Samuel Huryn Back in 2013, President Barack Obama, a Harvard Law School graduate, urged law schools to decrease their curriculum from three years to two years, stating that “I believe that law schools would probably be wise to think about being two years instead of three years”. Obama proposed this to combat a number of problems that have plagued law school recently. The New York Times states that these include “an increasing number of graduates struggling with soaring tuition costs, heavy student debt and a difficult job market”. In addition to Obama, his plan was supported by some current and previous law school professors.
However, this two-year law school program has, by and large, failed to succeed since Obama’s pronouncement. According to a separate article in the New York Times, “the two-year law degree has foundered so far. The only elite school to adopt it, the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, this fall ended its accelerated two-year juris doctor program after it failed to attract enough applicants.” The article proposed a number of explanations for this failure. First, because of accreditation requirements, some two year law schools require the same number of course hours to graduate, which simply squeeze the number of classes into a short time span, and do not decrease the cost. Additionally, some law programs are unwilling to experiment with a new formula and jeopardize the success of a proven program. That being said, for prospective students who believe that a two-year program fits their educational plan better than a traditional program, some law schools still offer a two year program. Like any prospective law student, those interested in a two-year program should weigh the pros and cons of the individual schools and their programs before deciding. Works Cited http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/obama-says-law-school-should-be-two-years-not-three/ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/26/business/dealbook/the-2-year-law-education-fails-to-take-off.html?_r=0
0 Comments
Interview with David A. Goldberger, Professor Emeritus of Law at the Moritz College of Law1/16/2016 Q: As society becomes more openly diverse, especially on college campuses like Ohio State, how important is it, at least in your opinion that free, unfettered speech remains a right?
A: Of course, it’s really very important that it remain a protected right. But I think that it growing diversity has little to do with the framing of the issue of free speech on campuses. The essence of a university is that there has to be a free exchange of ideas, including ideas that we find disagreeable. And that's always been the purpose of the university and the idea that they should be anything less is abhorrent. Q: I certainly agree. So what, in your opinion, would pose the most serious threat to free speech? A: Obviously, the most serious threats right now are efforts to suppress different viewpoints, and even viewpoints that are just painful to hear. Q: You would say then that the recent events at Yale are a negative development? A: We're talking about the Halloween costume? Q: Yes. A: It’s just disappointing. I find it disappointing. I have differed with my faculty colleagues through the years; I think that there's tendency on college campuses to dismiss the idea that there should be a free-flowing exchange of ideas, and that even ideas that are disagreeable have to be included in that exchange. I think that there's a paternalism that exists on campuses that I think is stunning. The fact that leading comedians in the United States--Jerry Seinfeld and others--won't perform on college campuses because they find the atmosphere too repressive, is a damning statement. Q: So would you say then that there's almost a cultural, fundamental misunderstanding of tolerance then? A: I just think it goes with the turf. I think that, if you put the conservatives in charge, they’ll try to suppress the ideas from the left that they disagree with. If you put if you put the liberals in charge, they’ll try to suppress the ideas that they disagree with. I think it's the human condition. That's why we have a constitution, because it protects our rights against repressive majorities, so that it's not just on campuses. It's everywhere. I just bet that one would think that on campuses was it would be a less of an issue, because you have people dedicated to transmitting knowledge in an exchange of ideas. College and university students and university faculty are no different than anybody else. But, I don’t think that universities are any worse than anybody else. But unfortunately right now better than anybody else and I think that they should be. Q: So how would you go about changing that for example? A: I don't know that there is a way to do it except through litigation—and that’s only good for people who have state universities—and for people to pushback. It’s the only thing I can imagine—as I said it’s the human condition. People don't want to hear ideas that they disagree with. They can tell you how committed they are to free speech, but once push comes to shove, they want to shut down at least some of the ideas that are really patently offensive to them. Q: So what should the courts, or at least an individual, for example, on a college campus, consider when making a statement that could be controversial? Is there a line that we should at least acknowledge? A: No, there is no line. Obviously, the First Amendment protects everyone’s speech outside of inciting violence or whether it's obscene. It seems to me that the best you can do for student groups is to form groups that are not politically committed to one ideological pole or another, to push back, and to be protected. Q: You talked about student action or at least forming student groups. Now would you say that the recent protests on college campuses, for example at Missouri, or even the student occupation of the Union here at Ohio State, are positive developments? A: I’m kind of conservative; any occupation of any place—now we’re talking about the Union—in any way that essentially is more than assembly, is preventing other people from using of facility. I have problems with that. I don't think that it’s wrong for students to protest and to criticize offensive speech. That is protected in freedom of speech. Let’s get one thing straight: freedom of speech and also includes the freedom to take the position that people shouldn't wear costumes that are offensive. I have no problem with that position, and I'm talking now about the Yale protests. But to the extent that someone stands up to take the other side, and there are people urging that she lose her job? That shows a complete misunderstanding. Although they have a perfect right to advocate that she should lose her job, in that setting it’s intimidating and it’s disappointing. Q: So ironically that would go back to the reason why we have free speech laws which protect against the tyranny of the majority, correct? A: Or the tyranny of whoever has the power to push the buttons. Now some