University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
University of Massachusetts, School of Law: Scholarship RepositoryNot a member yet
570 research outputs found
Sort by
“That’s the Hate They’re Giving Us, Baby, A System Designed Against Us.” The Restorative Justice Solution to the School-to-Prison Pipeline
Full text linkThe school-to-prison pipeline is one of the nation’s biggest challenges as students of color, LGBTQIA+ students, and students with disabilities are being funneled into prisons. Thousands of articles have been written on the existence of the school-to prison pipeline and potential solutions. Federal and state policies have shifted to combat the pipeline, but there is still a large proportion of our nation’s students being criminalized on account of their looks and behaviors. This Note argues that the school-to-prison pipeline is a systemic practice of the American education system, and the education system is functioning exactly as designed. The continued use of zero tolerance policies and school resource officers are proof that this system exists and continues to evolve. To address the real structural inequities of the school system, it must be met with equally radical practices, such as restorative justice, that address the systemic harm. Restorative justice, when done correctly and with the right resources, can be the solution to the school-to-prison pipeline
Taking the Rule of Law Seriously
Full text linkAmerican legal scholars and jurists have given the rule of law their sustained attention, and the international community has treated it as an important measure of societal well-being. But still the rule of law is not taken seriously. For one thing, little effort has been made to craft a definition of the rule of law that is actually useful. And even when legal scholarship does try at empiricism that could illuminate the vitality of our rule of law, it generally starts from the wrong hypotheses and uses the wrong methods. It focuses on how to achieve “access to justice” and privileges quantitative approaches and the supposed “gold standard” of the randomized controlled trial over the qualitative assessment that is necessary to hold ourselves accountable for the rule of law. However, it is nonetheless possible to derive a workable, consensus definition of the rule of law from the varied and elaborate concepts offered by legal scholars and jurists, which would provide a metric that could be used as the basis for more directly relevant research. Further, some of the research that has already been done about what goes on in our courtrooms does suggest what work evaluating the extent to which we are achieving the rule of law would look like. Such research must be done if we intend to ensure a fundamentally important mechanism for achieving many of our most cherished values, including equal treatment and social justice. We have to take the rule of law seriously if we intend to uphold those values
Rage Against the Machine: Reducing Robocall Abuse to Protect At-Risk Consumers
Full text linkFor most people, robocalls are nothing more than an annoying side-effect of owning a cell phone today. But a successful robocall scheme is still capable of wreaking financial and psychological havoc on its victims. Senior citizens and cognitively impaired individuals are often targeted by fraudulent phone calls or texts because they may have trouble understanding how to identify and protect themselves from robocall abuse. This Note proposes a collaborative solution to this problem by calling on the judiciary and legislatures to minimize the amount of robocalls received by American telephone consumers. By adopting a broader understanding of the law and enacting stricter regulatory measures concerning automated calls and text messages, this Note theorizes that the unfair impact of robocalls on these targeted communities would decrease. After all, robocalls are a favorite tool used to illegally defraud unwitting recipients, many of whom are elderly or cognitively harmed. Rather than tasking telephone consumers with protecting themselves from phone fraud, the government should take responsibility and stop robocallers from evading the law in the first place
The President Who Cried Voter Fraud: A Recurring Theme of Baseless Allegations
Full text linkIn 2019, Pennsylvania enacted Act 77, the first update to the Pennsylvania Election Code in nearly eighty years. Passed on a bipartisan basis, the law included a measure that permitted “no reason” mail-in ballots. Act 77 allowed any registered voter to request a ballot by mail, fill it out in the applicable time frame, and send it back to be processed. In the wake of a global pandemic that left Americans unable to leave their homes, this necessary update caused quite the controversy only a few months after it was passed. The primary election used the updated process for the first time on June 2, 2020. Receiving nothing but praises and positive feedback, the measures seemed to keep tensions at ease. That is, until the sitting President’s re-election campaign filed suit against Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar and the Commonwealth’s sixty-seven counties. Explaining a new process comes with challenges, but when you tack on a President purposely fanning the flames of doubt, mail-in ballots proved to be a tough sell. As President Donald J. Trump continued to allege baseless voter fraud accusations, the American people grew more restless in a year that was already full of uncertainty. As a key swing state in presidential elections, Pennsylvania took center stage in Trump’s war on the election “rigged by Democrats.” This article aims to address Trump’s relentless allegations of voter fraud—something that was sadly not new for him. By analyzing Pennsylvania and offering an insight into Centre County election protocols, this article will squash the baseless accusations to show the election results were fair, free, and unaffected by alleged fraud. Although President Trump refused to concede in hopes of the United States Supreme Court intervening, he lacked any standing and could not offer substantial evidence to support his claims. In short, these frivolous lawsuits were an attempt to undermine our democratic process by a man who has no shame spinning the narrative to suit his needs
An initial examination of computer programs as creative works
