Professor Frampton Practices What He Teaches

---

Jacob Smith ‘23
Professor Liaison

It is hard to get further from the ivory tower than Professor Thomas Frampton, a former public defender who teaches criminal law and civil rights litigation at UVA. But currently, he is also both a defendant and a civil rights plaintiff. He is not exactly pleased about this situation, which he described as “annoying.” He admitted, however, that it will be a great story to tell once it is firmly in the rearview mirror.

So how did this happen? Before teaching, Professor Frampton worked as a public defender in New Orleans, and he still maintains an active pro bono practice. This January, Professor Frampton helped a client bring a 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights lawsuit against the Baton Rouge Police Department after a series of indignities that included a public strip-search of the client and his sixteen-year-old brother.

The civil rights lawsuit settled in May for $35,000. Nevertheless, Professor Frampton said the police “weren’t doing anything” to hold the officers involved accountable. So Professor Frampton’s clients decided to release body camera footage of the search. They posted it to YouTube and put out press releases. It quickly went viral, and CBS Evening News, among other news outlets, picked up the story.

On May 28, the day after the CBS story, and just as he was watching a press conference responding to the media firestorm, Professor Frampton received an email. The Parish Attorney was bringing contempt proceedings against him. In Louisiana, contempt of court is a quasi-criminal offense punishable with a fine of up to five hundred dollars, six months in jail, or both. He alleged that Professor Frampton had released records of a juvenile criminal proceeding without authorization, since his client’s brother was a juvenile when he was searched.

 Professor Frampton was “deeply freaked out.” Fortunately, he has an extensive network of contacts in the public interest world and immediately began reaching out. A lot of people were willing to help. He assembled a “stellar legal team”—the ACLU, Tulane Law School’s First Amendment clinic, and two local civil rights attorneys who knew him from his previous work. “I actually feel a little bashful that so much legal brainpower is being deployed on my behalf, when there’s so much other important work,” Professor Frampton said.

Along with providing representation in the state contempt proceeding, this dream team filed a §1983 lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on June 23. They sued the City of Baton Rouge, its mayor, and its police chief. The complaint[1] alleges that Professor Frampton engaged in protected First Amendment activity in releasing the video, and the defendants retaliated against him because of that speech. As illustrated in the complaint, there are troubling questions about why Professor Frampton was charged. To start with, there never was a juvenile court proceeding in the first place against the minor in question. In addition, the camera footage had already been released without formal court authorization to Professor Frampton’s client and to the public defender’s office, and parts were even made public as part of the client’s criminal case record. Finally, Professor Frampton released the footage on behalf of “the individuals whose privacy interests are implicated in the videos,” namely the client and his brother.

As law students, you surely want to know all the nitty-gritty procedural details, so here’s the current situation: to accommodate the federal lawsuit, the Louisiana state hearing has been moved back several times. The parties in the federal case have been briefing a motion for a preliminary injunction and a motion to dismiss, respectively. In the state proceeding, Professor Frampton also filed a motion to dismiss.. About a month ago, he and other witnesses testified in a Zoom evidentiary hearing on his motion for a preliminary injunction in the federal case. Within the next two weeks, Judge John W. deGravelles is expected to rule on those motions. If a preliminary injunction is granted, the state court proceedings will be stayed to allow the federal case to go forward. Normally, federal courts are reluctant to interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings, under what Fed Courts students will know as Younger abstention,[2] but this case may fall under an exception to that doctrine for bad faith or harassment.

Professor Frampton is much more comfortable teaching and practicing civil rights law than living it.  But the law professor has faced the possibility of contempt charges before in his work as a public defender, and he is “hopeful and optimistic” that he will not have to stand trial in the criminal proceedings. And compared with most criminal defendants, Professor Frampton retains fabulous legal representation and has a supportive employer. If nothing else, the situation highlights the City’s willingness to bring criminal charges of questionable validity. As Professor Frampton said, if the Parish Attorney is willing to go after him, a white out-of-state law professor, imagine how they treat indigent persons of color.

---

js3hp@virginia.edu

---

[1] To find the case on Bloomberg, it is Frampton v. City of Baton Rouge, no. 3:21-cv-00362 (M.D. La.).

[2] See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

Dean Goluboff Welcomes Class of 2024

---

Risa Goluboff ‘00
Dean of UVA Law

The new school year always brings energy and excitement to the Law School. That is particularly true this year, when, for the first time in eighteen months, we are able to gather in groups of any size without social distancing. It has been a joy to see you getting to know each other, and I look forward to welcoming our returning students next week. There is so much discovery and growth ahead of you—ahead of all of us—this year.

Law school is a transformative experience, and—with orientation, your first assignments, and meeting section mates and professors behind you—you are already on your way. In the months and years ahead, we will teach you the fundamentals of how to think (and write and speak) with the analytical reasoning and precision of a lawyer. We will offer you opportunities to work with real clients on real cases so that you can acquire the integrity, judgment, and perspective that you learn most effectively through experience. And we will expose you to the broad sweep of interdisciplinary perspectives—economics, jurisprudence, history, psychology, and more—that will enable you to see the big picture wherever your career takes you. You will leave here able not only to deploy the law as it is but also to envision what the law can and should be in the future.

Pictured: Dean Risa Goluboff. Photo Courtesy of virginia.edu.

For many of you, law school will be the capstone of your educational career. Make the most of your time here, all the while knowing that we will offer you more opportunities than you can possibly take. That is the beauty of a law school that boasts students who are the best and the brightest in the nation, world-class faculty engaged in groundbreaking and interdisciplinary research, and experiential learning that will let you put your classroom knowledge to work. Join a journal, take a clinic, do moot court, engage with the Charlottesville community, take on leadership roles in student organizations. As you do so, you will encounter some of the many career paths available to you, from trial lawyer to corporate executive, cause crusader to policy wonk to dealmaker. Imagine what these paths might look like for you. Try several on for size.

Just as important as what you will do at UVA Law are the people with whom you will do it. The relationships you build during your time here—with your classmates, faculty, and staff—will enrich your days at the Law School and will sustain you personally and professionally in the years to come. The vitality of our diverse community permeates all we do here. We come from different races, religions, nationalities, ethnicities, and cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. We have had different life experiences and live different identities. We hold different beliefs, attitudes, and interests, and subscribe to a wide range of political views.

We bridge these differences with a shared commitment to this community, a shared aspiration that our differences serve as a source of humility and strength, empathy and intellectual stimulation. It is not always easy to speak so that others can listen or listen even when the message is hard to hear, but our community of trust and belonging makes that possible. Doing so is necessary to analyzing and solving problems, considering every argument, exploring every idea, arguing for your side, and collaborating with the other. It is essential to becoming the exceptional lawyers you are here to become—UVA lawyers.

Our robust community is also what has sustained us the past eighteen months as we have navigated the COVID-19 pandemic. We have learned both that we cannot anticipate every obstacle that might come our way, and that we rise to them because we do so together. As we return to a fully in-person law school experience this semester—armed with our high vaccination rates and temporary mask mandate—we remain vigilant about keeping our friends, families, colleagues, and neighbors healthy. I ask you to be mindful that we each have different health risks and risk tolerances and to approach those differences with humanity, compassion, and patience. And I ask you to help us continue to nurture and enhance our community so that every member shares in the sense of belonging that makes UVA Law so special.

I look forward to seeing how each of you makes this place your place, and to the paths you will forge during your time here. This moment in our national and global history calls out for exceptional lawyers to lead our government, our institutions, our businesses, and our communities in ways that comport with the core values of our Constitution and our profession. You are on your way to becoming those lawyers. Welcome, and enjoy!

---

risa.goluboff@law.virginia.edu 

SBA Presidential Address

---

Niko Orfanedes ‘22
SBA 2021-2022 President

Fellow Members of the Virginia Law Community,

A little over a year ago, on the first Saturday of April, I spent the afternoon with a small group of law students on Copeley Field. It was a balmy, spring afternoon in Charlottesville—yet the walking paths and streets around North Grounds were eerily desolate. For those of us who would remain in town for the duration of the semester, such a scene would soon become all too familiar. This particular Saturday was especially momentous, however, considering what should have been. Copeley Field was supposed to be packed full of players and spectators from law schools around the country for the 37th Annual North Grounds Softball League Invitational—the first of many classic UVA Law traditions to be derailed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, a little over a year later, we are faced with the formidable challenge of rebuilding and restoring our once-unwavering sense of community.

Although brighter days are undoubtedly on the horizon, our student body remains—in many respects—at a crossroads. The pandemic continues to take a toll on our mental and physical health. Our viewpoints on critical issues are increasingly at odds. A number of students feel isolated and disconnected from the Law School administration—and, in many cases, their fellow classmates. Meanwhile, Reddit posts and GroupMe discussions have highlighted our dire, longstanding need to curate a drastically more diverse and inclusive student body and faculty.

Too often when faced with these challenges, we, the student body, elect to debate for the sake of debating (we are future lawyers, after all). Words alone, however, are not the way forward. Our current state of affairs calls for strong and decisive action, and it is for precisely this reason why I decided to run for SBA President.

Since assuming office last month, your SBA representatives have hit the ground running. My fellow Executive Board members and I have met with student leaders, raised sensitive concerns to our Law School administrators, and strategized ways to reestablish the events, activities, and traditions that bring us together and strengthen our bonds as a student body. Before the semester ends, I will be establishing the inaugural President’s Roundtable with leaders of each of our law school affinity groups. The purpose of this roundtable discussion will be to identify issues facing our students and to develop action plans to bring our community forward. Because many of the challenges faced by our affinity groups are deeply-rooted and persistent, we will be hosting this discussion on a regular basis throughout the upcoming year. Further, I will be working with our Senators to circulate a class-specific, semi-monthly survey designed to obtain feedback and insight on a number of matters (e.g. administrator accessibility, academic challenges, social events, and general concerns). With this information at our disposal, the SBA can take targeted action to efficiently address the many issues facing our student body today.

Despite our many differences, we all possess a common desire to make our school a better place. During last month’s contested SBA elections, we witnessed record voter turnout across the board—a testament to the passion and care that we all share when it comes to our Virginia Law community. Now, we must channel our passion and unite as we lead our beloved institution into the future.

As we embark on this journey together, I am extremely grateful to be a part of the all-star team that is SBA 2021-22. Moreover, I would be remiss not to give a major shout-out to my predecessor, Katharine Janes ’21. Despite assuming her position amidst the calamity of an unprecedented public health crisis, Katharine navigated our student body through this uniquely challenging year—beginning with our transition to virtual learning and the pass-fail debate— – with vigor and grace. I, like the rest of us, am thankful for her leadership, and I look forward to building upon her successes and accomplishments.

As we leave this difficult year behind us, please know that the process of restoring our community is going to take us all. Together, however, we have the opportunity to leave our school a little bit better off than it was when we first arrived on North Grounds. I implore you to continue to embody the qualities that best represent what it means to be a student at the University of Virginia School of Law. Be compassionate and kind. Uplift those around you. Say hello to a member of our diligent custodial staff. By doing the little things right each and every day, you can make a difference. We all can make a difference. It is an honor to be a part of this community, and I can’t wait to see what we accomplish together. The best is yet to come.

