14041 research outputs found
Sort by
The State, the UDHR, and the Social Construction of Family in Human Rights: The Case of the Scarborough 11
Get PDFThe Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (UN 1947:34) declares in Article 16(3) that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the full protection by society and the state.” However, the UDHR does not define family, but rather presumes it is defined by traditional heteronormative marriage in a nuclear family. The failure of the UDHR to consider a more expansive view of family leaves the definition of family centrally in the hands of the state, and affects the ability of all but traditional nuclear family forms to access other human rights. We add to the scholarship on the role of the state in defining and maintaining family and family inequality through an examination of the case of the Scarborough 11, an intentional family sued by the city of Hartford, CT for violations of residential zoning ordinance based on family. This case challenges hegemonic constructions of family and illustrates the limits of the UDHR to protect all families. The case demonstrates the importance of the related questions: 1) how legal definitions of family create the capacity for local residents to understand non-nuclear families living among them, 2) whether the end-goal of this problem should be to expand the state’s definition of family or remove that power from the state in total (a question of reform vs. abolition) and, 3) what might a case concerning white middle-class professionals’ struggles to thrive tell us about boundary maintenance and the struggles of the poor to survive
In Brief
Get PDFAn update from the deans: Q&A Big wins Shaping Cleveland\u27s future International impact Battle for Ohio Real World Experience Triumph over tumult Scholarly impact Society of Benchers Alumni committees Class notes In memoriam Honor Roll of Donorshttps://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/in_brief/1113/thumbnail.jp
Teaching Public Health Law and Inequality
No full textThose who teach public health law are acutely aware of the effect of public health law and policies on marginalized populations—including, but not limited to, those in the Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) community. In some cases, public health officials have created or exacerbated the problem through laws and policies that disproportionately affect these communities— sometimes, even deliberately.
This emerging attention to these important problems has now led to the development of a new course, Public Health Law and Inequality. The course is being co-taught by the two presenters, who will describe the basic outline of the course and offer some examples of how the topics are interwoven throughout the semester, and how the students have become deeply involved in the course, through regular reflection papers, class discussion, and presentations.
John Culhane is the H. Albert Young Fellow in Constitutional Law, professor of law, and co-director of the Family Health Law & Policy Institute at Delaware Law School (Widener University) and visiting professor of law at the Beasley Law School, Temple University. He teaches in the areas of Constitutional Law, Public Health Law, Torts and Family Law. Author of more than 40 law journal articles, he is also a regular contributor to Slate and Politico. His latest book, The Many Ties that Bind, will be published in 2023 by the University of California Press. He has written two electronic casebooks: Culhane Torts I and II ; and Kelly/Culhane Family Law (with Alicia Kelly) for ChartaCourse, and has also created Torts Study Guide for the same publisher.
John\u27s work has also appeared in The New York Times, Huffington Post, Philadelphia Inquirer and Dissent, among many other places. He has been featured and interviewed in media including the NPR shows Morning Edition, All Things Considered and Marketplace Morning Report, as well as MSNBC, Radio Times, Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Reuters, and Associated Press. He has thrice won the Outstanding Faculty Award from Delaware Law School.
Joseph Farris is the assistant dean of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) and adjunct faculty at Delaware Law School (Widener University), where he graduated Magna Cum Laude and was awarded the Dean’s Award and the President’s Award. He received his BSE in Electrical Engineering from the University of Michigan, then served as an Officer in the United States Navy. Joseph has significant diversity leadership experience working on diverse and multicultural teams spanning from his roles in the military, church and nonprofit organizations to legal and business teams. Through DEI-related programming and messaging and a passionate commitment to social justice and the advancement of DEI interests and issues, he is helping the law school and broader legal community become more adept at recognizing and responding to DEI-related interests and issues, resulting in greater awareness and action towards creating a more inclusive and equitable environment.
Joseph teaches legal problem-solving and this semester is co-teaching Public Health Law and Inequality with John Culhane. Joseph is a licensed attorney in the state of Delaware and prior to joining the law school administration, he practiced law in the areas of corporate transactions, intellectual property, bankruptcy and restructuring matters. He has published works in those areas. In November 2021, he moderated a panel for the New Castle County Chamber of Commerce Women’s Leadership Conference about equity in the workplace; and in September 2021, he was a panelist in the National Association of African American Human Resources (Delaware chapter) event on the topic of justice in the workplace
Implementing Data Protection by Design in the Ed Tech Context: What Is the Role of Technology Providers?
Get PDFThis article explores the specific roles and responsibilities of technology providers when it comes to implementing Data Protection by Design (“DPbD”) and Data Protection by Default (“DPbDf”). As an example, it looks at the Education Technology (“Ed Tech”) sector and the complexities of the supply chains that exist therein to highlight that, in addition to the Higher Education (“HE”) institutions that procure products and services for advancing teaching and learning, Ed Tech vendors may also have responsibility and liability for the processing of student’s personal data. Ultimately, this paper asks whether there are any legal gaps, ambiguities, or normative conflicts to the extent that technology providers can have responsibility in contemporary data processing activities yet escape potential liability where it concerns issues of General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) compliance.
This paper argues that there is befuddlement concerning the determination of which parties are responsible for meeting DPbD and DPbDf obligations, as well as with regards to the extent of this responsibility. In some cases, an Ed Tech provider is a controller or processor in practice together with a HE institution, yet, in others it, may not have any legal responsibility to support the development of privacy and data-protection preserving systems, notwithstanding the fact it might be much more knowledgeable than a HE institution that has procured the Ed Tech product or service about the state-of-the art of the technology. Even in cases where it is clear that an Ed Tech provider does have responsibility as a controller or processor, it is unclear how it should share DPbD obligations and coordinate actions with HE
institutions, especially when the Ed Tech supplier may only be involved in a limited way or at a minor phase in the processing of student data. There is an urgent need to recognize the complex, interdependent, and nonlinear context of contemporary data processing where there exists many different controllers, processors, and other actors, processing personal data in different geographical locations and at different points in time for both central and peripheral purposes. Likewise, the complexity of the supply of software must also be emphasized, particularly in contexts such as the supply of educational technology where technology providers can play a key role in the preservation of privacy and data protection rights but may only have a tangential link to the universities that ultimately use their products and services. There is also a need for a more dynamic approach of considering responsibility regarding DPbD. Instead of thinking about responsibilities in terms of “purpose” and “means” the law should shift towards a focus on powers and capacities. The law should also clarify whether technology providers must notify controllers about changes to the state-of-the-art and, if so, to what extent
The Law of Space Cyber Operations: Gripping Mysteries, Entangled Frontiers, and Security Challenges
Get PDFThe developments of technologies applicable to cyberspace and outer space offer new opportunities. Each nation, institution, and individual must be involved in the security of cyberspace in order to secure outer space activities, while reinforcing the legitimacy of that commercial process. The stories that follow consider the intersection of outer space law and cybersecurity, describing vulnerabilities and the limitations of implementing international norms. The article assesses the cyberthreat landscape while offering recommendations. The article\u27s subsequent sections are organized as follows: Part II, The Cruel Sky, considers a historical mystery to better understand the contradictory world of cyber operations. Along the way in looks at humanity and its role to play. Part III, the Human Condition, takes a closer look at activities on and near Earth. In particular, it assesses a potential computer fraud originating from outer space. Part IV, Reach for the Stars, treks in search of recommendations for the safety and future of space exploration
Access Repository Dashboard
Do you manage Open Research Online? Become a CORE Member to access insider analytics, issue reports and manage access to outputs from your repository in the CORE Repository Dashboard! 👇