Boasting about the accomplishments of my students is a rich indulgence I selfishly embrace. The Savory Tort hosts collections of student abstracts from past courses in Comparative Law and Freedom of Information Law.
This winter, I am happy to share abstracts from students who completed papers in Comparative Law in fall 2025. These might be the most scholarly capable set of papers I've yet seen in a seminar. Their work was a pleasure to read, and I am grateful for all that these students taught me.
Besides their research projects, these students participated vitally in the Global Law Classroom (GLC). They were leaders in their groups and exchanged knowledge and experiences with students from 13 countries over eight weeks of class sessions with contributing faculty.
The students also served as a gracious and inquisitive audience for several guests in the fall semester. I thank my colleagues who gave of their time and expertise to enrich our class:
Anna Conley, Cliff Edwards Professor of Excellence in Trial Advocacy at the Alexander Blewett III School of Law, University of Montana, and also a member of the GLC faculty, joined us via Zoom to explore customary law and the rights of indigenous peoples.
Dan Greenberg, Cato Institute, shared with us a special screening of the documentary film he produced and directed, American Libel (2025), in relation to the disparate "actual malice" and "public interest" defenses to defamation in U.S. and UK law.
Wojciech Jarosiński, founding partner of Peak Legal in Poland, and Stefanie Chiba, a corporate attorney and data privacy expert in Austria, led us via Zoom in exploration of differences between civil law and common law practice.
Ferhat Pekin, attorney with Pekin Bayar Mizraha, and adjunct professor at UMass Law, led us in a study of Turkish law and exercises in the cross-cultural competence required for transnational law practice.
A friend and colleague working in the international aid sector joined us via Zoom to talk about the challenges of delivering aid from western sources to conflict areas amid political and cultural challenges on the ground. His identity is not published here to protect his security while deployed in Asia.
Here are the fall's compelling student projects:
Jake Fruchter, Civil Rights in Extra-Ordinary Prosecutions: a Comparative Analysis of Ireland and the United States Trial Rights in Terrorism Prosecutions. The United States is witnessing a growth in domestic terrorism charges. As these cases make their way through state and federal courts, questions arise over what rights and procedures apply. One country with a well established history of prosecuting domestic terrorism is the Republic of Ireland. This history led the Republic to establish a Special Criminal Court with unique rules and procedures for terrorism and organized crime cases. This paper, using a comparative method, compares the Republic’s Special Criminal Court with procedures in the United States at the state and federal level. In particular, the rights this paper analyzes pertain to the right to silence as, protected by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the right to a trial by jury and to face your accuser, as protected by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Kyle LaMont, Belonging by Blood or Soil?: A Functionalist-Historical Comparison of Italian and American Citizenship Traditions. This paper examines how Italy and the United States have developed their jus sanguinis and jus soli citizenship traditions, respectively, over time. Using a functionalist and historical approach, it compares and analyzes the legal frameworks and the different legal consequences of citizenship for each country. Culturally, Italy has had a long-standing tradition of focusing on citizenship through lineage, which was a core part of Italy’s unification since 1861 and further reinforced with Law No. 91/1992. In stark contrast, the United States primarily uses jus soli and the territory approach of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. These different approaches to citizenship show how historical, cultural, and economic factors have molded the traditions that each country has embraced. By comparing these different systems, this paper reveals differing understandings of belonging and how both traditions survive in each country today.
Kennis Levano, Language, Law, and Identity: A Functionalist Comparison of Indigenous Language Rights Protection in Bolivia and Peru. Focusing on the divergent political trajectories since the 1980s, this paper conducts a functionalist microcomparison of the frameworks for indigenous language rights in Bolivia and Peru. The research first establishes the historical and political contexts of both countries. It then provides a detailed examination of the Bolivia legal framework, highlighting recent legislative advancements, key provisions, and their successful implementation and impact in the country. In contrast, I discuss Peru's evolving legal framework, identifying differences and significant challenges in implementation. The analysis uses a functionalist approach to compare legal frameworks, identifying successful elements in the Bolivian model that are absent or underdeveloped in the Peruvian. The study culminates in the proposal of a solution designed to catalyze a significant leap forward in Peru's constitutional recognition of indigenous language rights, mirroring the progress achieved in Bolivia.
