Schedule of Events

Black males are incarcerated at a rate higher than any other demographic in the nation, making them a population of interest. Are they actually committing crimes at a higher rate than any other group, or is an issue with policy that still allows for racial biases to exist within the judicial system? The findings of the literature suggest that this phenomena is a combination of factors that come together in failings of leadership and legislation that have led to the continued over sentencing of black men. This is a quantitative research proposal. The predictor variables are "de facto" & "de jure" laws (de jure: legally recognized; de facto: exist in reality, but are not accepted by law) and Party leadership in California, Utah, and Georgia; the outcome variable is incarceration rates of black males aged 18-35. I will using state level data to run pearson correlation statistics and multivariate regression analysis between the years of 1965-2020 

Throughout the 2016 Presidential Election, much of the nation—including newspaper editorial boards and broadcast news anchors—appeared to believe that Hillary Clinton would be the 45th president of the United States. The media is said to play an integral role in a democracy by setting the agenda for political discourse and providing the most up-to-date and relevant information on current affairs. During 2020, the media grappled with how to cover the dynamic nature of the Trump administration, while simultaneously covering an impeachment, a global pandemic, and calls for racial justice. Oftentimes what the media chooses to cover and how it is portrayed, shapes the national conversation. The purpose of this research is to examine the media’s role in democracy, and how media coverage and framing of current events affects the perception, political behavior and attitudes of registered voters. In-depth interviews with print and broadcast journalists and registered voters, a comparative analysis of Spanish and English language broadcast and print media tone and issue focus, and Pew Research Center opinion data were used to inform the findings of this research. This research revealed that since 2000, some broadcast news networks have become increasingly interventionist--sharing their own commentary on political events--leading to heightened partisanship among viewers. This research also illuminated the more neutral coverage provided by Spanish-language news outlets in correlation with the more fluid partisan trends among Spanish-speaking registered voters. Though there is not demonstrable causation, increasingly interventionist news coverage occurred alongside heightened distrust in traditional media outlets.

Child marriage in Yemen has existed since the beginning of Islam. Unfortunately, it has only worsened since the civil war and the humanitarian crisis that began in 2014. For the reason of culture and tradition, many Yemenis are focused on ending the civil war and the humanitarian crisis, versus paying attention to the issue of child marriage. With the increase of poverty and the lack of food, water and medicine, many families see no other option but to marry off their daughters for money. This paper looks at how child marriage operates in Yemen. By looking at how key factors have aggravated the situation, it is possible to explore solutions and policies to help eradicate child marriage in Yemen. The impacts child marriage has on young girls and why it is transpiring so rapidly have been noted. Numbers, statistics and personal stories of young girls have been researched and used to help better understand what they go through and what child marriage is like in Yemen. Furthermore, nonprofits like UNICEF, Human Rights Watch, and local Yemeni nonprofits were evaluated to see if there are appropriate policies to implement relief and help with prevention. Lastly, the culture of Yemen was studied. This would help to not infringe upon their society, while trying to create the best solutions that have the best chance of helping to eradicate child marriage.

Cyberbullying is an ongoing and prevalent global issue that has not been adequately addressed. Although questions are being raised about the need for legislation at the federal level, more regulatory oversight of social media, and policies related to the schools’ role in cyberbullying cases, none of these questions has been adequately answered. This paper will focus on one of these dimensions, namely, legislation related to schools. More specifically, this work will propose two fundamental avenues of change: (1) the need for a new federal policy for schools based on a combination of U.S. harassment laws and the U.K. Briefing Paper from 2017 and (2) a new approach to adding cyberbullying to existing laws in the U.S. without infringing upon the First Amendment rights of students.  With increasing cases of suicide and mental health issues related to cyberbullying in our schools, now is the time to help those who have been wounded by the appalling effects of these practices. Now is the time for change.

Judges have been offered a myriad of theories suggesting how they ought to make judicial-decisions and rulings. Some, like Standley Fish, suggest “loose” restrictions, while others, like Ronald Dworkin, impose more “strict” or “tighter” guidelines on judicial discretion, and some, like Hart and Posner, suggest something in between. However, like Hart and Posner also suggest, some cases facing jurists will be “hard” in the sense that there is no clear precedent, law, or theory that can be applied on the given case before them. Consequently, they suggest that the judge, in these hard cases, generally has judicial discretion. While Posner does impose some further limitations of his own in these cases, I suggest that there ought to be even further guiding principles in resolving cases of this sort; namely, the progression of morality and the American civic virtue.

There has been a significant increase in the number of violent political demonstrations in the United States following the death of George Floyd and the 2020 Presidential election. This paper specifically focuses on two key instances; those demonstrations affiliated with the Black Lives Matter movement in the summer of 2020 and the Capitol Siege on January 6, 2021. Many have been drawing parallels between these violent demonstrations to condemn all acts of violence or to use as ammo against people from opposing political ideologies. These oversimplified comparisons fail to examine the critical differences between these two movements and lack a deeper understanding of the causes and the aim for engaging in political violence. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the two demonstrations in order to make these critical distinctions. In identifying and comparing the two conditions of violence beyond the trivial political-ideological perspective, this paper will argue that the cause and the aim of violence behind the Black Lives Matter movement are more justified than that of the White Power demonstrators as they were motivated by the effects of oppression and engaged in violence to attain or draw attention to their unfulfilled Democratic promise to liberty, equality, and protection. In contrast, the White Power demonstrators sought to engage in interpersonal violence with the purpose of undermining the democratic election process and lacked a legitimate grievance backed by evidence that warranted its use.

Beginning with the introduction of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, sometimes referred to as the Klu Klux Klan Act, Congress established the right of American citizens to sue public officials who violate the legal rights of that citizen. This Act was eventually made analogous to section 1983 of the modern US Code. Initially taking a direct approach in applying this act, the Supreme Court in the 1961 case Monroe v Pape, recognized the need “to give a remedy to parties deprived of constitutional rights, privileges, and immunities by an official’s abuse of his position” (365 U.S. 167).  However, in 1967, in the case of Pierson v Ray, the SCOTUS began to reform this precedent and established the concept of qualified immunity, claiming that it was a “good faith” exemption for a government agent who believed they were acting in accordance with the law when they violated Civil and/or Constitutional rights. 
The purpose of this project is to understand the origins of qualified immunity, the consequences brought as a result of qualified immunity, and how, moving forward, we can hold government agents accountable for their actions. In-depth interviews, various legal case studies, academic research, government policy, and statistics that focus on analyzing and understanding the origins, implementation, and effects of qualified immunity were used to inform the findings of this study.