By William Weber This interview has been edited for clarity
Q: As society grows more secular does religion still have a role to play in the modern American law or politics? A: I'm not totally sure I agree with the premise that American society is growing more secular. But that being said I think one of the things that distinguishes the U.S. system, the U.S. understanding, is that despite different degrees at different times of separation between church and state as a formal matter, religion has always played a very significant role in American politics at different moments. I see no evidence that it is going away. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing I think is a tricky question to answer, because it depends on the issue of a particular kind of form that religious involvement takes. I would be very surprised if religion left the public sphere, but I also think that, when you look historically, it ebbs and flows, so it’s not just a story of religion always having been involved and now it’s getting less so, or a story of religion hasn’t been involved and now it’s getting more so. I think at various moments of U.S. history religion has played a stronger or less strong role in politics and public life. Q: Are there any specific instances in which, or methods by which, religion has affected American law? A: I can give various specific examples. In the 19th century, for example, there were many different settings where a kind of general, vague Protestant moral sense was thought to underlie or shape the application of U.S. law. In the early part of the 19th century Sunday laws were explicitly grounded in a Protestant moral sentiment. When it came to the regulation of marriage, for example, the famous Supreme Court case in 1879 that held that Mormon polygamy is not to be protected by the First Amendment, had in part to do with certain kinds of Protestant assumptions about what constitutes marriage. In various ways Protestant morality shaped the public sphere and both the law and politics of the 19th century United States. In many ways it has continued to do so, although not always quite as overtly, throughout other parts of U.S. history. There are number of important political movements that are shaped by religion. In the lead up, for example, to the Civil War, there were very strong religious voices on both sides of the slavery debate; both abolitionists and anti-abolitionists appealed to the Bible and to Christian teachings to support their sides. The Civil Rights movement was also a movement that very much was articulated through a very particular Christian rhetoric. The rise of the Christian right over the last several decades has been an incredibly important force in U.S. politics as well, and came as a surprise to many people during the middle part of the 20th century. I think many assumed Christianity would play less and less of a prominent role in American politics and public life. For a number of reasons related to debates about racial segregation, school prayer, abortion, there has been a resurgence of conservative Christian involvement in. U.S. politics over the last 30 years that has been an incredibly important force. Q: And just moving along slightly now, the stated goal of most laws regulating is to be neutral. Is that in your opinion actually possible? A: It’s a complicated questioned, but at least since the 1940s, the U.S. Supreme Court, or at least a majority of justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, have interpreted the First Amendment to require formal state neutrality both among religious traditions and between what they describe as the categories of religion and non-religion. That has not always been a consensus position throughout U.S. history or even among the Court justices. Justice Scalia, who just passed away, for example, in various public forums argued the neutrality required only neutrality among religious traditions, but in fact did not require strict neutrality between religion and non-religion. To the broader question of whether, if one is committed to the ideal of neutrality, whether or not it is achievable, in a very strict sense I’m not convinced that it is. I think that a pure, formal position of neutrality does not really exist. But I do think that there are ways the government can be more neutral, perhaps more than others while acknowledging that there is always some kind of normative position that underlies the positions the government takes and that there will always be certain groups who will probably not be satisfied with that. Q: You seem to address this topic in your book, Religion Out Loud. Can you briefly explain the central themes of the book for those who haven't read it? A: Religion Out Loud is a book I published last year that offers a history of religious pluralism in the U.S. and of controversy over religion’s public place, told specifically through disputes about sound or public noise. I look at examples going back to the 19th century through today, where Americans have complained about religion as being too noisy or too loud in public places: things like church bells, the Islamic call to prayer, or public proselytizing. I was interested in how, specifically through this issue of noise, Americans arrived at different positions about the place of religion in American public life and ultimately different understandings of what religion itself is. So whether, for example, region is fundamentally something about internal, personal, individual faith or belief, or whether religion is a form of public practice that involves the body and the senses. I was really interested in using noise as a way to address some of these questions. Q: In your book you specifically mention the Islamic call to prayer. Do you think that the public stigma attached to a certain religion would affect how it would be regulated? A: It's a great question, because one of the underlying premises of the book is that we don't respond to religion in the abstract. We respond to particular religious communities in particular times and particular places. So when talking, for example, about religious noise-- part of what makes noise such a slippery category is that on the one hand, it has to do with the noise itself, but on the other hand, noise is a totally subjective category that almost always has to do with who is making the noise and where we expect to hear certain sounds. When we answer that question of whether or not religion belongs in public, the answer usually has something to do with whether or not we think these particular religious communities belong in public or not. It's not surprising that in the last decade, for example, there are various examples where people have complained about the public broadcasting of the Islamic call to prayer, while not even noticing the ringing of church bells across the street. The call to prayer stands out as unwanted noise, while the church bells are just normal or just taken for granted as part of the background. The way that speaks to all of the really important themes in the history of religion, law, and politics in the U.S. is that there are important differences between majority and minority religions, and the way that certain audiences have often taken for granted a strong, prominent, public, place for Christianity--or more specifically Protestant Christianity—while often taking offense when members of religious minorities try to exert a similarly strong public or political presence.