John McCauley, The Merchant: The Object of Economic Legislation & Regulation. This paper is focused on the differences and similarities between the U.S. Uniform Commercial Code Article 2 definition of “merchant” and the Egyptian Commercial Code definition of “Trader,” and how those definitions work into other statutes when a dispute arises. The UCC is analyzed according to different jurisdictions within the United States, with jurisdictional splits being noted, particularly around farmers. The topic is introduced with a brief history of each codification effort, how disputes of trade are handled procedurally, and how the courts of each respective jurisdiction interpret their definitions of those who conduct trade. This paper seeks to adhere to critical comparative methodologies and be mindful of the different cultural contexts that lead to the expression and subsequent regulation of one who conducts trade and said merchant’s explicit duties. In essence, this paper seeks to unravel choices of law with policies in mind which lead to the defined terms of “merchant” and “trader,” and who or what is interpreted as falling within and without that category, and what are some of the obligations attached to the merchant status. This paper looks at global market dynamics, and interpretive and legislative fiats, as well as statutory language to conclude who or what is defined as a merchant in the United States and Egypt and why. A commercial code is an expression of what a government believes is the proper way of doing business and thus regulates it, and the merchant or trader is the one who is to adhere to that regulation. With those premises in mind, it is key to look at the similarities and differences in these systems and cultural contexts to examine potential policy goals in enacting such legislation.
Hannah Patalsky, Comparing Mechanisms for Artist Compensation in the United States and the European Union (Taylor’s Version). This paper compares two distinct legal frameworks: the Living Wage for Musicians Act (2024) (LWMA), a bill recently reintroduced in the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, and Articles 18 through 22 of the EU Digital Single Market Directive (DSM Directive). Both of these mechanisms are designed to address the persistent issue of inadequate artist compensatory rights in the era of online streaming. The LWMA aims to establish an “Artist Compensation Royalty Fund” as an economic intervention, which would guarantee artists near-immediate payment through a statutory framework and additional stream of revenue flowing from listener to musician. In contrast, the DSM Directive focuses on member-state involvement in a contractual approach, seeking to balance the relationship between artists, on one side, and labels and agents, on the other. The primary DSM Directive articles of focus in this paper are Articles 18 through 22, which are designed to counteract the power dynamics and inequalities between these groups. This paper examines the benefits of each approach, as well as the limitations and drawbacks. The paper demonstratively applies each framework to the well-known ownership dispute between Taylor Swift and Scooter Braun, demonstrating how outcomes may differ under each mechanism to showcase the practical, real-world applications of these compensatory mechanisms. Fundamentally, this paper compares a statutory and contractual framework to find the best approach to artist compensation. Ultimately, this paper argues that each framework seeks to remedy a different issue in the modern digital and stream-based economy, and that understanding the differences among these remedies is essential to evaluating how legal systems can meaningfully address inherent inequalities and imbalances across the music industry. The LWMA aims to address the problem of insufficient streams of revenue for artists. At the same time, the DSM Directive directly targets any inequalities that may have arisen during the contracting phase that may lead to long-term exploitation of artists. In comparing these legal mechanisms that are addressing the same issue, this comparison reveals not only the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, but also the potential benefits of creating a hybrid model, including fair revenue and fair contracting conditions.
Tamar Shimon, Hate Speech: Overprotected or Undervalued? A Comparative Analysis Between U.S. and German Student Speech on College and University Campuses PostOctober 7. This paper analyzes the impact of protecting hate speech, particularly antisemitic speech, on post-secondary institutions within the United States and Germany. The world is no stranger to antisemitism. This type of hate has existed for millennia. However, with the events of October 7, 2023, a new wave of antisemitism found a home amongst a new generation of people: young university and college students. For months, U.S. college and university officials allowed for antisemitism to take hold on their campuses, subjugating Jewish students to abuse from their fellow students. But this was not the same response in Germany. Rather than allow the “protests” to become rampant and violent, German university and college officials quickly placed bans and restrictions for fears of antisemitism reemerging at such a drastic rate that was last seen in the 1920s. Free speech is a fundamental right within the United States and Germany; however, both countries take different approaches when it comes to protecting hate speech. This paper explores the differentiations in each country’s free speech rule, specifically focusing on the way in which each country sees the importance of hate speech to its society. To understand this differentiation, the events on and post October 7, 2023, on college and university campuses across the United States and Germany will be analyzed to determine whether the United States can somehow implement Germany’s model but still uphold the values of free speech.
