Forum Network

Free online lectures: Explore a world of ideas

Funding provided by:

Case Western Reserve University

Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, improves people’s lives through preeminent research, education and creative endeavor: innovation and discovery in scholarship that capitalizes on the power of collaboration; learning that is active, creative and continuous; and promotion of an inclusive culture of global citizenship.

http://www.case.edu

The New and Old Politics of Congressional Elections

Thu, Nov 5, 2015

After years of relative stability – 40 years of uninterrupted Democratic control of the House of Representatives, followed by 12 years of Republican control – congressional elections saw dramatic swings in 2006, 2010, and 2014. The conditions for elections have also changed in highly publicized ways. The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Paul Herrnson writes, meant that, “the 2010 congressional elections ushered in a new era of interest group participation in federal elections.” At the same time campaign communication and finance have been transformed through new uses of the internet; and the terrain of elections altered through reapportionment and the underlying, geographic “partisan sort” of the country. In these senses there may be a new politics of congressional elections. Yet how significant are these changes? Do they clearly favor one party or the other, or some groups over others? What are the prospects for reforms such as different methods of redistricting, or changes in campaign finance? What difference might any reforms make? **Paul Herrnson** is easily one of the nation’s leading experts on our topic. The 7th edition of his textbook, _[Congressional Elections: Campaigning at Home and in Washington](http://www.amazon.com/Congressional-Elections-Campaigning-Washington-Seventh/dp/1483392600/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1449199350&sr=8-4 "Congressional Elections: Campaigning at Home and in Washington")_, will be released this Fall. He is also an influential scholar of interest groups, having most recently co-edited Interest Groups Unleashed (2013) with Christopher Deering and Clyde Wilcox. Join us to hear about the latest and best scholarship on the contest to control the “first branch” of the United States government.

Forum Network

Partner:

Case Western Reserve University
The Revenge of the Nerds, and Other Dispatches from the Intellectual Property Wars

Mon, Oct 5, 2015

In the 1980s the United States government made negotiation and enforcement of strong “intellectual property” rights one of the guiding principles of its foreign policy. As industries such as steel and autos lost market share to competition from Japan and other east Asian nations such as Korea, massive trade deficits led to calls for protectionist policies. In order to resist those calls, policy-makers argued that the U.S. had a comparative advantage in innovative newer industries, such as pharmaceuticals and cultural products, which would generate exports and high-value-added jobs to replace the jobs being lost in “old industries.” But that required that innovation not be copied easily. So protecting the intellectual property from innovation became a rallying cry for policy-makers of both parties. The Clinton administration especially promoted this view as part of its “New Democrat” economic approach. And politicians were enthusiastically and in some cases financially supported by the industries which would have their profits protected if foreign competition were prevented. As the U.S. government worked to globalize its intellectual property rules, it was supported by major corporations and in many cases governments from developed nations. The campaign proceeded through the WTO, the GATT, and many other venues. It was highlighted by the 1994 Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), but TRIPS, as Susan Sell argues, in retrospect was only a step in a much more extensive series of restrictions that have been achieved in a series of forums since. Yet the campaign to strengthen intellectual “property rights” – and the attendant profits – has also met significant checks. The most substantial involved access to life-saving pharmaceuticals, symbolized by medications for AIDS. In 2001 the WTO Doha Declaration underscored countries’ rights to put public health before patents. In 2012, legislation to restrict downloading, streaming, and file-sharing on the internet was breezing through Congress, until it was suddenly swamped by a tidal wave of net-based protest. The newest battle in the now nearly Thirty-Years War about intellectual property involves the Trans-Pacific Partnership. What might we learn from the past about what could happen next? To help us understand the battle and the war, we will be joined by Professor **Susan Sell**, one of the leading scholars of the conflict. Her works on the topic include _[Power and Ideas: North-South Politics of Intellectual Property and Antitrust](http://www.amazon.com/Power-Ideas-North-South-Intellectual-Antitrust/dp/0791435768/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1449200223&sr=8-1&keywords=Power+and+Ideas%3A+North-South+Politics+of+Intellectual+Property+and+Antitrust "")_ (1998); _[Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights](http://www.amazon.com/Private-Power-Public-Globalization-International/dp/B0087I5QAG/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1449200326&sr=8-3&keywords=Private+Power%2C+Public+Law%3A+The+Globalization+of+Intellectual+Property+Rights "")_ (2003); _[Intellectual Property Rights: a Critical History](http://www.amazon.com/Intellectual-Property-Rights-Critical-Ipolitics/dp/1588263630/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1449200440&sr=8-1&keywords=Intellectual+Property+Rights%3A+a+Critical+History "")_ (with Christopher May, 2005) and dozens of articles and book chapters. Private Power, Public Law has been issued in both Chinese and Korean-language editions. Join us as she discusses the defeat of the 2012 legislation in the “revenge of the nerds,” other key events, and the current prospects.