0 Comments
By Olivia Worthington The spread of new technology has led to a rise in legislation regarding cyberterrorism, which is a way for terrorists to use computer hacking to produce harmful effects on the target country’s infrastructure and resources. Cyberterrorism, defined as the politically motivated use of computers and information technology to cause severe disruption or widespread fear in society, is a very real threat that exists toward the United States (1). President Obama was quoted in 2014 as saying that cyberterrorism is a top priority in the United States (2). Cyberterrorism itself is defined as a criminal act and is typically directed against a large country or group. The Department of Homeland Security is responsible for attempting to identify cyberterrorism and determining what constitutes a legitimate terrorist threat through cyberspace. The definition of cyberterrorism is somewhat ambiguous, leaving the judicial system to try to both interpret and decide legal punishments based on specific cases with a law that is vaguely written. A lack of legal precedents with cyberterrorism is also a key factor, as technology has made this phenomenon a relatively recent occurrence. The USA PATRIOT Act was established after the September 11th terrorist attacks, and the primary function of this legislation is to prevent the spread of terrorism through interception and obstruction (3). Title VIII of this bill specifically relates to the topic of cyberterrorism. Civil action may only be taken against cyberterrorism if specific violations occur under section 803, and the most common of these violations is cyber activity deemed to cause a threat to public health or safety in any way (4). The specific nature of this provision has raised concerns, as actions deemed by many to be cyber-terroristic in nature may not violate the specific requirements to be defined as cyberterrorism. Punishments against cyberterrorism have recently been increased from 5 to 10 years imprisonment for minor offenses, with more major offenses being subject to more severe punishment if the nature of the crime has a high degree of intended harm. In connection with the rise in concerns involving cyberterrorism, new laws have been enacted to enforce cybersecurity more stringently. The United States Attorney General is held responsible for assembling cybersecurity forces to ensure no cyberterrorism laws are being broken, and to assist federal law enforcement if cyberterrorism is caught (5). This is also a provision of the USA PATRIOT Act, to intercept cyberterrorism before it occurs. If cyberterrorism is overlooked by this cybersecurity force, legal ramifications can occur with the charge of treason. The Federal Bureau of Investigation within the United States is currently looking into more ways to combat cyberterrorism due to the rising threat it poses to the nation’s security and infrastructure. New laws are constantly being worked on to more narrowly define cyberterrorism, which would enable more thorough legal action to be taken against specific breaches of the terrorism laws in cyberspace. As technology has continued to develop, newer laws are necessary because new forms of cyberterrorism can be developed daily. This is in conjunction with an overarching goal of the United States to adapt laws to fit newer technology standards, as when the basic legal framework of the United States was written technology was not yet prominent. The FBI’s work in cyberterrorism has ultimately culminated in multiple committees to prevent cyber-terroristic threats, as well as identify possible threats and their severity level. The legal ramifications of cyberterrorism remain ambiguous, but efforts are currently being made in the United States Congress to create clearly defined laws regarding cyberterrorism. Robert Anderson addressed the FBI in 2014 to announce the strict legal action the United States was attempting to take toward cyberterrorism was proving to be effective, as multiple indictments of overseas cyber criminals have taken place by the FBI (6). Provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act were used to enact a legal punishment, and the judicial system also recognized the need for more clear cyberterrorism laws. Combatting terrorism remains a top priority within the United States, and the legislative branch is working to create effective laws to do so in the case of cyberterrorism. The USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 was a major stepping stone in creating laws that are more adaptable to modern times, and many new pieces of legal legislation will soon come about to combat the rise in technology being used to launch cyber-terroristic threats against the United States. Works Cited
By Lisa Hamant I interviewed Brandon Sadowsky and Wil Sharon, the two former editors-in-chief for the law review and current first-year students in law school. I asked about their experiences in law school and how their time at OSU helped to prepare them. This is part two of the interview.