Very truly yours,

Niko Orfanedes

---

njo8fm@virginia.edu

"Libel: The Movie" Makes Students Laugh, Cry, Ask for Spotify Link

---

Dana Lake ‘23
Production Editor

The 113th Libel Show was an absolute joy to watch from start to finish. While Law Weekly likes to keep things light and pithy, I want to make sure this article starts off acknowledging the time and work the participants put into making Libel: The Movie possible. The 112th Libel Show was cancelled due to Corona, upping the pressure to make this year’s virtual event the comeback of the century. Under the direction of Stephanie Metherall ’21 and Jake Sillyman ’21, and produced by Katie Carpenter ’21, this year’s show was a success from start to finish.

Pictured: Chance Maginness '22 as former SBA president Katherine Janes. Photo Courtesy of: The Libel Show.

Libel may tout itself as one of the Law School’s oldest traditions, but it was certainly made much funnier by the work of the Law Weekly Executive Board. I would even say our Exec Board was disproportionately represented, with outstanding performances from Editor-in-Chief Phil Tonseth ’22 as Dean Groves delivering an important message for all law students; Executive Editor Anna Bninski ’23 as Vice President of both ACS and FedSoc; and Managing Editor Stan Birch ’22 as Mr. NGSL in a Survivor parody that had my entire Covid-compliant watch party screaming. Law Weekly’s graduating 3Ls also turned out: former Photographer Kolleen Gladden ’21 served top-tier facial expressions in a skit capturing the exact feeling of being a woman in a Zoom room full of toxic male gunners. Former Professor Liaison Editor Leah Deskins ’21 served as Band Director, a complex role made more complicated by the virtual show. “I never imagined I was also applying to be an audio engineer,” Deskins commented. “I had a great group of musicians willing to work hard, be creative, and be patient with me as I figured out the recording ropes.” As a humble and unbiased viewer, I give them all tens across the board.

A skit show is only as strong as its musical performance. See SNL’s Dick in a Box; see also the Cowbell sketch. Libel: The Movie did not disappoint—the musical parodies were each excellent. Andi Schlut ’22 began the show with a cover of Frozen’s“Let it Go” that demonstrated both lyrical brilliance and probably the strongest vocal performance of the night. Schlut also served as a vocal instructor for the show. “Singing together over Zoom is practically impossible because of the lag and other issues,” she reflected. The solution required innovation and a lot of patience, but the results were undeniable. The show followed this up with an OGI version of NSYNC’s “Bye Bye Bye” that was somehow even more danceable than the original, and a brilliant cover of Aladdin’s “Whole New World” taught me more about Torts in two minutes than the entirety of Fall semester. Parodies of “Despacito” by Luis Fonsi and “Mr. Brightside” by The Killers featured stand-out performances from 1Ls Logan White ’23 and Rachel Dalton ’23. The night ended with a supremely good cover of WAP, and I know I speak for the people when I say: drop the Spotify link already.

The Professor Rebuttal, spearheaded this year by Professor George Cohen, was probably my favorite segment. We poke fun at the spirit of collegiality UVA Law tries to cultivate, but the truth is there is something special here at the Law School. While emotional vulnerability is both lame and embarrassing, I think it’s important for everyone—especially 1Ls who didn’t get the chance to catch this year’s performance—to know that we have a faculty willing to coordinate their schedules and take the time to write, practice, and sing a whole piece for Libel. Law school is hard and professors are intimidating, but there is a real feeling that we’re in this together. I have had more professors sing to me this year than in the entirety of my undergrad experience (Friday Torts, never forget) but it has not lost its charm.

The first-ever virtual Libel Show was hosted through Zoom over three days, allowing rowdy viewers to drink along with the performances but losing out on the joy of laughing along with a full theatre. The cost of admission was only a ten-dollar requested donation. As a viewing group consisting of only 1Ls, there are definitely jokes that went over our heads and professor impersonations I am sure were on point even without the context to understand them. The feeling of everyone I have spoken to for this article is excitement—excitement for more songs, for understanding more of the jokes, for taking bigger roles in production, and more than anything, excitement for an in-person viewing next year. Though it was a cameras-off event, every participant in the show should know there was enough laughing, screaming, and applause in at least one apartment to earn both a noise complaint and some positive memories in what has otherwise been a hellish spring semester.

---

dl9uh@virginia.edu

2021 SBA President Farewell Address

---

Katharine Janes ‘21
Former SBA President

Friends,

You have received countless emails from me over this past year, so I’ll keep my final remarks brief: Thank you. Thank you for trusting me to advocate on your behalf over this past year, and thank you for allowing me the privilege of serving as your SBA President.

This year has certainly turned out to be what none of us expected.[1] For SBA in particular, we quickly realized we would need to modify our vision for the term as a new reality became apparent. Despite this deviation, however, I am proud of the work this year’s SBA invested to make our community the best it can be.

SBA has always aimed to make sure students enjoy their three years in law school. To this end, we have hosted countless Socials, Foxfields and Fauxfields, and Barrister’s Balls to bring students together. This year, though, we hoped that SBA could be different. Not only could it be a place where we enjoy fun activities with one another, but it could also be a space where we, as a community, handle hard conversations too. This academic year, we worked with the administration to integrate student voices into the functioning of our school, including in the faculty hiring process. We had candid discussions about equity and inclusion in ways previously unseen. And we talked at length about how to maintain community during a time of distance, both physical and otherwise. There have undoubtedly been growing pains during this process. However, in my role as President, I have witnessed firsthand the collective desire of our student body to make UVA Law the best place it can be. This work is hard, but students and the Student Bar Association have been willing to do it time and again this academic year.

To the members of SBA 2020-2021: Thank you for your diligence, passion, and dedication during a profoundly difficult time. In particular, thank you to Savanna Williams ’21, Chance Maginness ’22, and Katherine O’Neal ’22. You invested countless hours in your work on graduation, SBA governance, and diversity and inclusion, and I am grateful for having the chance to learn and grow from your examples. The school is better for your work in it.

To the incoming SBA: I look forward to seeing all you accomplish in this next academic year. May it be filled with more socializing, more advocating, and more community-building than any year that preceded it—including this one. Niko, Caroline, Sam, and Ari: You are going to do fantastic things in your new roles, and I look forward to cheering you on as a graduate. And, if you could be so generous, please remember to invite the members of the Class of 2021 back for any festivities on the docket.

With love,

Katharine

---

kmj4vg@virginia.edu

---

[1] I promise, though, to avoid all references how “unprecedented” it has been!

AI and Algorithms in Criminal Sentencing: VJOLT and VJCL Joint Symposium

---

Michael Schmid ‘21
Ousted Managing Editor

Rachel Martin ‘23
Columns Editor

On April 2, 2021, the Virginia Journal of Law and Technology (VJOLT) and Virginia Journal of Criminal Law (VJCL) hosted a joint symposium on the use of AI and algorithms in criminal sentencing. The discussion was moderated by the Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, Senior District Judge for the Southern District of New York.[1] The panelists were Professor Deborah Hellman of the Law School; Professor Jessica Eaglin of Indiana University Maurer Law School; Julia Dressel, software engineer at Recidiviz; and Alex Chohlas-Wood, executive director of the Stanford Computational Policy Lab.

Technology has revolutionized many fields, and some say it can also revolutionize  our criminal justice system. Arguably, it already has: many jurisdictions have used algorithm-based risk assessment tools for years to determine who gets out on bail and how long people are sentenced to jail. The basic idea behind these risk assessment tools is to utilize data about a defendant to estimate the likelihood they will recidivate. Factors like past criminal convictions, employment history, and gender are given different weights and plugged into a mathematical formula. The result is an estimate of how likely a defendant is to skip a court date, be rearrested for any crime, or be rearrested for violent crime specifically, depending on the formula used. 

Proponents of risk assessment technology say that these tools will bring much needed objectivity. In theory, algorithmic tools should treat like individuals alike and minimize the risk of judicial bias in the criminal process. They also promise to provide an alternative to regressive practices like cash bail and to reduce mass incarceration by focusing efforts on those most likely to reoffend. However, their use is highly controversial for a number of reasons.

One of the biggest concerns is that the biases and inequalities that have pervaded the criminal justice system are baked into the algorithms. “Any sort of machine learning or statistical model that is making predictions is necessarily going to be built on historical data of what has happened in that system,” Dressel explained. And that historical data reflects decades of criminalization of blackness and poverty. For example, police have historically been more likely to stop, search, and arrest black persons than white persons for low-level offenses or no offenses at all. If the algorithm identifies “age of first arrest” or proxies for race like zip codes as factors that predict recidivism, this has the possibility of perpetuating the harms of those policing practices into the future.

Another overriding theme was the concern that these risk assessment tools will be overvalued[2] because they are “scientific.” Human decision-making elicits more skepticism; everybody knows that people can be prone to biases and errors. In contrast, when an AI risk assessment tool comes to a conclusion about someone's recidivism risk based on purportedly objective, scientific criteria, these outcomes can be seen as more accurate, even if they are really not.[3] Many times, we do not even know how accurate these tools may be, because there is no regulation of or standards for verifying accuracy. What is more, independent researchers cannot do this validation, because the algorithms are kept hidden as trade secrets.  They are “black boxes” in an area where mistakes have drastic consequences for real people’s lives.

Additionally, there is a fear these tools can mask the subjective judgments upon which they are based, providing another layer to the “black box” problem. On the front end, the developer of the algorithms must choose which factors are most pertinent to whether a certain individual will recidivate. For example, common misdemeanors like petty theft may be considered while white-collar crime like embezzlement may not be. These choices and the resulting discrepancies get solidified as “objective” truth when judges rely on these tools, thereby reinforcing the criminalization of poor, Black, and other communities. 

Professor Hellman, though, said it was important not to forget that judicial decision-making is similarly a “black box.” While she echoed the concern that algorithms tend to be overvalued because of their “scientific” character, she noted that it is difficult, if not impossible, to truly know how much weight judges give to different factors in making decisions about bond, sentencing, and the like. Judges may be influenced by factors that are just as questionable and subjective. She suggested it is ultimately a comparative question: “are we making things worse or making things better [with risk assessment tools], because the alternative isn’t a system that is free of those [same] problems.”

There was broad agreement, however, that we need more transparency. Chohlas-Wood, for example, stated that having detailed, accessible information on exactly what goes into these tools is vital. He pointed to a Wisconsin case[4] where the defendant challenged the use of gender as a factor in estimating likelihood of recidivism, noting that he would not have been able to challenge this potentially problematic category if he did not know it was being used. Similarly, Professor Eaglin argued that we need to know not just what goes into these tools, but where the data comes from, who picked it, and why.

Moreover, perhaps reform and transparency start in a more fundamental place: what questions are we asking about sentencing? Judge Rakoff noted that the use of these tools are predicated on the idea that we should punish people based not on what they have done, but what we think they might do in the future. While many people have celebrated the change in focus from retribution to outcome-based theories of punishment, this is not always a fair or positive thing. Chohlas-Wood elaborated that the question of risk assessment tools in criminal sentencing comes down to policy judgments about the function of sentencing and incarceration. If the goal is to prevent recidivism, “I think there is a lot of promise,” he stated. If, however, the goal is to rehabilitate, then these tools are likely not helpful. 

