4328 research outputs found
Sort by
From Socrates to Selfies: Legal Education and the Metacognitive Revolution
Get PDFMetacognitive thinking, a methodology for mastering intellectually challenging material, is revolutionizing legal education. Metacognition empowers people to increase their mental capabilities by discovering and correcting flaws in their thinking processes. For decades, legal educators have employed metacognitive strategies in specialized areas of the curriculum. Today, metacognition has the potential to transform legal education curriculum-wide.Current scholarship is rich, generous, and creative in exploring how metacognition can be used to enrich specific sectors of the law curriculum. What is missing, however, is a holistic examination of how metacognitive theory and practice have developed across these different sectors, with the purpose of improving the theoretical framework and increasing its effectiveness. This Article comprehensively reviews the many facets of the metacognitive revolution, drawing parallels for the first time between experiential and non-experiential pedagogies and further relating them to recent accreditation mandates. It then addresses the likelihood that an important phase of the metacognitive revolution—the mandate to implement formative assessments with meaningful feedback—might be widely but poorly implemented, and thus cause more harm than benefit. To mitigate this problem, the Article suggests two new ways of conceptualizing what constitutes “meaningful feedback.” The first is that for feedback to be meaningful, it must be accompanied by metacognitive reflection. The second is that feedback takes on meaning when prefaced by the deconstruction and abstraction, or “naming,” of legal thinking processes. Both insights emerge only upon a holistic examination of metacognitive theory and practice as they have developed across disparate sectors of the legal curriculum
Menstrual Products and the Bar: Advocacy Seeks to Create Equal Bar Exam Testing Conditions for Menstruators
No full textMangers and Turbans: Nonverbal Religious Expression in a Diverse Workplace
Get PDFWith the current emphasis on workplace diversity, researchers have noted an increase in religious expression on the job and, consequently, in religious friction. Most of the literature focuses on speech, but other forms of expression, such as religious posters, symbols, and music, can cause dissension as well. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are required to accommodate the religious practices of employees in the workplace, unless doing so will cause undue hardship. Protected activity includes religious expression when employees sincerely believe their
religion requires it. This Article explores the accommodation of religious expression other than speech, when it may impose hardship, and how such hardship can be avoided. Religious displays are most commonly associated with four kinds of hardship to employers: customer alienation, coworker distraction, religious harassment of coworkers, and mistaken attribution to employers or coworkers. Title VII law requires the employer and the religious employee to try to reach a compromise. Each form of hardship needs a different approach
Growing Up in Prison: Rethinking Juvenile Offender Parole Hearings to Eliminate Essential Life Sentences
Get PDF
Five Privacy Principles (from the GDPR) the United States Should Adopt To Advance Economic Justice
Get PDFAlgorithmic profiling technologies are impeding the economic security of low-income people in the United States. Based on their digital profiles, low- income people are targeted for predatory marketing campaigns and financial products. At the same time, algorithmic decision-making can result in their exclusion from mainstream employment, housing, financial, health care, and educational opportunities. Government agencies are turning to algorithms to apportion social services, yet these algorithms lack transparency, leaving thousands of people adrift without state support and not knowing why. Marginalized communities are also subject to disproportionately high levels of surveillance, including facial recognition technology and the use of predictive policing software.American privacy law is no bulwark against these profiling harms, instead placing the onus of protecting personal data on individuals while leaving government and businesses largely free to collect, analyze, share, and sell personal data. By contrast, in the European Union, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) gives EU residents numerous, enforceable rights to control their personal data. Spurred in part by the GDPR, Congress is debating whether to adopt comprehensive privacy legislation in the United States. This article contends that the GDPR contains several provisions that have the potential to limit digital discrimination against the poor, while enhancing their economic stability and mobility. The GDPR provides the following: (1) the right to an explanation about automated decision-making; (2) the right not to be subject to decisions based solely on automated profiling; (3) the right to be forgotten; (4) opportunities for public participation in data processing programs; and (5) robust implementation and enforcement tools. The interests of low-income people must be part of privacy lawmaking, and the GDPR is a useful template for thinking about how to meet their data privacy needs
POVERTY LAWGORITHMS A Poverty Lawyer’s Guide to Fighting Automated Decision-Making Harms on Low-Income Communities
Get PDFAutomated decision-making systems make decisions about our lives, and those with low-socioeconomic status often bear the brunt of the harms these systems cause. Poverty Lawgorithms: A Poverty Lawyers Guide to Fighting Automated Decision-Making Harms on Low-Income Communities is a guide by Data & Society Faculty Fellow Michele Gilman to familiarize fellow poverty and civil legal services lawyers with the ins and outs of data-centric and automated-decision making systems, so that they can clearly understand the sources of the problems their clients are facing and effectively advocate on their behalf