main navigation
my pace

Op-Ed | PACE UNIVERSITY

News & Events

Sort/Filter

Filter Newsfeed

News Item

New York Law Journal featured Haub Law Assistant Dean of Career and Professional Development Jill Backer's piece "New York City-Area Law Schools Form Law School Anti-Racism Consortium"

02/01/2021

New York Law Journal featured Haub Law Assistant Dean of Career and Professional Development Jill Backer's piece "New York City-Area Law Schools Form Law School Anti-Racism Consortium"

This coalition of law school faculty, administrators, staff, students and alumni is committed to building an anti-racist culture and climate in law schools. LSARC works on many levels: we provide resources for law schools to: (1) support indigenous, Black and other students of color and alumni/ae through admissions, orientation, academics and classroom inclusivity, (2) identify, confront and explore the impact of racism on law with their students, faculty, administration and the larger community, and (3) center racial justice as a guiding principle and a concrete practice in every area of legal education and the legal profession.

Read the full New York Law Journal article.

News & Events

Sort/Filter

Filter Newsfeed

News Item

The Hill featured President Marvin Krislov's column: "An 'upskill bill' can be the GI Bill for a post-COVID workforce"

02/01/2021

The Hill featured President Marvin Krislov's column: "An 'upskill bill' can be the GI Bill for a post-COVID workforce"

President Biden took office with four top priorities: combating COVID-19, rebuilding the economy, addressing racial inequity and fighting climate change. Starting right away, he has promised action to ramp up vaccine production and distribution and provide much needed support for families who are struggling.

One practical priority will help address all those goals: getting all of America, from all backgrounds, back to work — in the kinds of good-paying jobs that serve the needs of today and tomorrow and have proven resilient through the last year of pandemic. 

It’s why I believe Congress should include among its stimulus measures an 'upskill Bill', a major investment in higher education for all Americans. 

Just as the GI Bill changed America for the better in the decades after World War II, the upskill bill can transform America after the coronavirus, building an equitable workforce trained to address crucial challenges like healthcare and decarbonization. 

The last year has made clear the benefits accruing to the skilled workforce. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that only about five percent of service workers have been able to work from home, while more than half of information workers did. Beyond that, skilled workers didn’t see job losses in the same volume and it’s less likely that their jobs will simply no longer exist. Automation, artificial intelligence and machine learning were already threatening many unskilled jobs; the crisis has only accelerated that shift. 

This period has clarified things we’ve long known to be true. College graduates earn far more in their lifetimes than those without college degrees because the skills they learn in college — not just subject-specific expertise but also soft skills like critical thinking, leadership and communication — make them much more valuable to employers. Even some level of college education helps increase lifetime earnings and we’re increasingly seeing that those who already have degrees need and want new training to prepare them for different kinds of work.

Read the full Hill article.

News & Events

Sort/Filter

Filter Newsfeed

News Item

Hearst Connecticut Newspapers featured Dyson Professor Daniel Bender's piece "Opinion: Why social media bans restore free speech"

01/25/2021

Hearst Connecticut Newspapers featured Dyson Professor Daniel Bender's piece "Opinion: Why social media bans restore free speech"

Recent fallout over the Capitol insurrection has radiated outward, from finding the bad actors to wondering about the role of social media. Is social media’s consumer orientation — sign up, post what you are thinking — an unintended medium for sedition?

If a post is deemed dangerous to the public good, the thinking goes, then it should be removed. Obscenities and hateful rants present an easy decision to remove the post, perhaps ban the poster. But if a social media becomes the platform for wily political opportunists to create mayhem? Is the claim that an election has been stolen by widespread miscounting and hence fraud an act of free speech, allowing the reader to decide for herself? Or is free speech too crude a term, unresponsive to gradations of intention that range from informed and rational to manipulative and inflammatory?

As the history of political incitement shows, a leader who is good at identifying an “enemy of the people” can use speeches — or tweets — to excite a group of fanatic followers who will lash out, full of high-minded reasons, at the supposed enemies. As immigrant Arnold Schwarzenegger recently explained, the hate-filled attack on Jewish businesses known as Kristallnacht was incited by Hitler’s desire to create fanatic loyalists. The armed bands needed an evil enemy — the Jewish community that had long contributed to the German economy. Once bonded in fanatic loyalty to their lying leader, these patriots would ensure a lifetime dictatorship for their god-like leader.

Read the full Hearst Connecticut Newspapers 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 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