Algorithmic risk-assessment tools also risk dehumanizing people and limiting judges’ ability to adapt outcomes to individual circumstances. Judge Rakoff and Professor Eaglin explained that the rise of AI in judicial decisionmaking in the criminal process reflects the broader and somewhat concerning trend in recent decades of replacing judicial discretion with a framework of rules that cabin or entirely eliminate that discretion, such as the federal Sentencing Guidelines, mandatory minimum sentences, and career offender statutes. Although the Guidelines are now advisory instead of mandatory, many judges still lean heavily on them, and quite a few judges today have never known anything else, as Judge Rakoff pointed out.  Judges were “rightfully angry” when the Guidelines first came out, Professor Eaglin expressed,  because sentencing is supposed to take into account how an individual got where they are and what will best help that individual and society moving forward. The current focus on “things we can measure” thus makes judges’ jobs harder in some ways.

The role of AI and algorithms in the judicial process is still evolving, and it is likely to be a subject of debate and innovation for some time to come. Chohlas-Wood highlighted that in addition to risk assessment tools, there are other applications of these technologies that are less controversial.  For example, he noted the great success of recent programs to increase court appearances by sending automated, personalized text reminders. Dressel said that her organization is working on technology that can model the system-level impact of policies designed to reduce racial and other disparities. She suggested that AI is better suited for this sort of system-level policy research, rather than the individual determinations that risk assessments are currently used for. Professor Eaglin concluded that algorithmic risk assessments are just one of many possible ways to reduce incarceration, and they may not normatively be the way we want to approach the problem. We choose to use these tools; there are other choices.

---

ms3ru@virginia.edu
rdm9yn@virginia.edu

---

[1] Judge Rakoff also teaches the J-Term course “Science and the Courts,” which I highly recommend.— Rachel Martin

[2] I would like to thank Professor Schauer’s Evidence class for arming me with this knowledge.—Michael Schmid

[3] Dressler noted that one popular tool, Compass, likely had an accuracy rate of somewhere around 65%, not much better than a coin flip.

[4] State v. Loomis, 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016).

The Uyghur Genocide and China

---

Nathan Wunderli ‘22
Sports Editor

As part of the second week of HRP’s Human Rights Month, UVA Law was pleased to hear from two speakers on the current Chinese attempt at genocide of the Uyghur people. Zubayra Shamseden is a human rights activist, organizer, and Chinese Language Outreach Coordinator at the Uyghur Human Rights Project based in Washington D.C. Dolkun Isa is a widely-recognized political activist and current president of the World Uyghur Congress and recipient of the National Endowment for Democracy's Democracy Award.

Pictured: Uyghur people protest outside the UN headquarters in Genevea in November 2018. Photo courtesy of: Salvatore Di Nolfi/EP

Who are the Uyghurs?

            By the estimates of the Chinese government, the Uyghurs are 11 million strong and live in East Turkestan, otherwise known as the Xinjiang province of China. Uyghurs themselves estimate they number around 20 million people. Dating back to the 8th century, the Uyghurs have been predominantly Muslim, with traces of Christianity and Buddhism as well. They have their own language and customs, completely different than those in China. According to Ms. Shamseden, they are rather moderate Muslims.

What is Going On?

            Much like Tibet, on paper, the East Turkestan region is independent from China. The reality is far from that. The Chinese government has employed several strategies, all with the goal of wiping out the Uyghur people, culture, and language and assimilating them into China. While China says they are employing bilingual education programs, in reality the education they use contains very little to none of the Uyghur people’s language. Additionally, while East Turkestan used to be over 90 percent Uyghur, the Chinese government has intentionally implanted Chinese people into the region so that it is now 50 percent Uyghur and 50 percent Chinese. While these attempts at getting rid of the Uyghur people are bad, it is no where close to the worst thing the Chinese government is doing.

            An estimated 2-3 million Uyghur people are currently being detained in political “re-education camps.” These camps are numerous and located throughout China. As if there was any doubt of what goes on at these horrific sites, a single site was reported to have purchased 2,768 police batons and 550 electric cattle prods, among other things used for manipulation and torture. The people are typically kept alive, but are brutally dehumanized and tortured. The prisoners are taken from all walks of Uyghur life, including thousands of intellectuals that are currently detained or missing.

            Uyghurs get detained and sent to camps for what the Chinese government dubs as examples of “extremism.” For instance, watching a Western movie could get you detained. Communicating with people outside of China or traveling outside of China can get you detained. Practicing the Islamic faith, even something so simple as owning a prayer mat, can get you detained. Refusing to allow government officials to sleep in your bed with you, eat your food, or live in your house? Detained. Reading up on Uyghur culture and history? Good luck at camp. Not only can all these things that we take for granted get you sent away to a “re-education” camp and tortured, but the Chinese government makes it hard to get away with any of these things through extensive surveillance. The minute you leave your house, you are being watched or followed, either by a person or by technology.

What Can We Do to Help?

            The Uyghur people are being crushed and abused by China, and it won’t be too long before China’s forceful assimilation strategies wipe out the Uyghur people for good. Fortunately, there are some measures we can take to help, even as American law students. You can 1) Contact your senators and urge them to co-sponsor the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, 2) Sign various petitions (contact UVA Law’s HRP Rep. Alex Karahalios (ank3jf@virginia.edu) for more details), including one to refuse to hold the Olympic Games in China in 2022 unless the camps are closed, or you can 3) donate to the UHRP. Every time there is a human rights crisis, the mantra is “never again.” Unfortunately, never again is happening right now to the Uyghur people, and it is now or never to respond.

---

nw7cz@virginia.edu

Student Bar Association Elections Are Here (President and VP Platforms)

---

This year, the Student Bar Association (SBA) is running contested elections for the President, Vice President, and 3L/2L Senator positions. Each of the candidates’ arguments for President and Vice President are featured below, and voting will be open from Wednesday, March 17 until Friday, March 19. We encourage you to learn more about the debate and the candidates, as well as exercise your right to vote for your upcoming SBA representatives! 

These statements are presented unedited so that you may consider the candidates based on their own work. 

Candidates for President

Chance Maginness

Hello friends! For the many of you that know me, you know how much I love this school and (too probably too great a degree) SBA as well. For those of you who I have yet to meet, allow me to say a few words about why I’m running for President. 

If you elect me to be your President, I promise that I will spend every day bringing back what we’ve lost due to the pandemic. I will work tirelessly to revive our community and make it stronger than ever. And I have a few ideas how: 

• I’ll revive and expand SBA keg socials. 

• I’ll start a lunch program to encourage more students to stay in the law school. 

• I’ll start a party pass program to increase social events outside of school. 

• I’ll work with NGSL to make sure this year’s 1Ls can experience Dandelion and softball. 

• I’ll bring about better inclusivity trainings for students and faculty. 

• I’ll centralize the way SBA works so that more students have better access to us and the administration. 

• And hopefully I can also start a fiction section in the library. 

• (And a school drag show, if I can swing it.) 

I genuinely love this school. I love the people that I’ve met. I love the faculty. I love the arguments and the ideas and the banter and the jokes that we all share. I’ve also loved being in SBA. I have cherished the opportunity to work on behalf of my fellow students over the past two years, and I am proud of the work that I have accomplished through my tenure as SBA Treasurer and through the Governance Reform Report. I have devoted every day of my time here to making this school a more welcoming and fun place for everyone. It is because of that devotion to you all that I’m running for President. I’m not doing this for fun, or to make a point, or because I need the job. I’m doing it simply because I love this school and I care about making sure that you all love it as much as I do.  

As such, and really regardless of the outcome, it is my only hope that I can spend my last year here as I have spent my first two - serving all of you.  

Chance Maginness ‘22

Katherine O’Neal

I’m Katherine O’Neal and I am running for SBA President. I have served in several different roles in SBA, and my passion for service and my time as a member of SBA has allowed me to advocate for mental health, programming, and wellness initiatives. I sincerely hope that I can continue to be a zealous advocate for all students of UVA Law as President.  

While UVA effectively serves many students, a large portion of our student body is underserved and under supported. Collective action is important, and I believe that SBA can do much more with our power and position at the school to fight for equity. I would ensure that SBA serves to amplify and support the initiatives of our affinity groups and use our power to press the administration to make greater changes. My first step would be investigating the gaps in support for diverse students. After soliciting student feedback early in my term, I will move towards creating school-wide programs and push to accelerate current initiatives, such as expanding student and faculty bias training. I will continue to advocate for transparency and accountability from the administration regarding diversity and inclusion efforts.  

My second focus is community. At UVA we pride ourselves on the strength of our relationships, but COVID has tested our resolve. I will ensure that finances are not a barrier to participation in events while also planning more frequent school-wide activities to foster cross-class community. One idea I have is a carnival at The Park with food trucks, beverages, and music for the whole community. I would also plan events just for current 1Ls so they get the chance to meet each other and form relationships. Some other ideas I have are a welcome back bar crawl and a Halloween party.  

Access, accountability, and transparency between SBA and those that we represent are vital to our mission. Under my administration the executive board would host a bi-annual town hall so the entire student body has ample opportunity to voice opinions and hold exec accountable. I would also push for SBA to be more involved with Main Grounds in order to ensure that our needs are advocated for. COVID has shown us that Main Grounds decision-making has an impact on our lives, and it is important to be represented in those conversations.  

Katherine O’Neal ‘22

Niko Orfanedes

It goes without saying that we, as a student body, are at a crossroads. The pandemic continues to take a toll on our mental and physical health. Our viewpoints on critical issues are increasingly at odds. A number of students feel isolated and disconnected from the law school administration – and, in many cases, their fellow classmates. Meanwhile, Reddit posts and GroupMe discussions have highlighted our dire, longstanding need to curate a drastically more diverse and inclusive student body and faculty.  

Too often when faced with these challenges, we, the student body, elect to debate for the sake of debating (we are future lawyers, after all). Words alone, however, are not the way forward. Our current state of affairs calls for strong, decisive, and robust action – and that’s where my running mate, Caroline, and I come in. 

Together, we are going to ENGAGE with the difficult issues facing our students, EMPOWER the voices of our fellow classmates, and ENRICH your experience as members of the UVA Law community.    

With respect to my qualifications, I have been involved in student government throughout my academic career. Prior to law school, I served as Vice President of my high school student body and was an active member of the student government-affiliated leadership community at the University of South Carolina. Currently, I serve as co-chair of the SBA’s Community Engagement Committee, a committee of service-oriented law students dedicated to serving those in need within the UVA, Charlottesville, and Albemarle communities. I am also actively involved with a number of other student organizations on-grounds, and I recently co-captained Team UVA in an extramural, professional basketball arbitration competition. 

Additionally – and perhaps most importantly – I have significant, real-world experience as a leader and an advocate. As a college freshman, I successfully lobbied for a more lucrative sales commission for all minimum-wage employees of a multi-state corporation. More recently, while working post-grad as a marketing strategist at a corporate resort, I advocated for improved working conditions and compensation benefits for front-of-house employees, and, in recognition of my leadership, I was honored as the resort’s first-ever employee-of-the-year in its twenty-five years of operation.  

At the end of the day, I am not a politician. Rather, I am a man of action. As your President, I will listen to, advocate for, and collaborate with you each and every day. Together, we can accomplish something truly special. 

Niko Orfanedes ‘22 (right)

---

Candidates for Vice President

The following statements from the Vice Presidential Candidates are unedited, so that you may consider the candidates based on their own work. 