Forum Network

Partner:

Case Western Reserve University
Sexual Misconduct on College Campuses: Justice and Due Process

Wed, Sep 16, 2015

In 2010, the Center for Public Integrity reported that victims of sexual misconduct on campus face “a frustrating search for justice.” On April 4, 2011, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a guidance document about sexual violence on campuses, setting standards for what universities must do in order to comply with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972’s prohibition of sex discrimination in education. In the years that followed, students in many universities brought complaints against their institutions for failing to respond appropriately to reported rapes. The OCR itself initiated many more investigations; as of August 2015, 129 universities, including many of the most prominent in the country, were under investigation. Others have already agreed to settlements. As universities have adopted policies in the name of meeting the OCR’s guidance, however, a powerful backlash has arisen. In a few highly publicized cases, accusations have been rebutted by later evidence. The policies adopted by some universities have been sharply criticized by faculty, most prominently at both Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania, where large numbers of professors of law raised concerns about due process for accused students. Some of the critics have been among the best known feminist and women’s rights scholars in the country. How can justice and fairness best be served when a person claims to be sexually victimized by a fellow member of a university community? What is the proper role of the university? How can the rights of victim and accused be not just balanced but maintained? The question is roiling campuses across the country. Ours is not the only campus where it is the topic for the 2015 Constitution Day program.

Forum Network

Partner:

Case Western Reserve University
How a 21st Century Constitutional Revolution in Hungary Claimed Medieval Roots

Thu, Apr 23, 2015

Since independence in 1989, nationalist Hungarians have argued that the Holy Crown of St. Stephen and associated doctrines should be at the core of Hungary’s constitution. Kim Lane Scheppele – Rockefeller Professor of Sociology and International Affairs at Princeton University – will discuss how the Crown is both a literal object given by the Pope to the first Christian king of Hungary, in the year 1000 and – since medieval times – a key symbolic touchstone in the constitution of state power. Professor Scheppele will examine how the Crown became an object venerated by the right and denigrated by the left of the Hungarian political spectrum.

Forum Network

Partner:

Case Western Reserve University
Will the Supreme Court Upend The Affordable Care Act?

Wed, Apr 15, 2015

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recently heard a new set of arguments regarding the constitutionality of Affordable Care Act in King v. Burwell. The focal point of the case centers on the funding of insurance marketplaces and one particular section of the law that states subsidies should flow to customers “through an Exchange established by the state.” Plaintiffs argued that the plain language of the legislation means that only people in the state-run marketplaces – and not those in federally run marketplaces – can get the subsidies. The government’s defense relied on the contextual reading of the legislation and asked the Court to look at Congress’s legislative intent. This panel discussion will include an explanation of the plaintiffs’ position from one of the architects of the legislation as well as the counter arguments and practical realities of the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision from two other panelists. This lecture will be of interest to any attorney who represents corporations and small businesses that provide health insurance for employees or represents employees enrolled in health care plans.

