Do white students enjoy an unfair advantage as compared to Asian Americans in admissions to certain universities? This Article explains the proper legal comparison under settled civil rights law for making this determination based on the number of white and Asian American applicants and admits for a given admissions cycle. This Article also raises questions regarding the accuracy of blaming affirmative action favoring African Americans—a Black bonus—for racial discrimination against Asian Americans—an Asian penalty. It does so by examining charges of Asian penalty made by amici in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin and the similar charges made in the complaints in lawsuits challenging racial affirmative action by Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The Article exposes two mathematical fallacies as well as the limitations of an oft-cited 2009 book that have been relied upon regularly to bolster the notion that admissions bonuses for African Americans and Latinos cause universities to operate racially discriminatory anti-Asian American admissions ceilings. The Article illuminates how efforts to link affirmative action and Asian penalty omit a key inquiry for identifying anti-Asian American discrimination—disparate impact analysis comparing Asian American selection rates to white selection rates.
Food policy remains one of the main levers by which we can work to address some of the most intractable problems of our time because of food’s effect on health, the environment, and the economy. For this reason, it is important to consider the implications of the Trump administration’s policies in this arena. Moreover, a look at some of the food law and policy initiatives that may be delayed or suspended under the new administration provides a window into the new administration’s anti-regulatory stance more generally and we can see how state and local governments will act to fill regulatory and policy gaps.
In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. —George Orwell1 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. —United
On October 23, 2016, the UCLA School of Law hosted a memorial to celebrate the life of Professor Skye Donald, whose battle with cancer ended on October 16, 2016. Family, friends, colleagues, and students gathered to remember Professor Donald for the joy she brought to the world, and the lasting impression she will continue to
Foreword - Imagining the Legal Landscape: Technology and the Law in 2030 Jennifer L. Mnookin & Richard M. Re Legal scholarship tends to focus on the past, the present, or the relatively visible, near-term future. And that’s understandable: the challenges that loom many years away often aren’t susceptible to confident
Abstract How will big data impact environmental law in the near future? This Essay imagines one possible future for environmental law in 2030 that focuses on the implications of big data for the protection of public health from risks associated with pollution and industrial chemicals. It assumes the perspective of an
Abstract Just as they will change healthcare, manufacturing, and the military, robots have the potential to produce big changes in policing. We can expect that at least some robots used by the police in the future will be artificially intelligent machines capable of using legitimate coercive force against human beings. Police
Abstract This Article contains two imaginary stories about the future. The first attempts to imagine what might happen if intellectual property law no longer prohibited copying and we were to live in a world entirely driven by data, algorithms, and metrics that monitor reading and discussion; in particular, it dwells on how
Abstract Effective management of societal risks from technological innovation requires two types of conditions: sufficient knowledge about the nature and severity of risks to identify preferred responses; and sufficient control capacity (legal, political, and managerial) to adopt and implement preferred responses. While it has
Abstract This science-fiction legal Essay is set in the year 2030. It anticipates the development and mass adoption of a device called the "Ruby" that records everything a person does. By imagining how law and society would adjust to such a device, the Essay uncovers two surprising insights about public policy: first, policy