Q: What are some of the classes you took at OSU that you think were a good basis for courses you’re taking in law school? B: Professor Baum in the political science department teaches a couple of classes that I’ve found very helpful. I took Civil Liberties and Women and the Law with Professor Baum, and I still use my old outlines that I made for those classes. I think symbolic logic can also be helpful in acquiring some formal familiarity logic (probably more than you need, but it’s still helpful). I took symbolic logic with Professor Shabel, who is another talented professor. In general, I think that any class that forces you to think logically and critically can be helpful for law school. W: The two most useful courses I took were Legal Writing with Bob Eckhart, and Philosophy of Law with Piers Turner (I believe). I took the latter during my first year, and it was a large part of what interested me in law. In Legal Philosophy (which was not the exact name of the class, by the way, but I can’t remember it now) we talked about theories of punishment. I remember finding the different perspectives fascinating. The other day in my Criminal Law class we discussed the same material. It was cool to see the difference between a law school discussion and one during my first year of college. Q: How did you best prepare for the LSAT and what was the overall law school application process like? B: I used a Princeton Review course for LSAT prep. I think their program was helpful, and their materials were good. At the same time, however, my LSAT score improved most after I got my basics down and then took a LARGE number of timed practice tests. One resource I eventually found was top-law-schools.com, which has some study plans and tons of advice. I’d say a rough outline of studying should be: (1) use materials to help you gain familiarity with all the different question types; and (2) take tons of practice tests—aim to take all of them that are available. (And trust me, it’s worth the effort in the end!) The application process isn’t terrible. Waiting to hear back from schools can make you go a little crazy at times. But overall, I’d say the process is pretty easy since most applications are the same. W: I studied for the LSAT on my own. I started with Logic Games, and I used the Powerscore Bible to develop methods. I realized that those problems were verifiable; essentially, if I had unlimited time, I could check all of my answers and not miss any. With that in mind, I resolved that I wouldn’t take the test until I was able to complete the games section without missing questions. It became an issue of speed. At that point, I started taking practice tests. I made sure that I had a strategy for answering the games questions. The Logical Reasoning section was relatively intuitive. I didn’t use any additional study material for those problems (I would not recommend this. I think it might have been helpful to be able to classify question types and, for some people, to diagram). I struggled the most with Reading Comprehension. I think that the best way to study is to start reading academic journals. Pick an article from the Economist or Scientific American to read every morning. The important thing is that you learn to read actively. You should be able to finish a sentence or a paragraph, and then summarize it immediately. I was never good at this. It is something that would have helped me with the LSAT, and something I wish I had learned earlier, now that I am in law school. The LSAT is the biggest hurdle, but it is also the best opportunity people have. My GPA was good, but not great. I spent as much time as needed on LSAT prep. I realized that if I could get a high enough score, I could get in anywhere, regardless of my resume and grades. People tend to treat the LSAT like a test of what they already know. Those who attempt to learn the test will be better off. Keep in mind that the LSAT is more important than your grades. This is a difficult concept for pre-law students to grasp. However, if you could trade a semester of straight A’s for a semester of straight B+’s, and as a result, increase your LSAT score by 10 points, you would get into a better law school. It sounds like I am recommending slacking off in school. I suppose I am, in a way. But the point is merely that the LSAT is priority number one. Incidentally, I got my best grades the semester I studied for the LSAT. I think this is because it focused me and made me a quicker thinker. Don’t start skipping every class, but if it comes down to looking over your wrong answers on a practice test and going to a 600-person Earth Science class where the professor is showing a video, the former is the better long-term option. Aside from the LSAT, try to go to office hours with a professor you like. It is helpful to develop relationships with professors early so that you can get letters of recommendation. It will also help your grades. Your professor may not consciously boost your grade because you spoke with her outside of class and showed an interest. However, you will find that you understand the material better even if you speak to your professor merely to clarify something, or to talk about something tangentially related to the material. Q: What advice do you have for students who are in the midst of the application process right now? Especially considering the personal statements, is there anything you learned that you would tell students who are getting ready to write their personal statements? B: I have some advice that could help current and future applicants. The first thing to say is that your GPA and LSAT will more or less determine which schools you get into. So definitely do your best to maximize those numbers. Second, I’d try to get to know two professors moderately well before applying. Although letters of recommendation are not super high on the scale of importance for most schools (GPA and LSAT rule the day), I think it can make a difference, especially at places like Yale and Stanford. It also never hurts. (And ask for recommendations early!) Going along with that, try to submit your applications as early as possible. Applying earlier in the cycle helps since most schools do rolling admissions. Third, personal statements… They can be difficult. My advice is to write about something you’re passionate about. Give the person reading your file some insight into how you think and how you view the world. Try to make these points through a story—or a series of related stories. And if you can, try to link things up with why you want to go to law school. The Dean of Admissions here at YLS wrote a great post that I took to heart when writing my statement: https://www.law.yale.edu/admissions/jd-admissions/ask-asha/ps One last thing for those who are submitting apps: just enjoy the ride! Everything will work out in the end. W: For LSAT advice, read blogs about LSAT prep. I enjoyed the blog, Most Strongly Supported. On your personal statement, don’t overwrite. Keep it brief. If you are trying to impress people with your writing, you will probably have the opposite effect. Tell stories, link the stories together in a way that shows you enjoy critical thinking, and let the reader infer your positive characteristics. Describe a time when you made a difficult decision that took maturity. I am a fan of short sentences. Q: It’s very difficult to get into top law schools, but you’ve managed to do it. Anything specifically you think students should consider getting involved in that may help them get into top schools? B: I think admissions is mostly number driven, so focusing on your GPA and LSAT is most important. However, there are a few schools where “softs” matter more, and I bet they matter to some extent at almost every school. The best advice I can give here is to get involved in something you’re passionate about, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with the law. Showing involvement and initiative (through things like leadership positions) in anything that interests you is the way to go. And if you’re doing what you enjoy, I think that’s when you’ll be at your best. W: As I mentioned, the most important thing is the LSAT. Don’t fight that fact. Once you accept that your LSAT score will determine where you end up, you can devote your time to the test. You can take the test three times if you need to. Brandon was (and undoubtedly still is) a better student than I am. He had a perfect GPA (actually, he got an A- once, but I expect that the TA graded his work incorrectly). He also got a 174 on the LSAT. In short, he is the type who deserves to be at Yale Law. My GPA was closer to a 3.5 when I applied. There probably wasn’t an LSAT score that would have allowed me to get into Yale. But I knew that there was one that would get me into Columbia, so I worked on the test until I knew that I could get that score. Many people don’t like (or reject) this advice because it seems unfair that one test matters so much (it’s not unfair, but that’s another matter). The great thing about that sentiment is that it provides an advantage to people who do focus on the test. By highlighting the importance of the LSAT, I don’t mean to diminish the importance of grades or involvement. GPA is a major factor too, and not one to be sacrificed completely. Find a balance. Brandon is a great example. He had enough time to do both. It is important to get involved, but don’t overcommit. I loved OSULR because it wasn’t too time-consuming, but it gave me a group to work with and an organization to highlight on my application. If you care about one thing enough to devote yourself, spend your time on that. In my law school interviews, people asked me about OSULR. They asked what motivated me to cofound it. I had a good answer because it was something about which I was passionate. Nobody asked me why I hadn’t done many other things also. Q: I followed up with Brandon to ask about extracurriculars he’s in now, during law school. Specifically, he is working in an environmental law clinic. This was his response. B: It’s hard to say what exactly I do at the clinic since my client is still refining the project they’re having us work on. Basically, though they’ll be having me research pipelines and different legal issues that might come up. There are a BUNCH of different clients that people are working for, and they’re all working on different issues. So tasks vary widely depending on who you work for. There are also other clinics on tons of different topics, and they do diff things. There’s one that does legislative advocacy for education issues, another works with veterans, there’s one that’s about tenant/landlord disputes, etc. It’s a way to start doing some real-ish legal work while you’re still a student. By Samuel Huryn For many years, the LSAT - the Law School Admissions Test - was essentially the only path for prospective students interested in attending law school. However, following a recent announcement by the University of Arizona, that may be about to change. Effective immediately after their announcement on Wednesday, February 10th, The University of Arizona now accepts GRE scores for prospective law students. The University “concluded that the test, coupled with undergraduate grade-point average, is as reliable as the LSAT in predicting the taker’s success in the first year of law school”1. The GRE - the Graduate Record Examination - is a standardized test like the LSAT, but used for admission decisions in Graduate School. A recent study, which “compared the GRE and LSAT scores of current Arizona Law students and recent graduates with their law school grades”, found that “the GRE test, which assesses verbal reasoning, quantitative reasoning, critical thinking and analytical writing, is as good a predictor for law school success for Arizona Law students as the LSAT”2. Understandably, the University of Arizona’s Law School admissions stated that it will continue to utilize a broad number of factors when evaluating a student’s admission status This comes during a time when many law schools are facing record low applicants, and are looking to improve the size of their student body however possible. Most likely, this explains why the University of Arizona opted to accept GRE scores. University Provost and Senior Vice President of Academic Affairs Andrew Comrie stated that “students from a wider spectrum of backgrounds, including those interested in any of the College of Law’s dual degree options, can pursue a legal education relying on a standardized test that is readily available and widely used by other graduate and professional programs”2. Likewise, “Loyola University Chicago School of Law Dean David Yellen predicted that other law schools will follow Arizona’s lead if the school is able to bring in a larger—and stronger—applicant pool as a result of accepting the alternative test”4. Regardless, their decision will play an influential role on law school acceptances in the future. Works cited
1.http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202749341287/Arizona-College-of-Law-Will-Accept-GRE-Instead-of-LSAT?slreturn=20160206202151 2.https://law.arizona.edu/arizona-law-school-gre 3.https://law.arizona.edu/arizona-law-school-gre 4.http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202749341287/Arizona-College-of-Law-Will-Accept-GRE-Instead-of-LSAT?slreturn=20160206202151 |
Archives
March 2018
Categories |