Tryon P. Woods, Indigenous Fishing Rights, Comparative Settler Colonialism, and the Problem of Modern Law. This paper is a comparative legal analysis of United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash. 1974), known as the “Boldt decision” after the presiding judge’s opinion, and the 2024 ruling in Sapporo District Court on the Raporo Ainu Nation fishing rights lawsuit in Japan. Regarded as a legal landmark in indigenous rights and land use management in North America, the Boldt decision recognized the treaty rights of Native tribes to off-reservation inland fishing. It held that such Native fishing was not subject to State regulation. The recent Ainu lawsuit in Japan similarly sought to assert indigenous rights to fish Japanese inland waters but was rejected by the court. Comparative analysis of the two cases reveals distinct national histories regarding indigenous rights in law, which in turn, are indicative of differing forms of racialization in the national development of the United States and Japan that align with distinct histories of settler colonialism. This discrete legal comparison raises further questions regarding law’s mutability in the face of dynamic culture; how dominance is reworked as rule of law; and the problems stemming from shared ecology.
Ellie Zhang, Fair Use vs. Second Creation: A Comparative Study of Short-Video Law Between the United States and China. This paper examines how U.S. and Chinese copyright law treat short-video “second creations,” focusing on two common formats: (1) reaction and review videos that intersperse short excerpts and (2) parody. After setting out the U.S. open-ended, fair-use framework under 17 U.S.C. § 107 and China’s rights-first, enumerated “reasonable use” approach under Article 24, the paper asks when these videos amount to protected commentary and when they become unlicensed, market-substituting derivatives. For interspersed-clip reactions, U.S. doctrine tends to credit transformation and lack of substitution, whereas Chinese courts emphasize “reasonable use” and substitution risks; both systems disfavor compilation-style recaps. For parody, U.S. law treats targeted critique as paradigmatic transformative use so long as the borrowing is reasonably necessary and does not usurp cognizable licensing markets. By contrast, Chinese law lacks an explicit parody exception, channeling analysis through “appropriate quotation,” the two-step constraints, and moral-rights concerns, producing a narrower space for unlicensed parody. The paper closes with practical guidance for creators and a policy recommendation: clearer, semi-open exceptions in China and more attention in U.S. cases to audiovisual modes of critique when judging transformation and necessity.
The second film featured in the book is the Orson Welles classic Citizen Kane. It raises for consideration a host of issues around the meaning of the First Amendment, whether as law or ideal, and the role of the press in a democracy. A key issue arises from the central character, Charlie Kane, a fictional analog to the real-life William Randolph Hearst.
Hearst was a media mogul in his time, the late 19th century and early 20th, a central figure in the yellow journalism era. Hearst and Kane alike prompt consideration of the very contemporary problem of media consolidation. My class considered data from a recent Roosevelt Institute report (inset), which described the economics of the news business over the course of American history, culminating in a deeply worrisome status quo.
Prof. Altschuler, who joined my class via Zoom for part of our discussion, wrote in the book that President Donald Trump has twice in interviews identified Citizen Kane as his favorite movie. As Prof. Altschuler remarked to my class, President Trump might not have gotten the message Welles intended.
Quoting an anecdote told by Ruth Warrick, the actress who played Kane's first wife in the movie, Prof. Altschuler reported, "Welles told the cast that the movie 'is about the kind of man that Americans tend to make their heroes, when actually they are the despoilers of their country.'"
I knew all of that, having just read up on the film in anticipation of re-watching it after decades. Yet I was caught off guard by something completely unexpected.
In the film, there is a scene (cued in video below) in which Kane is courting the woman who would become his second wife—the real-life Hearst separated from his wife, who would not grant him a divorce, and lived his later years with a second partner—and to amuse her, Kane, played by writer-director Orson Welles himself, wiggled his ears.
Kane explained to his romantic interest: "It took me two solid years in the best boys' school in the world to learn that trick. The fellow who taught it to me is now the President of Venezuela" (USA Today).
Waterman Hall, University of Arkansas Larry Miller via FlickrCC BY-NC 2.0
Legal academics is aflutter over the rescinding of an offer of the deanship at the law school of the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, to Emily Suski, a law professor at the University of South Carolina, upon pressure from conservative politicians.
