main navigation
my pace

Darren Rosenblum | PACE UNIVERSITY

News & Events

Sort/Filter

Filter Newsfeed

News Item

Washington Post featured Haub Law Professor Darren Rosenblum's piece "Opinion: Misgendering students is not ‘academic freedom.’ It’s an abuse of power."

04/01/2021

Washington Post featured Haub Law Professor Darren Rosenblum's piece "Opinion: Misgendering students is not ‘academic freedom.’ It’s an abuse of power."

Darren Rosenblum a professor at Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University, writes an op-ed for the Washington Post arguing that academic freedom should protect misgendering students.

Read the full Washington Post article.

News & Events

Sort/Filter

Filter Newsfeed

News Item

San Francisco Chronicle & Laredo Morning Times featured Haub Law Professor Darren Rosenblum in "New hires to corporate boards in California still mostly white, despite state law"

02/23/2021

San Francisco Chronicle & Laredo Morning Times featured Haub Law Professor Darren Rosenblum in "New hires to corporate boards in California still mostly white, despite state law"

That relatively small number of Latinx hires illustrates how mandating diversity does not mean all groups will see representation in boardrooms increase equally because of the new law. That could build pressure to increase the representation of more specific groups on future boards said Darren Rosenblum, a law professor at Pace University School of Law who has studied board diversity.

Read the full San Francisco Chronicle & Laredo Morning Times article.

News & Events

Sort/Filter

Filter Newsfeed

News Item

Forbes featured Darren Rosenblum's latest column: "Carrots And Sticks: Why Nasdaq Adopted Its Radical Board Diversity Quota"

12/03/2020

Forbes featured Darren Rosenblum's latest column: "Carrots And Sticks: Why Nasdaq Adopted Its Radical Board Diversity Quota"

Nasdaq announced that they have submitted a proposal to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to require listed companies have one woman board member and one other board member from an underrepresented group. Firms that fail to comply with this requirement must justify their failure or risk delisting from the exchange. This comply-or-explain rule is radical for a securities exchange. While it deserves praise for innovation, what happens next will be fascinating to watch. Will the SEC approve the Nasdaq initiative? If so, how will Nasdaq’s new rule affect companies? Will it improve equality and inclusion at the upper levels of the corporate sector?  To answer these questions, we have to first understand the proposal and why it was adopted. 

Though it may seem like a minor imposition, it is both novel and will affect firm governance in important ways. First, Nasdaq would be the first of the very top exchanges to adopt a board representation diversity requirement. What Nasdaq also adds here however is the inclusion of a person from an underrepresented group. Its proposal combines California’s largely sucessful 2018 quota for women and its recent quota for underrepresented groups, by which they meant certain racial and ethnic groups and LGBT people. 

Nasdaq’s effort to encourage diversity deserves our recognition. Diversity, as many recognize, not only advances the firms’ interests by fostering better governance and reducing groupthink. It also serves as an investment in society overall.  

Yet Nasdaq’s effort here is not just about virtue signaling. How did we get to the point where one of the world’s top exchanges, in the generally anti-quota United States context, adopted a quota?  Surely Nasdaq, as the exchange that includes some of the world’s largest technology firms, would rather get ahead of this movement rather than pull up the rear. What motivated Nasdaq’s choice?  

As with most choices, it probably involves a combination of carrots and sticks. For most private sector endeavors, the carrot is profits and money. This decision on Nasdaq’s part is no different. Over the past decade, key private equity investors and pension funds have initiated their own diversity efforts. Nasdaq’s decision follows their efforts, all of which reflect the market’s acceptance of quotas as a technique for realizing diversity.

Read the full Forbes article.

News & Events

Sort/Filter

Filter Newsfeed

News Item

Forbes featured Haub Law Professor Darren Rosenblum's latest piece "Will Quotas For Women Lead To Broader Diversity?"

11/19/2020

Forbes featured Haub Law Professor Darren Rosenblum's latest piece "Will Quotas For Women Lead To Broader Diversity?"

When Kamala Harris took the stage as Vice President-elect, it revealed how our leaders serve as our role models, for better or worse. Harris’s presence made it clear how much we need women, and indeed, women of color, in leadership.  

Parents around the world watched Harris with their children of all sexes and races. They saw the future in their children’s eyes: a world in which diverse leadership moves from a shared central value to political and corporate reality.  Make no mistake, this is not just for the girls, or for the Black, biracial or South Asian girls. This is for all children, who learn from her example, to value other children without regard to their sex or race. 

That image – of Harris taking the stage – proved a point made so eloquently by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, our nation’s first woman Supreme Court Justice. In her statement on affirmative action, in which she said, “In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity.”

Read the full Forbes article.

News & Events

Sort/Filter

Filter Newsfeed

News Item

Forbes featured Haub Law Professor Darren Rosenblum's piece "Amy Coney Barrett, LGBT Rights and Judicial Legitimacy"

10/26/2020

Forbes featured Haub Law Professor Darren Rosenblum's piece "Amy Coney Barrett, LGBT Rights and Judicial Legitimacy"

Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court both violates our core democratic norms related to judicial legitimacy, and reveals contempt for key components of U.S. equality law on LGBT rights. 

The Senate Judiciary Committee moved Amy Coney Barrett forward to a full-Senate confirmation vote, violating its own rules – an apt reflection of this “illegitimate nomination,” as Senator Schumer termed it. Trump’s and McConnell’s public announcements — before Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s funeral — were disrespectful as well as hypocritical. They also violated Republican Senators’ prior objections to proceeding with a nomination in the midst of an election, an election tainted by continued evidence of Russian interference. In their long campaign to pack and stack the Supreme Court, Republicans ignored their pledges not to proceed with an election-year nomination. 

Decades ago, when civil rights leader turned Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall died, a Republican (George Bush) replaced him with Clarence Thomas. Marshall crafted civil rights as a lawyer, honed the law on affirmative action as a Justice, and then was replaced by someone determined to undermine that precise legacy. Make no mistake, opponents of equality used Thomas’s Black identity to realize their goals.  At the time, some Black intellectuals wrote that Thomas’s black-ness would come out as a Justice and serve Black people. This occurred only once, when Thomas objected to cross burnings. 

Trump has taken the death of civil rights leader-turned Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a comparable opportunity, choosing Amy Coney Barrett not to empower women, but because he wanted to use her woman-ness to undermine women’s rights, notably abortion. It makes sense, given that Trump’s  record on the women’s rights issues that were Ginsburg’s hallmark: far more women have accused him of sexual assault than have been named to cabinet posts. In this sense, Barrett, like Thomas before her, is a top beneficiary of the identity politics so many Republicans assail. 

Then the hearings began. Barrett’s opening statement assured the public of her “independence.” While her language in that statement was neutral, observers listened for whether Barrett would say anything to cleanse her nomination of the rank partisanship and possible taint of a quid pro quo at its origin. Would she convey a respect for the fundamental norms of equality that drive our constitutions and our laws?  Would she respect precedent, or hew to a muted (to the public, if not the Federalist Society) agenda?  Would she even discuss the issues that have led some, such as radio host Michelangelo Signorile to call her agenda extreme? Barrett could have taken Democrats’ questions seriously and answered sincerely and in an engaged fashion. 

Read the full Forbes article.

News & Events

Sort/Filter

Filter Newsfeed