6163 research outputs found
Sort by
Going Forward: The Role of Affirmative Action, Race, and Diversity in University Admissions and the Broader Construction of Society
Get PDFThe third annual EPOCH symposium, a partnership between the Seattle University Law Review and the Black Law Student Association took place in late summer 2023 at the Seattle University School of Law. It was intended to uplift and amplify Black voices and ideas, and those of allies in the legal community. Prompted by the swell of public outcry surrounding ongoing police violence against the Black community, the EPOCH partnership marked a commitment to antiracism imperatives and effectuating change for the Black community. The published symposium in this volume encompasses some, but not all, the ideas and vision detailed in the live symposium. This article summarizes the content of this published symposium of contributed articles, but also tries to convey some of the ideas and discussion outside the submitted articles, with the aim of providing a more cohesive sense of the gathering and to preserve the many ideas shared as a catalyst for future organizing and action
Defeat Fascism, Transform Democracy: Mapping Academic Resources, Reframing the Fundamentals, and Organizing for Collective Actions
Get PDFThe information we gathered during 2021–2023 shows that critical faculty and other academic resources are present throughout most of U.S. legal academia. Counting only full-time faculty, our limited research identified 778 contacts in 200 schools equating to nearly four contacts on average per school. But no organized critical “core” had coalesced within legal academia or, more broadly, throughout higher education expressly dedicated to defending and advancing critical knowledge and its production up to now. And yet, as the 2021–2022 formation of the Critical (Legal) Collective (“CLC”) outlined below demonstrates, many academics sense or acknowledge the need for greater cohesion among critical “tribes” and substantive disciplines. Especially so now, when “the spirit of fascism here at home” in the U.S. is increasingly resurgent and propelling “the grave dangers of ‘rightist reaction’ in this Nation” against “liberal” law and equality values. Just as when Franklin D. Roosevelt warned this nation eighty years ago, today, the spirit of fascism and its racist, anti-democratic cosmology stands for the perpetual entrenchment in the U.S. of a settler identity caste system that enforces specific yet inter-connected supremacist ideologies of ignorance, convenience, and prejudice against society as a whole.
In this pivotal historical moment, U.S. legal education, educators, and allies have chosen affirmatively to reject fascistic demands for submission, obeisance, and complicity. We have chosen instead to become a site of antisubordination resistance to this mounting reactionary violence and its ideological valorization of self-righteous ignorance, self-serving prejudice, and abject cruelty. Responding to this moment while also carrying forward decades of critical work, this mapping project is dedicated to supporting the mobilization of proactive resistance and to the ultimate vindication of antisubordination values through critical knowledge, education, law, and action. This action is focused without fear or distraction on “establishing Justice” as the U.S. Constitution promised over two centuries ago
The SFFA v. Harvard Trojan Horse Admissions Lawsuit
Get PDFAffirmative-action-hostile admissions lawsuits are modern Trojan horses. The SFFA v. Harvard/UNC case—Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, et. al., decided jointly—is the most effective Trojan horse admissions lawsuit to date. Constructed to have the distractingly appealing exterior façade of a lawsuit seeking greater fairness in college admissions, the SFFA v. Harvard/UNC case is best understood as a deception-driven battle tactic used by forces waging a multi-decade war against the major legislative victories of America’s Civil Rights Movement, specifically Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Although the Court’s ruling in SFFA v. Harvard/UNC did not accomplish the legal goal of making race affirmative action categorically unconstitutional, the case conceals and perpetuates a moral falsehood with the ideological power to destroy race-inclusion-focused civil rights laws
50 Years After the 1973 Coup in Chile: Analysis of the Processes of Transition to Democracy and Transitional Justice
Get PDFStudent Life E-Newsletter March 18, 2024
Get PDFhttps://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/studentlife/1152/thumbnail.jp
Student Life E-Newsletter February 05, 2024
Get PDFhttps://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/studentlife/1147/thumbnail.jp
Good Newsletter May 06, 2024
Get PDFhttps://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/goodnewsletter/1011/thumbnail.jp
On the Value of History: A Review of A.C. Pritchard & Robert B. Thompson’s A History of Securities Law in the Supreme Court
Get PDFA.C. Pritchard and Bob Thompson have written a splendid history of securities law decisions in the Supreme Court. Their book is exemplary because of its detailed use of the long unpublished papers of Supreme Court justices, including those of Harry Blackmun, William O. Douglas, Felix Frankfurter and Lewis F. Powell, primary sources which included correspondence with other Justices and law clerks as well as interviews with law clerks. The use of these primary sources recounted throughout the text and 67 pages of End Notes deepens our understanding of the intentions of the Justices and sharpens our understanding of the conflicts among the Justices concerning securities law. That the Justices of the Supreme Court throughout the last 90 years have episodically been at conflict with each other is not news. But the intellectual content of these conflicts in the field of securities law can be more richly appreciated when the published differences in the cases are buttressed by Pritchard and Thompson’s detailed off-stage account of the background of the public decisions as revealed in the Justices’ papers