I've lately been cited and quoted on the matter, partly because I lived and worked as a law professor in Arkansas for thirteen and a half years, until 2011. I'll say a bit more here.
The Suski story has been much in the news, from The Arkansas Timesto The New York Times, and has been framed by our present era of political strife. The rescission was motivated by conservative state lawmakers apparently unhappy over leftward leanings in Suski's record as an academic and a lawyer.
I am not opining, and have not opined, on the rescission in sum, because I don't know what was in the minds of lawmakers and the university president. I have made no study of the record. I said as much to Arkansas Democract-Gazette (ADG) reporter Neal Earley late last week. If you want a view from the ground, my colleague Robert Steinbuch, law professor and columnist, talked about the matter toward the end of this interview with KATV (cue to about 2:05).
I did tell the ADG, where I was fairly represented in a story Monday, to which Earley contributed, that I have First Amendment concerns if, and insofar as, the political decision was motivated by retaliation for viewpoints expressed in litigation or academic work. I agree with a statement of the president of the Arkansas Bar Association that a lawyer should not be discriminated against by a public entity for employment based on positions taken in prior litigation.
But the matter is not that straightforward.
Some Arkansas politicians are vexed by Suski's sign-on
to an amicus brief in the SCOTUS-bound transgender athlete case, on the side of the athlete challenging West Virginia law. Some might be displeased with her
support for the U.S. Supreme Court nomination of now-Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. A single, clear rationale for rescinding has not been articulated, and likely, motivations are varied.
I have authored, contributed to, and signed amicus briefs myself, I told Earley, in support of principles notwithstanding the position of litigants. For example, my amicus positions on the freedom of information have aligned me with affirmative action skeptics and animal rights activists. Whether, or to what extent, I agreed with the litigants' many public positions was immaterial to my advocacy for transparency, accountability, or civil liberties in the matters at hand.
I'm not shy with my opinions. But if you want them, the responsible thing is to ask, not assume. The world is gray. My own views have nuance. I'm sure Suski's do too.
At the same time, this story ought not be framed merely in terms of contemporary partisanship. I told the ADG that I understand lawmakers' reaction in "a broader context of long-time suppression of (the conservative) viewpoint in legal academics."
That doesn't mean I agree with every position taken by those organizations. (I'm not alone.) It does mean that I have over the years left those groups off my CV when applying for this or that in legal academics, because their mention would have killed my application. At the same time, I have never felt compelled in legal academics to conceal association with the AAUP or the ACLU. Those alignments are badges of achievement.
I didn't make the rules, and I don't approve of them. This is the world as I found it. Having had some privileges and not others while trying to advance my academic career, I have not buried my head in the sand about unjustified biases. For legal academics now to be wringing their hands over censorship of left-leaning causes might be justified in the instant case, but implicates more than a little hypocrisy.
One quote of mine in the ADG story was right, but could benefit from context: "I feel almost a bit of relief to say that thank heavens someone is paying attention." That sounds, erroneously, like approval of the politics of the Arkansas legislators in the Suski case, contrary to my refusal only a sentence earlier in the story to state approval or disapproval.
Rather, I made that statement in discussion with Earley of a different point, namely, that legislators in Arkansas, in other states, and in Washington, D.C., have abdicated their responsibility for the accountability of public institutions, especially in higher education. Regardless of the merits of the decision in Arkansas, the idea is refreshing that Arkansas legislators would hold the University of Arkansas to any standard at all.
In my experience in Arkansas, the university, a political behemoth, did not hesitate to throw its weight around at the capitol. And legislators kowtowed to its will. For example, legislators, with few noteworthy exceptions, happily parrot the fiction that the filthy-rich university foundation is a private entity properly immune from the state freedom of information act, though in fact, public officials dictate how the money is spent.
When I spoke to Earley, I was not thinking about Arkansas legislative accountability in any matter of my personal interest. But maybe I should have been.
For The Arkansas Times blog, Dr. Walter Kimbrough opened an opinion piece with reference to a lawsuit I brought almost 20 years ago when working in Arkansas. Kimbrough is a former president of two HBCUs and now an executive vice president of the UNCF (the "United Negro College Fund," though the organization usually uses just its initials nowadays).