Forum Network

Partner:

Case Western Reserve University
Wealth, Health, and Democracy in East Asia and Latin America

Tue, Feb 24, 2015

Why do some societies fare well, and others poorly, at reducing the risk of early death? In his award-winning book, _Wealth, Health, and Democracy in East Asia and Latin America_, Professor McGuire shows that the public provision of basic health care and other inexpensive social services has reduced mortality rapidly even in tough economic circumstances, and that political democracy has contributed to the provision and utilization of such social services, in a wider range of ways than is sometimes recognized. His conclusions are based on case studies of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Indonesia, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand, as well as on cross-national comparisons involving these cases and others.

Forum Network

Partner:

Case Western Reserve University
The Taming of Democracy Promotion

Tue, Mar 31, 2015

When U.S. government democracy assistance was launched three decades ago, it fostered real change, as in Poland and Chile, by supporting dissidents. Since then, democracy promotion has grown into an international industry. But assistance from both the U.S. and other donors normally finances programs that are not in the least threatening to authoritarian regimes. Instead, it finances technical assistance programs that considerable evidence suggests are ineffective. Or, it focuses on quantitative outcomes, such as the number of women in parliament, on which it is easy to show success but that do not threaten autocratic governments. Professor Bush argues that these results fit the incentives for organizations that must have permission to operate in countries in order to be funded, and that must compete with each other for donor support. In short, the rise of a "Democracy Establishment" has "tamed" democracy promotion. Professor Bush's talk was based on the research for her new book with Cambridge University Press, _The Taming of Democracy Assistance: Why Democracy Promotion Does Not Confront Dictators_. Dr. Bush earned her Ph.D. in Political Science from Princeton University and was a Postdoctoral Fellow in the International Security Program of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Forum Network

Partner:

Case Western Reserve University
The Fall of the Faculty: Governing Universities in the 21st Century

Thu, Nov 3, 2011

(CASE WESTERN 2011) **Ben Ginsberg** discusses patterns of university governance that threaten school missions. In his book *The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters*, Ginsberg argues that management structures have been imposed without attention to whether they make sense for the university context. Administrative positions are created with work generated to justify their existence, and activities that seem to faculty as diversions from their missions are justified as serving student needs or required by government mandates. Ginsberg argues that these trends are better understood as results of a natural human pursuit of power and of the faculty not always being willing to insist that it take on the hard work of governance.

Forum Network

Partner:

Case Western Reserve University
Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution

Thu, Sep 15, 2011

(Cleveland, Ohio 2011) Case Western Reserve University faculty and guests convene on Constitution Day to debate the issues raised by The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), state regulations, civil unions, polygamy, and other constitutional issues related to marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed by Congress in 1996, defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. As a result, same-sex couples are barred from receiving federal benefits conferred upon married couples, and no state is required to recognize same-sex marriages granted by another state. On February 23, 2011, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Obama Administration had determined DOMA to be unconstitutional, and that the Justice Department would no longer provide legal defense for the law. Meanwhile, many states have adopted measures designed to forbid same-sex marriage. This program includes opposing perspectives from the speakers, questions from a student panel, and Q&A with the audience. It aims to encourage a thoughtful exchange of ideas.

Forum Network

Partner:

Case Western Reserve University
Government's Ability to Compel and Restrict Speech: Introduction

Fri, Nov 19, 2010

The 2010-2011 Case Western Reserve University Law Review Symposium addresses limits on government speech and the government's ability to claim speech as its own in both restricting and compelling speech. Panels examine 1) the intersection between government speech and the establishment clause (with a focus on the implications of *Salazar v. Buono*); 2) the extent to which the government can control school curricula and restrict the work of law school clinics; 3) the extent to which the government can compel speech by denominating the speech as its own.

Forum Network

Partner:

Case Western Reserve University

What matters to you.