Elizabeth Kruse

I am running for Vice President because I want to give back to the upcoming 3L class and the law school as a whole. As Vice President, my primary duties would be planning graduation and other celebratory events for the 3L class. My great hope is that increased vaccination will allow these celebrations to take place in person, however as VP I will do my best to bring together the class in the safest and most respectful form available. As a member of the Executive Board, I promise to be a fierce advocate for the student body, ensuring that the Student Bar Association is receptive to student concerns and transparent in our decision-making. I will promote equity and inclusivity in all of our policies and goals, and strive to face difficult problems head-on.  

I believe I am qualified to serve in this position because of my long-standing commitment to this school and its betterment. As a 1L Senator I worked hard to bond our class and advocate for our interests on SBA. As the Vice Chair of Transparency for the SBA Governance Committee, I led a team of students in developing policy recommendations to give students greater access to decision-making and important information affecting their time at the law school. As Student Council Representative, I have worked to pass legislation that creates positive change for the entire university and protects student interests during this difficult time. As a Double Hoo, I have spent the past six years in Charlottesville, and have loved calling UVA home. Because I love UVA so much, I can see its flaws clearly, and I am not afraid to advocate for change for the better. I want this place to be the best it can be, and I hope I have the opportunity to work toward that goal as Vice President. 

Elizabeth Kruse ‘22

Caroline Spadaro

Today, our community is facing incredible challenges, from the toll of the pandemic on mental health, interpersonal connections, and our law school experience, to students feeling as though their voices are not heard or respected. We are at a critical crossroads and it is the essential role of SBA to pull a seat up to the table for every student organization and every individual to be sure their voices are represented and acted upon. 

Should we be elected to serve you, my running mate, Niko, and I will work tirelessly with SBA and the administration to build a community in which each student sees a reflection of the inclusivity, collegiality, and values that brought us to call this school home. Together, we will ENGAGE with the difficult issues facing our students, EMPOWER the voices of our fellow students, and ENRICH your experience as members of the UVA Law community.   

Having served as a 2L Senator and a First-Year Council representative, I have seen the triumphs and adversity our peers have faced and am well prepared to work with my fellow executive board members, senators, and student organizations to zealously advocate for this community’s best interests. 

As Panhellenic President at the University of South Carolina, I led a community of over 4,200 women, facilitating philanthropic efforts and community-wide educational, social, and professional programming, maintaining a high standard of engagement from all member organizations. The skills built in managing the roles of my executive board members would translate incredibly well into building cohesive and productive teams to ensure that each SBA committee is operating individually and collectively to their highest service of the student body. I also helped to plan the inaugural “Cockstock” Concert at the University of South Carolina, bringing a free Rae Sremmurd performance to campus, which was an incredible success and learning experience in large-scale event organization. As a student member of the University President’s Diversity and Inclusion Advisory Committee at South Carolina, I have worked with university administrators, professors, and my peers to face issues in creating a community in which people of different backgrounds and beliefs work together to create a collaborative and welcoming environment for all  

Should I be elected to serve as your Vice President, I look forward to working with an equally passionate team to take decisive action on behalf of our students from day one. 

Caroline Spadaro ‘22

3L Senator Platforms

---

This year, the Student Bar Association (SBA) is running contested elections for the President, Vice President, and 3L/2L Senator positions. Each of the candidates’ arguments for 3L Senator are featured below, and voting will be open from Wednesday, March 17 until Friday, March 19. We encourage you to learn more about the debate and the candidates, as well as exercise your right to vote for your upcoming SBA representatives!

These statements are presented unedited so that you may consider the candidates based on their own work.

Ansley Seay

As a 3L Senator, I will advocate for not only my fellow 3Ls, but the entire student body, in these isolating times. My time as a 2L Senator has given me the opportunity to learn how SBA operates. While SBA has vigorously advocated for our student body this year, I have observed a disconnect between SBA and the student body. While all students are welcome at SBA meetings and SBA members are willing to discuss issues with any student, I do not believe all students know who to talk to about their individual concerns. As a 3L Senator, I hope to work with the Executive Board to find a solution to this problem, such as assigning each student a senator in their class. Such an assignment would give each student a point of contact to voice any concerns or comments about their individual experience, no matter how small. 

Ansley Seay ‘22

Caroline Spadaro

Having served as a first-year council representative and as a current 2L senator, I have seen how our class has both struggled and succeeded in our first years of law school. We have built a wonderful community, but have faced adversity that we did not imagine, and it has resulted in many students feeling that their voices are not heard by the administration or by their peers. We are at our best as a community when everyone has a seat at the table, and I want to continue to work to amplify student voices to SBA and the administration. One of my greatest strengths is my ability to create a team environment in which everyone feels welcome, and should I be re-elected as a 3L senator, I look forward to work to ensure that our final year at UVA Law is one in which our class leaves a lasting change.

Caroline Spadaro ‘22

Chance Maginness

Howdy folks, it’s me again. I won’t take up too much space here because I think I outlined in pretty good detail why I’m running in the Presidential Platform section of this edition. But, allow me to take just a moment to tell you why I’m also running for 3L Senator. 

Like I said in my Presidential blurb, I’m doing this because I care. It’s traditional for presidential candidates to also run for 3L Senate as a show of their commitment to this school. But this is more than just a symbolic gesture for me. I truly do feel that regardless of what position I hold, serving my fellow students (and fellow future 3Ls) is the most important thing I can do. I hope that you give me that opportunity.

Chance Maginness ‘22

Connor Kurtz

In 1970, Dr. Hunter Thompson ran for sheriff of Aspen CO on the Freak Power ticket. His goal? To bring freaks, druggies, and dropouts into politics.

I’m the Freak Power candidate for SBA senator. And I’m campaigning like a rat in heat to give voice to those of us unrepresented by the dominant channels for official student representation. This disaffected group includes—but is obviously not limited to—centrists, liberals, conservatives; non-Dillards; 1L softball dissenters; the untrustfunded. We freaks want tolerance. We don’t want to run the place. We just want to be a small part of it.

I have little in the way of a platform besides a promise not to be an unthinking avatar for North Grounds orthodoxy and an aspiration to be the xylospongium SBA needs. Oh, and I’m proudly in the pocket of Big Hot Beverage, having sold my political soul to restore “free” library coffee.

Connor Kurtz ‘22

Davin Laskin

My priority for the 2021-2022 academic year is to bring back the sense of community and collaboration we had when I started in the Fall of 2019. Last year, events like dandelion, barrister’s, feb club, and fauxfield brought the law school together and served as a much-needed outlet for stress relief to complement our rigorous academic workload. Many students have expressed frustration with the strictness of the restrictions imposed on the law school and its resulting impacts on both students’ mental health and the school’s sense of community as a whole. By August, we will be in a much different situation – I believe it is imperative that we focus on social events and traditions to bring UVA Law back as the collegial standout amongst our peer schools. 

Davin Laskin ‘22

Margaret Shin

My name’s Margaret Shin, and I’m running to serve as your 3L senator next year. SBA needs to be more proactive in cultivating an inclusive environment where everyone, regardless of background, ideology, or identity, feels at home; in educating the student body of and combating the isolation that diverse students often experience; and in working closely with other grad schools to ensure we’re in the room when decisions that affect us are being made on Main Grounds. I’ve spent the last two years as your SBA Senator working to ensure that diverse voices are seen, heard, and represented; to foster grace and empathy towards our classmates; and to work with the administration to increase the diversity of our faculty and student body. I hope to continue having these opportunities next year and represent the class of 2022 as a 3L Senator. 

Margaret Shin ‘22

Molly Mueller

Next year, the 3L class will be the only one that knew UVA Law before Covid. I want to help make sure that the things we loved about UVA last fall still live on past the time of the pandemic, while also taking the opportunity to assess what needs to change. One of the most important parts of my experiences at UVA has been my connection with my classmates, so one of my priorities will be to create experiences to bring people together. As student body treasurer in college, I helped student organizations host events on campus. I would apply this programming knowledge to SBA events. Working with so many different student organizations in college also helped me realize how valuable it is to support a wide range of interests and initiatives on campus. Doing the same at UVA Law will help ensure that everyone can find their community here. 

Molly Mueller ‘22

Morgan Maloney

Hello! My name is Morgan Maloney and I am running to be a 3L Senator. This past year on SBA, I have focused on two key issues: student mental health and the needs of public service students. Working with the Health & Wellness Committee, I initiated and launched the SBA COVID goodie bag program. As a public service student, I have sought to make sure that our particular needs were represented in SBA, especially around questions of clinic grading. This upcoming year, I would like to continue advocating for student mental health and public service students.  

I sincerely hope that next year can finally be “normal” again and, as a class and a community, we can come together. But, regardless of the public health situation, I hope to make our 3L year our best year yet of law school. I would be honored to receive your vote. 

Morgan Maloney ‘22

Valera Bamgbala

I would like to dedicate my candidacy specifically to the racial issues that have been brought to the forefront by social media this semester. As a 3L senator, I would like to extend myself to individuals and communities that continue to feel the blunt reality of racial issues permeate our community. As a 3L senator, I will be creating office hours in which anybody would be welcome to voice their concerns, and I will ensure their anonymity should an issue be brought to the SBA. As a woman of color, and a first generation lawyer, I believe I can serve as an excellent resource. Furthermore, I seek to increase inclusion across the board, through the Diversity Committee and the Programming Committee. “Diversity” should cease to be an ideal, and must become, at the very least, the baseline reality. A safe, supported, and diverse community should be our normal.

Valera Bamgbala ‘22

2L Senator Platforms

---

This year, the Student Bar Association (SBA) is running contested elections for the President, Vice President, and 3L/2L Senator positions. Each of the candidates’ arguments for 2L Senator are featured below, and voting will be open from Wednesday, March 17 until Friday, March 19. We encourage you to learn more about the debate and the candidates, as well as exercise your right to vote for your upcoming SBA representatives! 

These statements are presented unedited so that you may consider the candidates based on their own work. 

Cassie Stanton Cox

Hello, I’m Cassie, and I’m running for 2L Senator because I genuinely enjoy speaking to and spending time with our class. As a 1L Senator, I was vocal in SBA meetings to get extended library hours and breaks for the sake of 1L sanity. I will continue advocating for our class by fighting for more support for public interest students and hosting 2L town halls. 

I have a background in event planning, so I’m excited to help plan Barristers and Bar Review. My main priority will be unifying events for 2Ls. I hope to help host a Welcome Back event and events in Spies. Whether you elect me or not, I plan to be the first one in the door to gatherings like these so I can meet more of you. I hope you choose me to represent you as a 2L Senator as we seek unity in our class! 

Cassie Stanton ‘23

Clint Roscoe

I’m running for 2L Senator because I want to bring our class closer together. I ran for and was elected to a 1L Senator position because I expressed a desire to engage directly with the 2L and 3L class about what the law school is like during “normal” times. I wanted to hear about the regular, day-to-day social operations of the law school, in the hopes that we might be able to return to that when the pandemic was nearing its end. 

Pandemic precautions like social distancing and masking are as important as ever, but I remain confident that these requirements will not outlast our time here at UVA. Extracurricular events, student atmosphere, and (to borrow our school’s favorite phrase) a collegial environment, are part of the reason I chose UVA, and I’m guessing they’re a big reason that you’re here as well.  