Full text linkProducts from many domains (art, music, engineering design, literature, etc.) are considered to be creative works, but there is a misconception that computer programs are limited by set expressions and thus have no room for creativity. To determine whether computer programs are creative works, we collected programs from 23 advanced graduate students that were written to solve simple and complex bioinformatics problems. These programs were assessed for their variability of expression using a new measurement that we designed. They were also evaluated on several elements of their creativity using a version of Cropley and Kaufman’s (2012) Creative Solution Diagnosis Scale that was modified to refer to programming. We found a high degree of variation in the programs that were produced, with 11 unique solutions for the simple problem and 20 unique solutions for the complex problem. We also found higher ratings of propulsion genesis and problematization for the complex problem than for the simple problem. This combination of variation in expression and differences in level of creativity based on program complexity suggests that computer programs, like many other products, count as creative works. Implications for the creativity literature, computer science education, and intellectual property law, particularly copyright, are discussed
Spring 2022 Newsletter: The Docket
No full textLink to the Spring 2022 issue of the UMass Law Library Newsletter, The Docket
Biometric Data Regulation and the Right of Publicity: A Path to Regaining Autonomy Over Our Commodified Identity
Full text linkThis Note explores how a right of publicity action might be used to address present day concerns regarding biometric data ownership rights where an individual’s likeness can essentially be bought and sold. As social networking and use of the internet has grown, so has the opportunity for people to engage with others and share their lives. However, that opportunity also comes with risk. More and more, people are required to accept the terms of use and privacy policies detailing how their biometric data will be collected and stored if they want to download and use certain technological applications. Most of these applications are offered to the public free of charge, so how is it these companies continue to increase their revenue? This Note purports that the users’ biometric data stands as a bargaining chip that is shared with tech companies in exchange for use of their product. After the companies collect this biometric data, it is sold for profit. By this very act it is proven that a person’s likeness has commercial value— and should not be misappropriated for another’s benefit. At the time of this Note, a few U.S. states have enacted biometric data regulations, but in the majority of states, consumers remain vulnerable. This is where the common law right of publicity comes in, as a potential vehicle to help everyday citizens regain control over their likeness, or at minimum, receive compensation where it is misused. Biometric data regulation is in its nascent stage and the extent of damage resulting from the individual’s loss of control over their biometric data is as yet unknown, but this Note endeavors to work out a possible avenue to regain control over commodified identity
Queering Bostock
No full textAlthough the Supreme Court’s 2020 Title VII decision, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, is a victory for LGBTQ individuals, its doctrinal limitations unavoidably preserve a discriminatory status quo. This Article critically examines how and why Bostock fails to highlight the indignities experienced by queer minorities under decades of employment discrimination. In Bostock, Justice Gorsuch presents a sweeping textualist interpretation of Title VII that protects against sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. Yet, the decision sparsely recognizes queer lived experiences, compared to prior pro-LGBTQ cases where such recognition contributed to developing an anti-stereotyping framework that confronted some of the heteronormative biases that invigorate discrimination against queer individuals. In contrast, Bostock avoids any meaningful acknowledgment of the lives of the litigants or the experiences of anti-queer bias in exchange for a lengthy illumination of Justice Gorsuch’s textualist rationale.When conceptions of sexuality and gender identity have been previously mischaracterized in favor of mainstream heteronormative values, the lived experiences of queerness are paramount for detecting discrimination and correcting it. This Article argues that Bostock’s neglect of queer lived experiences was not a forgivable oversight, merely collateral to its expansive textualist reading of Title VII. Rather, the neglect of lived experiences and anti-stereotyping frameworks was the price queer minorities had to pay for Title VII protection. In this way, this Article shows that Justice Gorsuch’s lack of regard for the lived experiences in Bostock tacitly privileges heteronormative values, underscores the status quo’s interest convergence, and ultimately limits the decision’s transformative appeal
Spring 2021 Newsletter: The Docket
Full text linkCopy of the Spring 2021 issue of the UMass Law Library Newsletter, The Docket
A Breath of Fresh Air: A Constitutional Amendment Legalizing Marijuana Through an Article V Convention of the States
Full text linkCriminal enforcement of anti-marijuana laws by the United States federal government has been non-sensical for more than twenty years. Culminating, ultimately, in an anomaly within American jurisprudence when California legalized marijuana in 1996 in direct violation of federal law, yet the federal government did little to stop it. Since then, a majority of states have followed California and legalized marijuana. Currently, thirty-six states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana despite federal law. Every year billions of dollars are spent on the federal enforcement of anti-marijuana laws while states collect billions in tax revenue from marijuana sales. Even more confusing is the fact that both President Obama and President Trump have issued federal directives loosening federal enforcement of laws criminalizing marijuana. Despite all this, marijuana maintains the status of a Schedule I substance, and the violation of federal marijuana law can, technically, result in a death sentence. The federal government has blundered numerous times on the issue of marijuana. These blunders have cost the country billions of dollars and ruined numerous lives through the unnecessary prosecution of marijuana offenders. This Article argues that because the states are capable of regulating marijuana, they should band together under the authority granted to them by Article V of the United States Constitution. That article provides an avenue to amend the constitution. If thirty-four states apply for an Article V Convention of the States, the federal government must convene one. An Article V Convention has never been held but has often been discussed. Considering a majority of the states and the District of Columbia have already legalized marijuana to some degree, and the federal government is undecided on marijuana enforcement, conditions are perfect for calling an Article V Convention of the States to ratify a Constitutional Amendment ending the archaic federal treatment of marijuana in this country