people, and I include this teacher among them, if you're going to say something offensive, you're going to have to have the guts to take the heat. Free speech doesn't mean that when you say things that others find disagreeable, that you're not going to take some heat for it. But it should be heat in the form of protest, or criticism, or whatever you want, but it should not be in the form of threatened loss of a job, or any other kind of penalty or sanction. Q: So moving along towards litigation, would you say that the current Roberts court is a friend of free speech? A: It hasn’t been bad. On free speech, it generally has been decent, in my view. I've had some concerns about how it has handled campaign finance. My brother and the ACLU don’t agree with me on this, but I'm very wary of money in politics. But I think, for the most part, the Roberts Court has done the right thing outside of its handling of campaign finance. Q: Are you referring to Citizens United? A: Yes. Q: What would your issue be with the ruling? A: Money gives you a bigger megaphone than others have--substantially bigger--to which Scalia would say “That’s tough.” (Laughs) Q: But wouldn’t restricting campaign finance that pretty much cap the amount of influence a given individual could have? A: There are different ways to have influence. If you’re a remarkable organizer, or if you organize something online, for example, and get people to join with you and give ten dollars a head or five dollars or twenty five dollars, that gives you a lot of influence as well. That’s just a whole different can of worms, it seems to me; it means that, basically, the wealthy in our society have more, and their votes essentially become amplified, and that their votes count more than yours or mine. So I'm not I'm not an absolute purist. Q: Mr. Goldberg I'd like to thank you for your time and I really appreciate you answering these questions. A: Sure. Good luck and thank you. By Abby Newman For years, people all over the United States have enjoyed the pleasure and excitement of participating in fantasy sports leagues. Fantasy sports are part of an online gaming system in which participants choose players from sports teams in order to win money based on the players’ skill. The idea of fantasy sports began with Major League Baseball in 1979 and has since skyrocketed into a multi-billion-dollar industry (1). While fantasy sports can be a fun pastime among friends, in the past six years a new form of fantasy sports, known as daily fantasy sports has emerged and left the country in an everlasting game of tug of war concerning its legality, for it allows participants to obtain large portions of money in a manner that closely resembles internet gambling. According to the Legal Sports Report website, online daily fantasy sports franchises, FanDuel and DraftKings being the most prominent, are already considered illegal in the states of Arizona, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Nevada and Washington (2). Within the past month, a New York judge ruled that FanDuel and DraftKings must be shut down in the state of New York as well (3). This has been an overlying issue in New York since November when Attorney General Eric Schneiderman demanded that the two major daily fantasy sports companies cease operations. FanDuel and DraftKings immediately fought back, arguing that each have been operating legally for years in the state of New York. David Boies, the legal counsel on behalf of FanDuel and DraftKings argued that while these companies may be considered illegal elsewhere, they do not violate the gambling laws of New York, which are largely based on the material element of chance (4). DraftKings explicitly states on its website that “Daily fantasy sports is a skill game and not considered gambling” (5). However, this did not alter the growing opinion that these entities are “the leaders of a massive, multi-billion-dollar scheme intended to evade the law and fleece sports fans across the country”, in the words of the Gaming Control Board of Nevada. While the Attorney General may have deactivated the companies for now, Boies clearly stated in an interview with Fortune that a change in the law should come from the legislation and not a single prosecutor, and warned that shutting down FanDuel and DraftKings would have excruciating national economic consequences (4). That being said, this may not be the end of daily fantasy sports. While this issue may have been temporarily settled in New York, the game of tug of war still continues, with the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act, or the UIGEA, serving as the rope. The UIGEA was created in 2006 in order to monitor the growing issue of internet gambling. This law says explicitly that it is illegal to place stakes on the outcome of a sporting event, which would easily make daily fantasy sports illegal. However, there are six provisions of the UIGEA that serve as a sort of life preserver for fantasy sports. These provisions are as follows: 1. prohibit participants from controlling “fantasy teams” of only athletes from one professional or amateur organization; With this in mind, fantasy sports companies should be able to operate as usual, but many people still believe that fantasy sports are not games of skill, but games of chance. Other arguments can be made that provision #1 was violated in the 2015 Super Bowl, when a fantasy sports company allowed its participants to choose from only the players competing in the Super Bowl, which is one professional organization (6).
Other arguments in favor of daily fantasy sports involve the vast economic impact that the industry has on the United States. Focusing specifically on the case of fantasy football, these games have changed the way that fans follow the sport. In the past, NFL fans generally would only focus on local games, but now that their money is on the line, fans view games taking place across the country each week. It is said that the NFL paid DirecTV 1.5 billion dollars to show out of town games each week for local viewers. In addition to that, an entire new network entitled NFL RedZone was created for the sole purpose of broadcasting fantasy stats. Stadiums across the country also began showing fantasy stats on the big screen during games and upgrading the stadium wi-fi in order for fans to stay updated (1). If fantasy sports are eliminated, the economic downfall would be lethal, due to the amount already spent by just the NFL alone. This is not to mention the advertising done by FanDuel and DraftKings. Since the ruling, entries for FanDuel have dropped 25% and DraftKings by 12%, instituting the downfall of a business, which is a terrifying thought in this economy (3). No matter what the final outcome in this series of events, there is no clear winner. Either unlawful internet gambling continues, or the economy suffers a mighty blow. This just shows that the legal system is in no way a fantasy. Sometimes heavy consequences may ensue, but that is the price we pay for a just legal system. Works Cited
|
Archives
March 2018
Categories |