Clint Roscoe ‘23

Holly Bard

1L has posed unique challenges for us all—journal tryouts and internship hunting on top of regular classwork is stressful enough without the social isolation that a pandemic requires. My platform, Here & Beyond, is uniquely tailored to these challenges.  

The first phase, Here, focuses on utilizing our budget to provide the types of wellness resources we need through the rest of  a challenging Spring semester. For example, as an elected representative on First Year Council, I’m spearheading an initiative to get free Headspace memberships for our entire class.  

The next phase, Beyond, is about making up for lost time. Many of us were attracted to UVA Law by its reputation as “the fun T14.” Once social distancing restrictions are relaxed in the Fall semester, I want to program as many social events as possible so we can see the fun side of UVA Law for ourselves. 

Holly Bard ‘23

John Brown

Look, I’ve never been involved in student government. In college I didn’t think any group of students could accomplish anything important for a student body of over twenty thousand. But the smaller size of the law school makes me believe that the SBA can actually markedly improve the experience of everyone at the law school. I hope to be able to help the school bounce back from this Zoom filled year in my role as a senator and see what the limits of what the SBA can accomplish are!

Jack Brown ‘23

Juhi Desai

I think my platform can be boiled down to one word - community. I’m interested in being an SBA senator because I care about the law school community and I’m interested in helping serve it. I consider myself an ally and an advocate and I think I’d do a good job as senator of listening to our peers, really hearing what they need to feel supported and safe and then making those things happen. I love planning events which would be great for the programming portion of SBA and I also love talking to people which would be great for the advocacy side of SBA. I just want everyone in law school to be vibing and feel comfortable and supported here and I hope to help with that as a senator.

Juhi Desai ‘23

Mita Ramani

Hi, UVA Law! My name is Mita Ramani, and I am running for 2L Senator. Over the past year, I have had the honor of serving as your 1L Senator. Our class has faced unprecedented challenges. Yet, we have persevered, and our success during 1L is a testament to our resilience. As your 2L Senator, I hope to plan events that give our class the chance to foster deeper connections, explore the Charlottesville community, and frankly just have more fun (Bar Review and Barristers anyone?!). I also hope to work closely with the Diversity Committee and new Assistant Diversity Dean to push forward new initiatives to make UVA Law a more inclusive and equitable community. I deeply appreciate how working in SBA has given me the opportunity to voice student’s concerns to the administration and SBA at large, and I hope to continue this work next year. 

Mita Ramani ‘23

Riley Segars

My name is Riley Segars, and I am running for 2L Senator. During my first term, I carved for myself a position where I was able to raise many concerns from students that the law school often overlooked. For example, I helped make sure that the bookstore accommodated overseas and remote students by advocating for extending the deadline for when books had to be returned after first semester. Going into 2L, I plan to keep this mentality of looking out for all the people of the Class of 2023. SBA is meant to advocate for the needs of every student, including those who, like me, have no idea what the heck is going on and are just faking it until they make it. As such, I will continue to advocate for flexibility and adaptability, especially given the uncertainty of how the law school will be next year. 

Riley Segars ‘23

Trevor Floyd

None of us got the UVA experience we expected this year. That means we have to go double next year, for everyone in our class and especially for the people who will be showing up to Charlottesville for the first time as 2Ls. Keggers in Spies? Yes. Softball? Yes. Admitted Stu – er, Matriculated Students Weekend? Yes! Your great idea? Sure, we’ll do that too! We can make this whatever we want it to be, so why hold back? 

Rebuilding the UVA Law community – in fact, making it better – has to happen fast and it has to include everyone. In my previous life, I produced theatre, which means I am used to working with a diverse team of people, making money go far, and successfully pulling off the impossible. So if building an even better UVA Law seems impossible, then I’m your guy. 

Trevor Floyd ‘23

UJC Rep Platform

---

This year, the Student Bar Association (SBA) is running contested elections for the President, Vice President, and 3L/2L Senator positions. While uncontested, the platform for the candidate for the University Judiciary Committee Law Representative is featured below, and voting will be open from Wednesday, March 17 until Friday, March 19. We encourage you to learn more about the debate and the candidates, as well as exercise your right to vote for your upcoming SBA representatives!

This statement is presented unedited so that you may consider the candidates based on their own work.

Dear UVA Law classmates: 

I submit I am qualified to serve as one of your two University Judiciary Committee ("UJC") Law Representatives for four reasons. 

First, because I have responsibly served on university disciplinary boards before. I was appointed by my college's administration to serve as a student representative on the college's Sexual Misconduct Board. In this role, I served on three-person panels that adjudicated student Title IX claims, ranging from sexual harassment to rape. 

Second, because my principal legal interest is in the concept of a "fair trial"; specifically, how procedural rules protect this outcome. UJC Representatives (a.k.a. judges) must appreciate this area of the law because, as a public university, U.S. constitutional protections apply. In particular, the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the clause ostensibly protects against the "unfair or mistaken findings of misconduct and arbitrary exclusion from school." Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975). In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, due process means "the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Tigrett v. Rector and Visitors of University of Virginia, 290 F.3d 620, 630 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Richardson v. Eastover, 922 F.2d 1152, 1160 (4th Cir. 1991)). In short, my interest in due process will make me a consistent voice for enforcing strict procedural regularity on UJC. 

Third, this summer I will be interning in chambers for a federal district court judge, who is also a former federal prosecutor. I expect that, in this experience, I will learn how to better balance the interests of the accused against the accuser. This, I trust, will serve me well as a judge on UJC.

And fourth, I have been endorsed by The Cavalier Daily, the University's student newspaper.

I hope to earn your vote.

Adam Younger

Adam Younger ‘23

More Mercy: Criminal Justice, Twitter, and Beyond

---

Jacob Smith ‘23
Professor Liaison Editor

Should we define people by their worst acts? Of course not! Especially at a time when criminal justice reform is increasingly popular, it is uncontroversial to say that American criminal justice ought to be more merciful. What was surprising about Judge Stephanos Bibas’s talk on “The Decline of Mercy” was not the principles he applied to criminal justice reform, but their striking application to how we treat each other on social media and as aspiring lawyers.

Judge Bibas’s “The Decline of Mercy” talk  occurred on Wednesday, March 10, hosted by the Federalist Society. Judge Bibas is a former Assistant United States Attorney and currently sits on the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Mercy is an important principle in criminal justice. Mercy tells us to judge acts, not actors. As Judge Bibas described it, mercy is that which allows us to grow beyond our past wrongs and “turn over a new leaf.” Without mercy, Judge Bibas seemed to imply, punishment would last forever and we would always carry the guilt of past wrongs.

According to Judge Bibas, our criminal justice institutions do not embody mercy the way that they should. While activists tend to be suspicious of the past, Judge Bibas suggested that modern criminal justice can learn something from the American colonial era when it comes to mercy. Specifically, American criminal justice has neglected three themes: punishing wrongs instead of wrongdoers, confronting criminals face to face, and looking forward instead of backward.

Punishing wrongs, not wrongdoers

Judge Bibas described colonial criminal justice as focused on “punishing wrongs, not de-personing wrongdoers.” Severe penalties like hanging or banishment were rare. More often, lawbreakers would be required to pay a fine or make an apology. Even public shaming tended to be swift and soon over. Wrongdoers would receive “swift and temporary” punishment, and then they would be forgiven and reintegrated into the community. A common Christian faith contributed to a common sense of humanity: “We’re all sinners, and we all deserve some punishment, but we all can turn over a new leaf.” But today, when our felons are released from prison, they cannot vote or live in public housing, and they may be forced to disclose their criminal records on job applications. Judge Bibas described them as “a permanent class.”

Face-to-face

Having the public confront wrongdoers face-to-face is also valuable. Judge Bibas described criminal adjudication in the colonial period as “centered around jury trials” and akin to a “morality play.” Lawbreakers received their punishment and verdict in a very public way. Local criminal justice occupies much less public attention today. Criminal justice is “professionalized.” Jury trials are rare. In response to a student question, Judge Bibas acknowledged that jury trials do require more resources today in part because of valuable procedural protections. However, other aspects of jury trials could be streamlined. One negative result of our extremely low rate of jury trials is that the public is less aware of how criminal defendants fare in our courts.

Forward-looking

Third, criminal justice ought to look forward more than it looks backward. First-semester criminal law taught me that retribution and deterrence are big players when it comes to justifying criminal penalties. However, Judge Bibas thinks those backward-looking justifications should take a back seat to the wrongdoer’s future. Crime is generally not a rational act, and so an ex-ante law-and-economics perspective is less relevant. But people do change, and criminal justice should account for that. Once again, things were different in the colonial era. “Judges and juries could accept apologies, they could recognize change, they could nullify and reduce punishments,” Judge Bibas said.

Mercy on Twitter

Criminal justice reform is hard enough. However, Judge Bibas was not content to stop there. Judge Bibas brought his three themes of mercy to bear on social media. Theme one: we should not define someone by their worst act—even if that act consisted of evil words posted online. Theme two: we should face criminal wrongdoers face to face. We should also not “hide behind phone screens” and dehumanize those we disagree with online, but keep on engaging them. Theme three: “there should be no civic death penalty.” We ought to allow wrongdoers a chance to repent—even when the wrong is a tweet.

Mercy for Lawyers

Finally, how can we be merciful lawyers? Judge Bibas offered some suggestions during his speech and the question-and-answer period that followed. We should listen to understand, instead of listening to respond. Judge Bibas mentioned that taking notes while listening can be helpful. We should also start with the assumption that others are acting in good faith. As a judge, for example, one should “read the majority opinion with great care,” and only then decide one will dissent. And we should treat others with the same respect and dignity with which we want to be treated.

 ---

js3hp@virginia.edu

Justice Through Education: Reclaiming Our Democracy

---

Sai Kulkarni ‘23
Culture Editor

On March 2, CARE at UVA Law hosted an event with three distinguished scholars and advocates to discuss the role of education, citizenship, and diversity in fighting back against the problems that led to the insurrection on January 6, 2021. Professors Erika Wilson of the University of North Carolina School of Law and Rachel Moran of University of California, Irvine School of Law, as well as Mr. David Hinojosa of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, framed the discussion by focusing on how school lines creating de facto segregation can lead to events like that of January 6th. Our own Professor Kimberly Robinson was a fantastic moderator, who introduced plenty of important points of her own.

Speakers pictured from laft to right: Erika Wilson (Photo Curtesy of https://law.unc.edu/people/erika-k-wilson/), Rachel Moran (Photo Curtesy of https://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/moran/), David Hinojosa (Photo Curtesy of https:// lawyerscommittee.org/staff/david-hinojosa/).

Before going any further, I want to note that the talk was both highly informative and interesting. The event lasted an hour, but I ended up with over four pages of notes because I wanted to make sure I noted all of the essential points they were making. I came away from the event more educated and with a desire to take a class from Professor Robinson in the future.

The discussion was focused on the idea of a “shared fate” between all Americans: the idea that we are all in this together and helping our fellow citizens is key to our success as a nation. All of the panelists pointed to the breakdown of this concept, with educational segregation as a major cause behind the divisions and hatred leading to the insurrection (and broader society today). Each panelist presented a number of problems and solutions initially, followed by a brief Q&A session. Rather than attempting to cover all of the numerous issues presented by the panelists, I think focusing on the main ideas proposed by each, along with their proposed solutions, will give readers the best taste of the event.

