Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group Podcast
Today, approximately two billion people lack access to financial services. Because of their exclusive reliance on cash, these individuals operate in a “shadow economy,” are subject to greater criminal activity, higher transaction costs, and do not enjoy the same opportunities, benefits, and protections of traditional bank accounts and financial services. Last year, the World Bank and several organizations from the public and private sector announced a commitment to extend basic financial services to everyone by 2020.
Shamina Singh, the President of Mastercard’s Center for Inclusive Growth, discussed the importance of financial inclusion to the U.S. and global economy and how governments, private sector leaders and philanthropic organizations have been focused on research and solutions to address these issues and foster greater inclusion.
- Shamina Singh, President of the Mastercard Center for Inclusive Growth and Chair of the Corporation for National and Community Service
International & National Security Law Podcast
Historically, protecting national security meant protecting one’s own citizens and sovereign territory from the threats or opposing interests of other nation-states. The concept has broadened, however, as transnational terrorists act with unprecedented scale and range: the threats they pose are of a magnitude previously only possible for nation-states, and they act indiscriminately among the several countries they feel justified in attacking. The United States’ interest in defeating these actors, then, is one that is shared by many other countries that are not necessarily our allies in a larger sense.
In this the final episode of our three-part Security Partnership Series, we discussed the benefits and limits of partnerships with foreign government agencies for counterterrorism purposes. What conditions form the basis of a productive partnership? How might such partnerships compromise our operations? How do we decide how much information to share? Does partnering with a foreign country’s intelligence agency limit our own independent intelligence gathering capabilities? Perhaps most controversially – what limits can or should be imposed on the methods used to collect the counterterrorism intelligence to be shared? Of the foreign governments that have publicly complained about the United States’ use of certain signals intelligence capabilities, do their intelligence agencies nevertheless desire the information collected? Likewise, although the United States has banned certain interrogation methods domestically, might our intelligence agencies nevertheless want to obtain human intelligence information gathered by foreign agencies using those or other similar methods?
- Amb. Ryan C. Crocker , Dean of the Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University
- William K Lietzau, Vice President, Deputy General Counsel, PAE
- Salli A. Swartz, Partner, Artus Wise Partners
- Moderator: Adam Pearlman, Special Advisor to the International and National Security Law Practice Group
Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Podcast
In June 2013, documents leaked by Edward Snowden sparked widespread debate about secret government surveillance of Americans. Just over a year later, the shooting of Michael Brown, a black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri, set off protests and triggered concern about militarization of law enforcement and discriminatory policing. In Unwarranted, Barry Friedman argues that these two seemingly disparate events are connected―and that the problem is not so much the policing agencies as it is the rest of us. We allow these agencies to operate in secret and to decide how to police us, rather than calling the shots ourselves. And the courts, which we depended upon to supervise policing, have let us down entirely.
The book's author, Professor Barry Friedman, the Jacob D. Fuchsberg Professor of Law at New York University School of Law, Professor Orin Kerr the Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law at The George Washington University Law School, and John Malcolm, Director and Senior Legal Fellow at the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies for the Heritage Foundation, joined us to discuss this new book.
- Prof. Barry Friedman, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Professor of Law, New York University School of Law
- Prof. Orin Kerr, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School
- Moderator: John G. Malcolm, Director and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation
2017 National Student Symposium
Professor Richard Epstein delivered the keynote address titled "A common lawyer looks at the constitutional protection for freedom of speech" during the 2017 National Student Symposium at Columbia Law School on Saturday, March 4, 2017.
The theme of this talk is what happens if we think about freedom of speech as an ideal, without any of the standard constitutional glosses—strict scrutiny, purposive interpretations—and then how does it play out. It does differ from the current law, quite radically on some key question that lie at the border line between tortious actions and free speech: offensive behavior, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, deceit, coercion and the like. The answers sometimes overlap and sometimes differ, and I hope to explain why the common law approach is superior.
7:00 p.m. -10:00 p.m.
Lerner Hall, Roone Arledge Auditorium
- Keynote: Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University School of Law
- Introduction: Mr. Shiva H. Logarajah, Symposium Chair, Columbia Law School Student Chapter
Columbia Law School
New York, New York
2017 National Student Symposium
Universities have long been thought of, and cherished, as places for the free exchange of ideas. This idea has, however, come under pressure. Student groups have now routinely exercised pressure to keep people who they disagree with off campus. And safe spaces and trigger warnings—which limit speech that some have deemed offensive—have become regular features at universities across the nation.
Many see the climate of shouting-down or protesting the expression of others' viewpoints as the symbolic beginning of an era limiting the freedom of speech on college campuses. While surveys seem to show a majority of students disagree with universities curtailing speech, even when it is offensive, vocal minorities with opposing views have been the ones capturing news headlines and the attention of the public at large.
With the accessibility to speech provided by the internet and viral sharing of information, expression and speech spread with more ease than ever, but this same technology creates opportunities for back-lash on social media and gives a larger stage to those who would threaten the free market of ideas at our nation's universities.
The First Amendment protects principles which have always required vigilance to maintain, and today's world makes no exception. This panel will explore how these developments have affected intellectual discourse on campus and if they are conducive to a meaningful learning experience at our universities.
This panel was presented at the 2017 National Student Symposium on Saturday, March 4, 2017, at Columbia Law School in New York City, New York.
Panel 4: Universities and the First Amendment
4:00 p.m. - 5:45 p.m.
Jerome Greene Hall 104
- Prof. Robert Post, Dean and Sol & Lillian Goldman Professor of Law, Yale Law School
- Prof. Phillip Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
- Prof. Suzanne Goldberg, Executive Vice President for University Life, Columbia University; Herbert and Doris Wechsler Clinical Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
- Prof. Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law; Director, Constitutional Law Center; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution
- Moderator: Hon. Thomas Hardiman, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Columbia Law School
New York, New York