I'm flattered that Kimbrough, whom I greatly respect, remembers my case, the best account of which was penned by the great Scott Jaschik, who retired in 2023, and can be read still at Inside Higher Ed.
Kimbrough's headline highlights the "cancel culture" angle in the Suski story. Invocation of my case shows that what happened to Suski is not new, because it happened to me—even if the shoe was on the other foot, from a conventional political perspective.
At least my takeaway from Kimbrough's comparison is be careful what tactics you use, because it won't feel good when they're turned against you. If abstracted to politics, it's basically the same logic justifying humane treatment of war prisoners, not because you're worried about the enemy, but because you're worried about your own. Regardless of who fired first, conservatives who once lamented the victimization of cancel culture now look hypocritical when they engage in it.
Not necessary to his thesis (and maybe undercutting it?), but salient to me, Kimbrough observed that no Arkansas legislator cared to intervene when I was "canceled." Don't I know it. The same can be said for organizations from the AAUP and ACLU to FIRE and the National Association of Scholars. Crickets for an embattled professor in flyover country. Again, this is not what I was thinking about when I talked with Earley, but it does bolster my point about accountability.
Kimbrough mentioned that I dropped that Arkansas lawsuit. He might have added that I received, as Jaschik reported (same article), a complete exoneration of any wrongdoing by the law school in Little Rock—which is what I had asked for all along.
Some people have asked me privately, don't I feel bad for Emily Suski?
Of course I do. Everyone should. She was a victim in all of this. Yes, the law school's offer letter did say the offer was contingent on university approval. But offer letters contain all kinds of boilerplate qualifiers. For all intents and purposes, Suski was instructed, publicly, to pack her bags. And then she had the rug pulled out from under her.
But while we feel bad for her, let's also place blame where it belongs. That's not just with politically motivated legislators, but with leaders in public academic institutions, who have long acted with impunity, abusing legislative deference and elevating their own agendas and preferences above their responsibility to the taxpayer.
Something I've never missed about law practice is having to assign a 15-digit client-matter code to every six minutes of my billable day, a chore that some days took yet another non-billable hour of uncompensated overtime.
While technology ever promises to free workers from the mill, things seem only to get worse. More and more of my friends and family are bailing on the American marketplace in favor of the ex pat life in Europe. Go for the job and humane working hours; stay for the vacation time and family leave.
At the same time, it would be nice to make today's Big Law starting salary just once in my life, even if just for a year. In almost 30 years with a law license, my paycheck still falls short of the young associate's year one. I'm not holding my breath to catch up at UMass Law.
Massachusetts-based Exhibit "A" Brewing Company has its finger on this zeitgeist of futility and exploitation. I saw in my local liquor store just today Exhibit "A"'s We're Going To Need You To Come In On Saturday Scotch Ale. The can features scales of justice: evidence of the profession of the pictured man.
I'm not a Scotch ale fan, so I passed. But I've had Exhibit "A"'s Panda Punch Kettle Sour, and it was tasty.
Exhibit "A" started in Framingham, Massachusetts, west of Boston, but is in the process of moving to Williamsburg, Massachusetts, north of Springfield. The taproom might be worth a visit when it reopens in Williamsburg. The scales of justice actually figure in the company logo. The website doesn't say why, but I have my suspicions.
Don't forget America, Christmas is on Thursday. Merry Christmas! And Friday is Friday. Get back to work! On Saturday, we have a special treat in store: You can make up your work from Thursday.
It's been since the pandemic that I wrote an installment of "What I've Been Reading."
With some time to spare in transit recently, I've been catching up on my reading. And with the gift-giving season upon us, I thought it would be fun to share. Maybe I can spark an idea for that hard-to-shop-for person on your list.
Though be warned, books implicating torts are not necessarily best if your aim is to lighten the mood at the family holiday table. Fortunately, there's a range here: nonfiction and fiction, spiritual journey, family epic, fable, and fantasy. Take your pick, and enjoy!