Mr. Hinojosa opened with the idea that learning together helps kids understand, respect, and accept one another’s differences. He focused on the dual problems of re-segregation and the lack of proper civic engagement in schools. He pointed out that we are not only re-segregating schools by site location, but by housing, transportation, and school choice as well. Essentially, private and charter schools are allowed to self-segregate; even schools that are targeted at one group (i.e., Black students) perpetuate segregation through isolation. Mr. Hinojosa also noted that increasing school funding won’t solve everything. Better state laws outlining support for civic education are needed. High stakes testing drives what is being taught, so pulling back from that approach can promote the kind of educational and civic engagement needed to re-assert the idea of a shared fate.

Professor Moran of UCI focused on racial inequities in education and how the education system is unequipped for the age of disinformation. Racial inequity, she pointed out, prevents students from becoming active participants in our democracy. Students with fewer resources are not given the help needed to earn good paying jobs, relegating them to the margins of the economy and politics. Professor Moran argued that even the kids who “escape” segregated schools [she used this descriptor with clear reservations] are denied access to social networks enjoyed by some of their classmates, which can be stepstones to the middle class.

With regards to the other problem, she points out that the pandemic showed how inept the schools are for the social media age. There is no discussion about educating consumers about the information on social media. The inability to discern between fact and lies on the internet was a major contributing factor to the insurrection. Thus, she advocated for including discussions of important issues into the curriculum. Professor Moran even proposed having Big Tech enter into classrooms to teach about both private and public information (especially on data mining and privacy) and educate students to be better producers of content.

Professor Wilson focused on the opposite side of school segregation and the entitlement it creates. She pointed out that segregation concentrates advantage by creating predominantly white and affluent schools. Symbolic messaging, she emphasized, is important. The idea that in a racially diverse area there are stratified, segregated schools can foment a feeling of entitlement, winners, and losers due to the allocation of resources. The racial isolation and economic isolation create a segmented society with some idea of a hierarchy and harms the idea of the “shared fate.” It prevents us from focusing on the needs of children collectively and keeps parents focused on the needs of only their own child.

Inequality skews more privileged people towards their own view of where they belong in a democracy, and leads them to support voter suppression (and participate in events like the insurrection). Professor Wilson’s idea of a practical solution is based on her research in school district lines: she wants to eliminate the commitment to community funding and boundaries. More succinctly, she wants more creative funding mechanisms and to get away from property taxes being the main funding source for schools.

The three panelists brought up a lot of important ideas when thinking about how education can play a role in the divisions that underlie our society. In the Q&A session, they discussed how interschool tracking (AP kids vs. non-AP kids) and charter school funding mechanisms can also undermine the “shared faith idea.”

I admit that the vast majority of this article was me recounting the findings and proposals of these esteemed scholars. Unlike the vast majority of what I’ve written for the Law Weekly, there are no hot takes to be written here. The sad reality is that we are at a time of deep division and educational segregation. Though schools are no longer under the official policies defeated by Brown v. Board, we still find ourselves separated from one another at a young age due to administrative workarounds. The two problems of civic disengagement and school boundaries causing de facto segregation are intertwined. I hope my fellow law students, who will shape the policies of tomorrow, take the discussion I distilled above and internalize it. Reshaping how we approach curriculum, funding, and the boundaries of education could be essential to the future of our Republic.

---

omk6cg@virginia.edu

Crossfire: The Adequacy of Antitrust Law

---

Donna Faye Imadi ‘22
Current Events Editor

On March 3rd, UVA Law’s Federalist Society ushered in the forthcoming Spring season by hosting a vibrant discussion on the ever-blossoming topic of “The Adequacy of Antitrust Law: Is Big Tech too Big?” 

On one hand, Jessica Vu[1] advocated yes - with a spin. Big Tech is not subject to antitrust discipline due to inherent size; rather, the anticompetitive practices of Big Tech are the impetus for reining in their power under the Sherman Act. On the other hand, Daren Baskt[2] advocated for viewing antitrust law in the eyes of the “consumer welfare standard” (a standard which assesses welfare by the metric of price to consumers). Baskt’s case hinged on the concern that antitrust reform aimed at Big Tech would have consequences across the economy and is unnecessary for ensuring preservation of consumer welfare.

Moderating the debate, Professor Paul Mahoney quickly passed the baton to Professor Thomas Nachbar, who laid the groundwork for issues animating antitrust in Big Tech. Professor Nachbar elaborated on what the law is, leaving ideas about what it will be or should be to Vu and Baskt.

Professor Thomas Nachbar | Multisided platforms and network effects

“Antitrust law is about competition and largely ignores issues pertaining to social harms,” Professor Nachbar opened. He further introduced the broad debate over the ‘consumer welfare standard’ and whether antitrust should be used as a tool to address harms beyond “increased prices” to consumers. He left this an open question, as it currently animates the debate within the broader field.

With this theme in the fray, Professor Nachbar narrowed his presentation to Big Tech. He explained how the Supreme Court decision in Ohio v. American Express, “was the first opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court to address antitrust harms in complex multisided-platforms, adopting an economic understanding with an emphasis on collective pricing of complementary products.” This is significant, he went on, because although multi-sided platforms are not limited to Big Tech, they do characterize the nature of these companies’ operation (Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple). 

So, what are multisided platforms? In the context of social media, they are platforms with two groups: Users [group #1] and Advertisers [group #2, connected by the platform intermediary site [i.e., Facebook, Google]. Another more palpable example is Uber. There are riders [group #1], and drivers [group #2], the Uber app connects the two. 

Professor Nachbar continued, these “two-sided platforms are characterized by indirect and direct ‘network effects,’” which influence the amount of users on both sides of a platform. The greater the number of users on one side, the more likely others will join that same side of the platform, which is a direct network effect [the more friends you have on Facebook, the greater likelihood you will join it, as opposed to MySpace]. This direct network effect creates more users on one side of the platform. The benefit of those direct effects in group 1 influences the reward reaped across the platform by group #2 [the advertiser side] because more people will see advertisements. Thus, advertisers reap benefits across the two-sided platform [an indirect network effect]. 

He then explained how this two-sided structure complicates the antitrust inquiry of consumer harm across the platform and calculus of market power, citing issues that arise in a winner-take-all market structure. Then, Professor Nachbar passed along this sketch to Vu and Baskt to color in.

Jessica Vu | Sherman Act enforcement against conduct, not structure

Vu did not argue that “Big is bad.” She meticulously cast her view within the scope of the Sherman Act, arguing that antitrust laws need to be enforced against Big Tech firms’ conduct, not merely as a result of their structure, stating that “[the] crime is taking action that hurts competition”, not that they are “too big.” She maintains that the consumer welfare standard is predominant, but that consumers are being harmed if one measures the cost as decreased choice [acquisition of potential competitors], quality [as measured by privacy degradation], and innovation. 

Vu furthered that enforcement is justified in light of measures by 48 state Attorneys General (AG) and the Federal Trade Commission suing Facebook, and two recent lawsuits against Google by the Department of Justice and 11 state AGs. She continued that these complaints “illuminate anticompetitive conduct, such as antiforking agreements, copying, self-preferencing, revenue-sharing agreements, exclusive contracts,” allegedly deployed to restrain competition. Although many of these allegations are not traditionally seen as anticompetitive on their own, innovative theories of harm or greater legislative guidance may be required to mitigate these harms. “There is no special exception for the tech industry because they exist online. Just because it’s hard to physically realize their power,” she said.

Overall, her view was that, “these lawsuits are not punishing businesses,” rather they are “punishing businesses for the conduct of breaking antitrust laws.” Her bottom line: “Big Tech threatens the free market and competition. Consumers/businesses stand to suffer in absence of action.”

Daren Baskt | Stick to tradition. Beware of “a cure worse than the disease.”

Countering, Daren Baskt represented that antitrust should be focused on consumer welfare, as defined by Robert Bork’s writings in the Antitrust Paradox. By determining antitrust inquiries in strict economic terms (measured by impact on price), he argued, antitrust will be less-prone to unpredictability and the social-policy preferences of judges. 

“Antitrust is the wrong tool for addressing bias/censorship concerns,” Baskt said. Further, he warned “reform aimed to reach exclusively Big Tech will lead the federal government to use antitrust as a ‘weaponized’ tool ‘across every industry.’” Citing Justice Scalia’s opinion in Verizon v. Trinko, Baskt voiced concern that new legislative proposals punish “being Big,” and may disincentivize innovation. He identified proposals that would make it difficult for start-ups to have “exit-options” and shifts in burdens-of-proof as particularly problematic.

Baskt concluded that any “policy issues should be specifically, narrowly drafted to fit the harm,” not create broad antitrust reform. The U.S. is the world’s tech leader. “Why should we threaten that leadership?” he ended.

Consensus Borne of Debate?

If Baskt concedes that Big Tech has been engaging in unlawful conduct, then it’s possible that “the green light to the federal government to reshape entire industries,” as he put it, is not necessary to discipline Big Tech. Rather, as Vu put it, citing Northern Pacific Railway, Section 2 of the Sherman Act is sufficient to reign in Big Tech to allow “unrestrained interaction of competitive forces” to “lead to the best allocation of our economic resources, lower prices, highest quality, and greatest material progress…”  

At this time, it is competition in the marketplace of ideas and competing policy preferences that are animating the antitrust debate. In the spirit of antitrust, we must hope that  the loudest voice in the room does not stifle others, but that the most “meritorious” proposals will chart the path ahead.

---

dfi3un@virginia.edu

---

[1]Current Chief Counsel to Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee), where she advises on Senate Judiciary Committee issues.

[2] Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation

So You Want to be a Woman in Government?

---

Dana Lake ‘23
Production Editor

The first ever Women in Government Day hosted by Virginia Law Women (VLW) happened virtually last week, offering a public sector version of the highly celebrated Women in Big Law event VLW puts on every year. If you were unable to attend and feel like the door to a government salary has already closed on you, fear not. This intrepid reporter attended the event (and got her meal reimbursement) to bring you the tips and strategies to landing your dream government position, shared by the professionals.

            Tip number one: Working for the government is not a guaranteed nine-to-five gig. Sarah Albrecht, the Associate Deputy Director of the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), corrected that misconception. As a government lawyer, you’re likely to be in an office filled with overachievers. “Whoever said go to the government, you’ll have a nine-to-five…no you won’t” Albrecht clarified, not without some humor. Depending on your role, you may be expected to be available 24/7, a far cry from the dichotomy traditionally asserted between private practice and the public sector. It isn’t all drudgery, of course. Albrecht finds much of her work deeply rewarding, and often she will have projects she is excited to work on. “You have to define what work-life balance means to you,” she explained. To her, that means not beating herself up for working passed five on a project she is deeply invested in.

            Tip number two: Both federal and state government employers are looking for people with experience. That doesn’t mean K-JDs are automatically relegated to private practice; practical experience can come from clinics, public interest firms, pro bono work, or feeder programs like DOJ Honors. Tara Allison, a trial attorney with the Criminal Section of the Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division, was hired through the Honors program after clerking. Michelle Kallen did take the private practice route, working specifically for firms with robust pro bono programs. “I looked for firms without caps on pro bono hours, which is how you can tell they are serious about the work,” she explained. Kallen was able to build up her appellate resume through pro bono projects, which prepared her for her current role as Deputy Solicitor General in the Virginia Office of the Attorney General.

