46622 research outputs found
Sort by
Zoom as an In-Person Learning Platform
Full text linkDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, an unprecedented shift to remote learning spurred many legal educators to reassess their pedagogical norms and practices. These reassessments were enabled, in part, by the widespread adoption and acceptance of videoconferencing software, most notably Zoom, that accelerated from March of 2020. Zoom’s catalytic effect on pedagogy belies the fact that no single aspect of Zoom, by itself, is particularly pathbreaking. What is revolutionary, however, is how Zoom bundles diverse functionalities into a coherent package.
By recasting Zoom as a bundle of classroom functionalities--as an in-person learning platform--this Article presents a novel use case for Zoom in legal education, distinct from the software\u27s role in remote synchronous instruction. This proposed use case unsettles the conventional pandemic-era evaluative frames for Zoom and other videoconferencing applications. Instead of focusing on whether Zoom\u27s virtual environment adequately substitutes for in-person class sessions, this Article argues that faculty can deploy Zoom directly into physical classrooms to enhance in-person teaching. And, instead of translating Zoom-enabled pedagogical practices to in-person instruction on a one-off basis, this Article focuses on Zoom\u27s delivery of an integrated suite of teaching enhancements that instructors can deploy dynamically in physical space. In these ways, Zoom and other videoconferencing software provide leverage to shape our in-person interactions, as well as our virtual ones.
This Article situates Zoom, as an exemplar of videoconferencing software, within the conventional categories of software platforms used in education. Then, this Article discusses eight concrete implementations of Zoom\u27s features that can enhance law school teaching outside of virtual space. Finally, this Article explores the advantages and disadvantages of using Zoom in physical classrooms, with an emphasis on the ways in which Zoom, as an in-person learning platform, refigures conventional modes of instruction
Thirty-Five Years of Inaction: The Unfulfilled Promise of the Medicaid Equal Access Provision
No full textReview of Policing Empires: Militarization, Race, and the Imperial Boomerang in Britain and the US
No full text
Sugar, We\u27re Goin Down ?\u27: Major Questions Doctrine and the Securities and Exchange Commission\u27s Climate Disclosure Rule
Full text linkConsumer Protection and Investment Crowdfunding: Comments at the Future of Startup Finance: A Symposium on Investment Crowdfunding
Full text linkBeyond Discrimination: Market Humiliation and Private Law
Full text linkMarket humiliation is a corrosive relational process to which the law repeatedly fails to respond due to the law’s heavy reliance on the discrimination paradigm. In this process, providers of market resources, from housing and work to goods and services, use their powers to reject or mistreat other market users due to their identities. They thus cause users severe harm and deprive them of dignified participation in the marketplace. The problem has recently reached a peak. The discussion in 303 Creative v. Elenis indicates that the Supreme Court might legitimize market humiliation by granting private providers broad free speech exemptions from nondiscrimination laws. This Article is the first to offer a rigorous analysis of the oral arguments of this pending case. Its troubling findings show why deciding such a critical issue based on abstract preemptive litigation—designed to eliminate those who would be humiliated from the discussion—would be utterly wrong and should be avoided. But the Article not only sounds an alarm in a moment of crisis; it also develops a novel solution. It is time to go beyond discrimination, turning to private law and utilizing its tools to fight market humiliation. The proposed shift requiresmaking more room within private law for a duty not to humiliate. This Article recommends how to do so and what legal reforms of doctrines and remedies are needed. Following these recommendations can empower people humiliated in the marketplace to take action and seek remedies from those who mistreated them. Private law has unique expressive, normative, and remedial powers that can fill the normative void created under nondiscrimination laws. When the market’s inclusiveness is under attack, one salient response is to develop additional ways to secure market citizenship for all