What I've Been Reading, 2025 Edition
Mariah Blake, They Poisoned the World: Life and Death in the Age of Forever Chemicals(2025). Nonfiction/investigative journalism. If you've somehow been feeling good about the world, this book will take the wind out of your sails. The earth is so poisoned with forever chemicals such as PFAS (see John Oliver's 2021 show) that they can be found even in the blood of newborns in remote parts of the world. Innumerable burgeoning health complications, from cancers to strokes, might be linked to our inadvertent consumption of these unnatural poisons. And we're not making a priority of their elimination from the environment, if even we can figure out how to do that. Aggravatingly, the companies that produce this stuff seem to be following the playbook that Big Tobacco wrote in the 20th century, from denial to self-serving "science," to negotiated immunity.
Investigative journalist Mariah Blake, who has written for The Atlantic, among other prominent publications, artfully weaves together the story of transnational industrial impunity with the real lives of people and communities devastated by illness. The book is important, terrifying, and saddening.
Imbolo Mbue, How Beautiful We Were (2021). Fiction/contemporary novel. Imbolo Mbue is a Cameroonian-American writer based in New York. Her second novel, this epic revolves around a family from a fictional African village that is overrun by a large American oil company. Extraction poisons the environment, sickening and killing children and adults. The story sees the family migrate to America and play a part in a revolt back home. One strand of the story traces (realistically unsuccessful) litigation against the oil company under the alien tort statute in the United States. Mbue's writing is beautiful, and that kept me turning pages—as it did in her first novel, Behold the Dreamers (2016).
As much as I wanted to adore this book, I found the story more superficial than insight-bearing. That might be on me; I came to the book already familiar with both the impact of western corporatocracy on Africa and the Big Oil playbook on environmentalism, besides the plot line of alien tort litigation. The book earned ample acclaim, perhaps justifiably for bringing these themes to popular attention. What I did like, and liked most, in the book was the perspective of family elders later in the story. They watched, helpless and with mixed emotions, as younger generations in the States were absorbed into the very culture that had devastated an ancestral homeland the youth did not remember.
Charlie Jane Anders, The City in the Middle of the Night (2019). Fiction/science fiction. I had wanted to read this science fiction book since I heard an NPR review in 2019. The novel tells the story of two different cities, one in the clutch of oppressive governance, and the other dangerously close to anarchy; and of two very different protagonists, coming from different sides of the tracks, as it were. They live on a planet where humans can survive only in the temperate zone between, symbolically, a light side and a dark side. The protagonists have disparate appetites for the revolutionary movement they both are drawn into. Meanwhile, the human population on the planet regards the monstrous indigenous creatures as mere animals. Yet one of the protagonists, thought to be exiled to die, discovers the creatures to be sentient telepaths.
The themes are familiar: the seemingly counterproductive yet lately resonant human affection for authoritarianism; the privileged protagonist who falls for the proletarian revolution; the forbidden love of opposites; and the seeming monster that secrets a superior morality. In the end, I'd say I was disappointed. The book was long, which meant going a long way for trite themes that have been explored better already in science fiction classics.
Eddie Izzard, Believe Me: A Memoir of Love, Death and Jazz Chickens (2017). Nonfiction/memoir. If you've never heard of Eddie Izzard, this book might be a heavy lift. But if like me, you're a fan, and you're keen to understand what makes Eddie Izzard's remarkable mind work the way it does, this book is worthwhile. I listened to the audiobook and recommend that. It's best to hear Izzard tell her own story. (Gender-fluid Izzard prefers feminine pronouns, but says not to get hung up on it.) And because the book is often funny, there's nothing like a comedian's own timing. I like to listen to David Sedaris books for the same reason. But this audiobook is especially good because Izzard ad-libs a bit and artfully incorporates her many tangent footnotes into the flow of the narrative. The audiobook therefore comes off with the same structure as Izzard's stand-up, seemingly meandering yet slyly serpentine. My erudite friend Ethan Dazelle and I saw Izzard live at the Vets, for her "Force Majeure" show, in Providence, Rhode Island, in 2015. The show was as memorable as it was mind-boggling; I wished I had had footnotes then, for all that went over my head.
This is not Izzard's first book. But this book stands apart from her humor books as a deeply personal memoir. The audiobook well captures not only Izzard's sharp wit, but the emotional highs and lows of her life story. The first-person account of how her career came to be is fascinating, especially alongside her coming around to express publicly her sexual identity. Izzard included her television experience with The Riches, which I was pleased to hear. I always have thought that that show, from the 20-aughts, was profoundly underrated; it's often described today as "ahead of its time."