            Tip number three: Focus on applying to whatever interesting opportunities you hear about, and don’t wait for the “right time” to make a change. Kallen shared how her current job was her dream role, but she hadn’t expected to land it so soon. “It’s better to make the switch when you want to, instead of waiting until you need to” she cautioned. Even if your current job is going well, if it isn’t the work you want to do more than anything else, it’s worth checking around to see what other opportunities are available. When an interesting job opens up, throwing your resume in the ring can lead to places you never expected. Chioma Chukwu ’12 is the Deputy General Counsel at the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, but she began her government career working for a public interest firm. Her advice? Don’t be afraid to apply to smaller places.

            Tip number four: Being a woman in government doesn’t necessarily put you at a disadvantage, and you shouldn’t limit what careers you pursue based solely on your gender identity. Though the appellate level is weighted heavily toward cis men, all four women attorneys that participated in the panel have found success with minimal problematic episodes. That doesn’t mean there aren’t problems, of course, but at least for these women working in government, it hasn’t been the old-school toxic alpha male show so many women suffer through professionally. Some of the attorneys found they had an easier time smiling through getting yelled at by judges than their male colleagues did. The top strategy for responding to a tense courtroom situation? Stay professional and try to genuinely answer the questions being shouted at you.

            Tip number five: Keep your network open. This is probably the most dreaded instruction to receive, but this reporter has yet to attend a career-oriented event that doesn’t hammer it home. Most jobs aren’t posted. If you want to be kept in the know on opportunities, you need to put in the background work. That means forwarding interesting articles to old bosses, keeping up with the personal developments of former coworkers, and putting birthdays in your calendar. It means developing genuine friendships when you can, because those friends are the people who will send you opportunities and interesting articles in turn. The most important aspect to being a good friend? Don’t just reach out when you need something.

---

dl9uh@virginia.edu

Race and Place: What Will it Take to End Residential Segregation?

Dana Lake ‘23
Production Editor

On the evening of Thursday, February 25, the Law School joined with the School of Architecture to present this year’s Lillian K. Stone Distinguished Lecture in Environmental Policy. Hosted through Zoom, the lecture focused on the environmental and health impacts of America’s history of residential segregation.

This year’s lecturer was Richard Rothstein. Rothstein is a distinguished fellow of the Economic Policy Institute, and a Senior Fellow (emeritus) with the Thurgood Marshall Institute of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. With an introduction from Dean Risa Goluboff and a question-and-answer session moderated by Professor Jonathon Cannon, the talk was both informative and confrontational.

 From the outset, Rothstein does not pull his punches. Drawing from his book The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America, Rothstein used his lecture to lay out the deliberate, institutionally-administered segregationist policies American governments imposed on metropolitan areas through the 1900s. These policies took many forms, and were administered at all levels of government—from local municipalities to federal housing projects.

Richard Rothstein, courtesy of law.virginia.edu

As an aside, it was about twenty-minutes into the talk that I realized why some of this talk was familiar to me: Rothstein was interviewed on NPR’s Fresh Air in 2017 when his book first published.[1] If you missed the lecture, I highly recommend looking up this interview. It is a credit to Rothstein’s passion for this subject that I was more than happy to continue listening, and the lecture incorporated his insights on how residential segregation has played a role in COVID-19 and the 2020 protests.

Residential segregation is a fundamental cause of racial disparities in health. For COVID-19, we see this manifest in testing disparities: When Texas reopened after its first shutdown, four out of six major cities had testing sites disproportionately located in neighborhoods whiter than the city’s median.[2] Food deserts are disproportionately located in minority neighborhoods—Hispanic people are a third as likely to have access to a chain supermarket as the average American; Black people are half as likely.[3]

Residential segregation directly contributes to wealth disparities between White and Black families. People of color were not only funneled into cities, they were prohibited from buying homes in suburbs—pushed into high cost-of-living areas where most families have to rent. Rothstein blames the racist policies of the Federal Housing Administration, Veterans Administration, and private home loan companies for significantly contributing to the generational wealth gap. Black families were barred from purchasing affordable homes in suburban areas until the 1968 Fair Housing Act, at which point it was too late. White families that had been given exclusive access to these areas had built up equity in their homes and driven up prices; they were able to sell their homes for well above the national median income, and use that money as a foundation for their family’s future. These White families had the capital to send their children to college, to fund their retirements, and leave money behind after their death. It was a major boost that specifically left Black families behind.

Transitioning into the question-and-answer portion, Professor Cannon joined Rothstein on the screen. While it is always a joy to hear Professor Cannon speak on environmental policy, as director of the Law School’s Program in Law, Communities, and the Environment (PLACE) he was especially qualified to join in on the conversation. So what will it take to end residential segregation? Rothstein doesn’t hesitate. “You can’t undo racially specific discrimination without racially specific policies. We need affirmative action.”

What those policies should be specifically is harder to say. There is no way to fix the generational wealth gap caused by a century of unfair lending practices and the health impacts caused by redlining. One point Rothstein returns to again and again is that residential segregation is not de facto; it is not the result of individual preferences or income differences. In America, segregation is de jure; the result of law and policy decisions.

The hour-long lecture went quickly, and I was surprised when I heard Professor Cannon say there was time for a final question. Rothstein has an intense manner of speaking, and the lecture was an engaging experience. In wrapping up the question-and-answer, Rothstein concluded with a direct appeal: “I’m not speaking to you as lawyers or architects,” he insisted. “I’m speaking to you as citizens.”

Above and beyond what we do with our careers, it’s the choices we make in our own neighborhoods that can have the most direct impact in ending residential segregation.

---

dl9uh@virginia.edu

---

[1] https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america

[2]https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/27/862215848/across-texas-black-and-hispanic-neighborhoods-have-fewer-coronavirus-testing-sit

[3] https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=racial_justice_project

Welcome to the Thunderdome: Chief Justice Phil Tonseth Takes the Gavel

---

Phil Tonseth ‘22
Editor-in-Chief

Before the 1L Activities Fair, I had never heard of the Law Weekly. Sure, I picked up an edition when I attended Admitted Students Weekend, and read about Professor Coughlin’s crusade to get her pet garden toad, Gary, into Paw Review.[1] From not understanding who ANG is, to laughing at the lighthearted jokes about shared miseries, and reading weird, yet accurate, professor quotes, I found the Law Weekly to be a nice break from the mundanity of what I presumed Law School to be. Enter the aforementioned Activities Fair. Persuaded by free Dominos and ‘cool’ kids to hang out with from the fair, I attended my first meeting and became hooked. Mind you, I had zero experience in journalism. Correction, I took journalism as an elective in the seventh-grade, but I’ve already written more words for this article than I did that entire semester. Sorry, Miss Fortney.

            While Maria Luévano ’21 got my foot in the door of Slaughter Hall 279, it was now Deposed Editor-in-Chief Eleanor Schmalzl ’20 and her cohort of 3Ls who got me to stay. Enjoying pizza, editing different journalistic pieces, and complaining about my 1L woes, I felt a sense of comfort and belonging. By the time the spring semester arrived, I knew I wanted to be more committed and involved in building the paper.[2] Spending the last year as Production Editor, I did all of the “unsexy” work. All of the funny[3] photo captions? Those were me. All of the random article placements, with weird random Virginia logos throughout? Yup, also me. The random lists of events on the back page? I scoured way too many emails to put that thing together. The work of putting together the puzzle that is the Law Weekly was 50% frustrating, but 100% enjoyable.[4] I was able to channel what I would want to see and read, hoping it would translate to the readers so they would really enjoy the wonderful pieces all of the writers for the Law Weekly had submitted. Then COVID-19 happened.

            I’ll be the first to admit it, I told my predecessor, Christina Luk ’21, that I thought we should stop publishing the paper once the school went virtual last spring. Who would want to read about Zoom events, let alone if anyone actually knew how to find the Law Weekly online?[5] Turns out, Christina was correct in saying we should continue, and this past year has been anything if not eventful. From working to find ways to cover all of the now digital events, to bringing stories of old traditions of UVA Law to the current 1Ls who have yet to experience a softball filled Friday at Copeley Field, the Law Weekly became both a time capsule and a sounding board to ensure students felt heard, found a sense of reality, and could break up the monotony of the ongoing quarantine. You bet I was excited by the opportunity to continue this progress as the Editor-in-Chief.

            My goals for the next year of the Law Weekly are humble: make people laugh,[6] publish articles that encourage people to both pick up the paper and share the article with someone else who may find it interesting, and detail all of the important aspects of the Law School that may have been overlooked during quarantine. To help me do so, I have an absolutely stellar editorial board and some awesome staff editors who are excited to hop onto Zoom, throw around great article ideas, and write insightful pieces. However, I also realize the Law Weekly has its own selection bias. So I challenge you, as readers, to get involved. Share your funny professor quotes, send me your best ideas for what ANG may be doing or thinking while ANG haplessly wanders North Grounds, or better yet, tell us what you would like us to write about.

            Being in a hybrid environment, I understand how disconnected most students feel from UVA Law, especially those upperclassmen who have now seen both sides of the coin. We here at the Law Weekly are working and will continue to work to hopefully fill that gap, but we also need your help to do so. Help us be interactive, remind us of the important events and traditions that we hold so dear at UVA Law, and tell us where we’ve come short.[7] While I never dreamt I would become so involved in journalism (let alone EIC of the Law Weekly) when I received my acceptance here, I’m humbled and very excited to bring this paper to new heights. I appreciate all of our readers and I hope y’all will help make this upcoming year one of the best that UVA Law has seen. Better yet, if you’ve gotten this far, hit me up the next time we see each other on the friendly confines of Copeley Field. I’ll have a cold one waiting for you.

---

pjt5hm@virginia.edu

---

[1] https://www.lawweekly.org/features/2019/3/20/court-of-petty-appeals-coughlin-v-paw-review

[2] Mind you, this was my only real club at the time. I needed something to do besides play softball.

[3] Humor me, I tried my best.

[4] I’m not a mathematician, I know the numbers make no sense. Sue me.

[5] https://www.lawweekly.org. Try it out for size, it’s a fun read and we’ve archived the past 7 Volumes.

[6] I’m hoping to rival The Onion, here.

[7] My email is always open: pjt5hm@virginia.edu.

Shaping Justice in a Time of Crisis

---

Jacob Jones ‘21
Features Editor

Last Saturday, February 20, students, faculty, and experts gathered for the Fifth Annual Shaping Justice Conference. The event, sponsored by the Mortimer Caplin Public Service Center, the Program in Law and Public Service, and the Public Interest Law Association, brings in various speakers with a central theme each year. This year, the conference was titled “Shaping Justice in a Time of Crisis” and addressed a wide variety of topics related to justice.

Panels started at 10 a.m. The panels covered a range of topics, from racial justice and supporting people of color, to the fight for voting rights, a movement to dismantle the Department of Homeland Security, to sex discrimination in the workplace, and environmental justice. Each panel was moderated  by a UVA professor, and each panel brought in several experts to discuss the topic.

The keynote address was given by Terrica Ganzy ’02. Ganzy boasts an extensive resume and has fought for civil rights since graduating from the Law School. Ganzy has been involved in representing capital defendants[1] from the trial stage to appeals to habeas petitions. She has also organized capital defense teams and helped manage investigations in those cases. Importantly, she has also engaged with the public and advocated to abolish the death penalty. Ganzy now holds the position of Deputy Director of the Southern Center for Human Rights.

