Prof. Whittington argues that universities have a distinctive and important mission in American society, one that has been recently challenged due to campus free speech debates. Prof. Whittington articulates the university as that which assembles and nurtures an open and diverse community of scholars, teachers, and students dedicated to the production and dissemination of knowledge. Moreover, he asserts, the robust protection of free speech and civil discourse is essential to that mission. In Speak Freely, Whittington argues that a better understanding of the relationship between the critical functions of the university and the principles of free speech can help guide us in resolving the difficult challenges that confront the members of modern universities. Our conversation begins with Prof. Whittington’s short introduction to his book, and is followed by Prof. Schauer’s comments to which Prof. Whittington will respond. The two authors will then engage in a bit of a back-and-forth dialogue. As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. We hope these broadcasts, like all our programming, will serve to stimulate discussion and further exchange on the topics they address.

Free markets have exponentially improved the well-being of humanity and lifted more people out of poverty than any government program. But severe inequalities persist, and gaps have widened in the past thirty years. Is this a problem in and of itself? Or only to the extent it is caused by unfairly distorting the market with the help of government – so-called “crony capitalism" – as opposed to the inherently unique capabilities of each individual? How should the law be structured to ensure a level playing field? -- This panel was presented at the 2016 National Student Symposium on Friday, February 26, 2016, at the University of Virginia School of Law. -- Welcome and Opening Remarks: Dean Paul Mahoney, Dean, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law, and Arnold H. Leon Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law. Introduction: Mr. Dan McBride, President, University of Virginia School of Law Student Chapter. -- Panel I: Capitalism and Inequality -- Featuring: Dr. Yaron Brook, Executive Director, The Ayn Rand Institute; Prof. Thomas Edsall, Adjunct Professor of Journalism, Columbia Graduate School of Journalism; Prof. Jason Johnston, Henry L. and Grace Doherty Charitable Foundation Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law; and Prof. Steven Teles, Associate Professor of Political Science, Johns Hopkins University. Moderator: Hon. Jerry E. Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

I'm very excited to post Show # 221, August 13, my interview with Prof. Frederick Schauer, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia, and formerly of Harvard's Kennedy School, on the "right to know." I heard Fred discuss this issue at a panel that I moderated on the philosophy of information at Duke Law School earlier this year, and was unsurprisingly blown away by his insights on the issues at stake and questions to be answered in "right to know" analysis. This seemingly simple question has become surprisingly complex in the world of multidirectional communication by institutions and individuals on interconnected networks (like the "Inter-net"). I was thrilled to have Fred on the show, and the discussion was fascinating. I hope that you enjoy it. {Hearsay Culture is a talk show on KZSU-FM, Stanford, 90.1 FM, hosted by Center for Internet & Society Resident Fellow David S. Levine. The show includes guests and focuses on the intersection of technology and society. How is our world impacted by the great technological changes taking place? Each week, a different sphere is explored. For more information, please go to http://hearsayculture.com.}