Pictured: Keynote Speaker Terrica Redfield '02, Deputy Director of the Southern Center for Human Rights. Photo Credit: Warren Craghead

Rather than expressing her own view of what shaping justice looks like in 2021, Ganzy’s speech took a much more personal tone and offered advice for those looking to go into public service at some point. She offered several tips for those looking to make change.

Tip number one: you are enough. Ganzy discussed how the challenges facing those who are looking to shape justice can often feel overwhelming. Other activists and advocates who have succeeded have been in the same spot and felt the same way. If they could overcome those challenges, then so can you.

Tip number two: continue to expand your vision of what is possible for justice. Be an artist who gets closer to a masterpiece with each work, or an architect who develops the blueprint for a new vision of justice. If you are seeking to make change, it’s important you don’t limit yourself to the custom of the time; normal and accepted does not equal right.

Tip number three: know who you are, and embrace your values. Ganzy related this tip to her own story: After graduating from UVA Law, she had a choice between going to a firm or taking a fellowship at a legal nonprofit. She didn’t want to have to sacrifice her values and felt that at a firm she would have to conform to being someone she is not.

Ganzy also offered advice on working with community members: Be mindful of going into the conversation thinking you have all of the answers. A law degree does not give you everything you need, and people within the community are experts on matters on which you are not an expert. Ganzy also discussed the importance of caring about those you advocate for: Some people are not going to win in court. The justice some people get will be that you advocated for them and fought for them. Ganzy’s final piece of advice is that if you follow your passions, everything else will come. It may sound cheesy, but it was true for Ganzy.

After the keynote speech was finished, three separate alumni were honored for their role in public service. Elizabeth Epps ’11 was awarded one of the Shaping Justice Rising Star Awards for her work in founding the Colorado Freedom Fund, “a revolving community bond fund that pays ransom for our neighbors unjustly detained in cages across Colorado who cannot afford to buy their own freedom” that seeks to abolish wealth-based detention.[2] Ms. Epps also serves as a Smart Justice organizer for the ACLU. April Nicole Russo ’11 received the other Rising Star Award. Ms. Russo is a U.S. Attorney in the Department of Justice’s Human Trafficking & Child Exploitation Section. Ms. Russo talked about the overwhelming challenge in public service work: In response to someone not being able to save all the starfish dying on a beach, she says: “Well, I just saved that one.” Professor Toby Heytens ’00, who is on leave as a professor, received the Shaping Justice Award for Extraordinary Achievement. What could be so important and such an extraordinary achievement that one would take a break from being a professor of law at UVA? Well, arguing in front of the US Supreme Court, being the Solicitor General of Virginia, and winning “General Supreme Court Best Brief Award in 2020” are all pretty good starts. One would expect nothing less from someone who, according to rumor, dropped pincites in his final exam.

---

jmj3vq@virginia.edu

---

[1] Capital defendants are facing or are potentially facing the death penalty.

[2] http://www.blackbailout.org/

This Tuna is Off the Hook: Farewell from the Editor

---

Christina Luk ‘21
Deposed Editor-in-Chief

To say that this has been an eventful year is an understatement. To say that I will miss the Law Weekly very much is also an understatement. February to February, my term is up and I pass the mantle of Editor-in-Chief to yet more capable hands than mine. We did not release smoke from the chimney atop the Law School Library to announce this transition, but that’s only because VLR would not let us into their office. I’ll settle for this letter instead. It is time to say goodbye and thank you.

            Thank you for letting me be a part of this amazing community. I am surrounded by some of the most intelligent and kind people I have ever met. I have found confidants, mentors, brothers and sisters, and even one archnemesis.[1] I have grown from the support of my peers and in the light of their shining examples. As I prepare to leave the Law School in a few short months, I wanted to share a glimpse into what I’ve seen from the helm of the Law School newspaper.

            For one, there is never a dearth of news at the School. Even after going virtual, the Law School is full of events, activities, and drama. A boon for any newspaper. Since last March, we’ve celebrated love in all its forms in our Love in the Time of Corona column. We published our April Fools edition, which we still maintain is hilarious. We bid goodbye to Dean Cordel Faulk and welcomed a new Dean of Admissions. (Hi Dean Blazer, we’re excited to interview you.) We pushed for change, we asked for cookies on Fridays,[2] we asked for UVA Alerts to be a little bit more specific, and we did it all with our special brand of humor.

            All jokes aside, I am glad that the Law Weekly has continued to publish this year. We have written, edited, and published more than twenty editions since COVID forced us online, and every edition has been chock-full of news and laughs. Our online readership has more than doubled, and we average about five thousand views a week and more than a hundred thousand views since last February. More than anything, I’m glad that readers have been able to go on our website and experience what the Law School was like when we were all in person. I hope, in the future, when the School is open and its halls are full again, that this volume of the Law Weekly will stand as a testament to what we survived—a testament that we met the challenges of this year with grace and humor and that we emerged better for it. 

            A look through our archives, which stretch all the way back to 1948, shows the mettle of what it means to be a UVA Law student. It shows that we have always been opinionated and determined, that we have been unafraid to ask questions and, when we were unsatisfied with the answers, to ask for change. The journey towards a more perfect UVA Law has not always been linear, but, class after class, students have made their mark here. I hope this year will be no exception.

            To all my editorial members, thank you. It has been an honor to write beside you and to know you as intelligent, funny, wonderful, and generous souls. You have all amazed me with your boundless wit and goodwill. Thank you for hanging out with me every Monday night even though we don’t have free pizza anymore. Thank you for being a part of this journey with me. We all have a stake in the community we build, and you have all been mine. I’ll see you all around. 

---

cl3eh@virginia.edu

---

[1] You know who you are.

[2] Which we got! And then, you know, COVID.

Chicago Law x UVA Law: A Workshop on Race and the Law of Business & Finance

---

Grace Tang ‘21
Foreign Correspondent

The University of Chicago Center on Law and Finance teamed up with the University of Virginia John W. Glynn, Jr. Law & Business Program to present an academic workshop on race and law of business & finance on Friday, February 19. Panelists Abbye Atkinson, Associate Professor of Law at Berkeley Law and Andrew Hayashi, Professor of Law at UVA Law, presented their research on how the law interacts with issues of race in business and finance.

University of Chicago Law School Dean Thomas J. Miles presented welcoming remarks to attendees. In his opening remarks, Dean Miles thanked Dean Goluboff and Professor Cathy Hwang at UVA for their efforts in creating the workshop, and to the panelists for “both their teaching and research, which has expanded our understanding of important legal issues and our society at large.” Aneil Kovvali, a Bigelow Teaching Fellow and lecturer at the University of Chicago, moderated the panel.

Professor Atkinson’s research focuses on the law of debtors and creditors as it affects economically disenfranchised communities. Professor Atkinson considers how race and gender are impacted by consumer financial structures—whether or not debts are fairly priced. She also analyzes how debt affects historically marginalized communities, especially those who are women, African Americans, or impoverished. “Policymakers should be aware of market-based, debt-funded provisions; debt is a channel for socioeconomic subordination,” says Atkinson, adding “Debt was historically viewed as a tool of social provision for the poor. Policy debates are about access to debt, instead of the more fundamental question when indebtedness itself is social and economic subordination.”

During the workshop, Professor Atkinson discussed her research on how pension plans depend on marginalized borrowers to generate returns to help public service and civil servants with their retirement. Pension funds are huge institutional investors, and the fund assets are increasingly held in risky investments, revealing an increased appetite for risk by pension funds.  “Studies show that three-quarters of fund assets are in higher risk investments, like private equity firms.” Pension funds invest (through private equity and other investments) in for-profit colleges, subprime loans, and other marginalized debt.

Atkinson argues that pension fund investment in marginalized debt perpetuates issues in socioeconomic inequality and justifies continued inequality and marginalization. As part of our system of social welfare, Pension funds shouldn’t participate in marginalized debt, even if it serves to help teachers and public servants with their retirements.

“The issues with investment in marginalized debt is that we commoditize the income, and the investment makes the denouncement of marginalized debt more complex.” Retirement is important for public service and civil servants to retire in dignity. However, a robust, well-funded public pension fund has implications for wealth, equality, and social significance. The bigger picture shows the result of pitting one marginalized group against another. Atkinson points to larger conflicts of interest in the market-based social division.

Atkinson provides several recommendations to the current conflict of interest. Pension fund investment regulation could regulate the industries and interests. Private equity firms or fund managers and other actors tasked with working for the public good could be regulated, or public fund fiduciary duties could be expanded.

“I think race is at the core of thinking about issues of credits and debt, as well as home ownership and value. We can trace that concept of home value to racialized notions of preference. If we purport to want to move the ball forward, then we must acknowledge and think about the world with race as a factor,” said Atkinson.

Professor Hayashi’s research on dynamic property taxes and racial gentrification was motivated by a long history of discriminatory property assessments. “Historically, the property appraisal process was very subjective,” says Hayashi, where “Overvaluation of Black properties has led to increased property taxes in the past.” His research reveals a discrepancy in property taxes due to gentrification and shifts in populations from one neighborhood to another. “Under income tax, any benefits derived from racial preferences get taxed. For example, if the market rewards whiteness in wages or profits, that benefit is taxed. Real property benefits are also taxed in general, but property tax caps subsidize transitions to whiter neighborhoods during gentrification.” 

Many states have property tax caps in calculating property taxes owed. The fair market value of a home assessed does not directly result in property tax amounts, but is included as part of the assessment ratio, calculated as assessed value over fair market value. States have imposed limits on the changes to the assessment ratio year over year (e.g. six percent per year, no more than twenty percent over five years) to avoid massive changes in property tax as a result of home valuation increases. These caps and limits provide benefits for white populations when they move into new neighborhoods, because housing prices increase when white populations move in. 

Current methods of calculating property taxes may reduce property tax incidence (tax burdens) for white populations while increasing tax burdens for Black persons. “When white populations migrate from one neighborhood to another, they increase the values of their homes, but save significant taxes as a result of moving due to the property tax caps and assessment ratio limits imposed.”  White home prices and neighborhoods appreciate more quickly than Black neighborhoods. As a result, white populations receive significant portions of tax savings. Since many states and localities rely on fixed income from property taxes, a reduction in property taxes for white populations may lead to increased tax burdens on Blacks and other minority homeowners.

Observing correlation of race with assessment ratios depends on the rate of dislocation and the rate of price adjustments. Actual tax incidence (who bears the burden of taxes) depends on capitalization of tax benefits into sales prices. Why do property values correlate with race? “There could be direct preferences for racial compositions of neighborhoods. Race could also serve as a proxy for school quality, safety, and relationship to government.” says Hayashi.

When asked by moderator Aneil Kovvali whether clear “villains” existed in either of their research findings, Professor Atkinson pushed back on the idea of ‘one villain.’ “These problems aren’t caused by one bad actor, it is a systemic issue,” said Atkinson. “For example, the wave of gentrification creates broader public benefits. However, the systemic aspect perpetuates problems we see.” Professor Hayashi adds that “one problem with laws causing these adverse effects is that the solutions or fixes are not available to everyone in the same way. For example, Black homeowners appeal their home assessments less frequently than less white homeowners. Thus, the burden of self-help is on the shoulders of the homeowners.”

---

gt5ay@virginia.edu