Stories of Izzard's parents and her relationships with them are moving. Curiously from a tort perspective, Izzard's father worked in accounting for BP. That's
why Izzard was born in Yemen, a fact I knew, though I did not know why. The family's moves to Northern Ireland, Wales, and then England in Izzard's childhood perhaps give a clue to Izzard's breathtaking consciousness of language, though do not fully explain her easy multilingualism. In the end, nurture does not explain the full measure of Eddie Izzard's peculiar kind of savant; nature must have been a quiet collaborator.
Dave Eggers, The Eyes and the Impossible(2023). Fiction/fantasy. This book by Dave Eggers, whose breakthrough memoir, A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius (2000) was a Pulitzer finalist, won the 2024 Newbery Medal. So that's right: this is a children's book. Technically. My favorite book I read (or listened to) this year, The Eyes is the first-person narrative of a dog, Johannes, who lives in a park. To say more would deprive you of the joy of discovering Johannes's story, and of joining him on his journey of discovery. I will say only that Johannes is never wounded and does not die at the end; my heart just wasn't up for another My Dog Skip or Racing in the Rain, much as I loved those books.
Heartbreaking Work already demonstrated that Eggers is one of those rare souls endowed with old wisdom, inexplicably defying the bounds of lived perspective. In The Eyes, he puts that wisdom to work to generate a wholly unique fable: the sort of story that can be interpreted and appreciated differently in different phases of a reader's life. I found the book simultaneously amusing and deeply moving; I expect the young cousin to whom I gifted the book will find the same, though for entirely different reasons. I'm always reluctant to describe Heartbreaking Work to someone; rather, I say, you just must read it for yourself. Well, in a fresh and inventive new way, Eggers has done it again, this time for all ages.
The print version of The Eyes features beautiful illustrations by Shawn Harris. However, I listened to the audiobook, in which the gifted Ethan Hawke, yes, thatEthan Hawke, brought Johannes to brilliant life. A sequel, The Eyes, the Fire and the Avalanche Kingdom, is available for pre-order on January release.
Neil Gaiman, Norse Mythology (2017). Fiction/ancient mythology. Gaiman opens this book by explaining his great affection for Norse mythology and his desire to retell it himself. And that's what the book is, a collection of Norse myths. They're enjoyable stories, and all the better in the characteristically lyrical style that has earned Gaiman a loyal fan base.
It turns out that most of what I thought I knew about Norse mythology comes from the Marvel universe, and some from Netflix's excellent three-season Ragnarok. Those fictions are good on their own merits, but they perpetuate some popular misconceptions. As Gaiman explains in the introduction to Norse Mythology, one key misconception in the popular imagination is the idealization of Thor. In the real myths, Thor was kind of a meathead. Gaiman's stories capture that. Marvel and Ragnarok get right that Loki is not so much evil as "complicated." I especially like Gaiman's stories because they fill out the character of Odin. The Allfather is the character who should be idealized, the truly deific hero of Norse mythology, who gets short shrift in contemporary adaptations as past his prime.
Overall, there's much to enjoy here. The Norse myths after all articulate a whole and fully functional world vision. The world of the Norse gods stands on its own and does not require the multicultural contextualization that contemporary fictionalizations are eager to impose.
Nabeel Qureshi, Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: A Devout Muslim Encounters Christianity (2014). Nonfiction/religion. Obviously, this book won't be everyone's cup (nor three cups) of tea. It's Nabeel Qureshi's intimate firsthand account of his conversion from Islam to Christianity. The book was recommended to me by a Christ-committed cousin who has worked as a missionary in places in the world where doing so is dangerous. A Christian myself, I'm predisposed to appreciate the conversion narrative, and I did. But I'll say that, notwithstanding my predisposition, I enjoyed and appreciated Qureshi's story from a simply human interest perspective. He describes a journey of spiritual yearning and growth; his changing relationships with family and friends in the course of that journey; and along the way, his cultural experience as a Pakistani-American, son of a U.S. Navy officer, especially in the aftermath of 9/11.
Qureshi became a medical doctor, but devoted his life to Christian apologetics. He completed master's degrees at Biola, Duke, and Oxford, and he became a favored speaker on the university circuit, promoting peaceful interfaith dialog. In 2010, he and associates were arrested in Dearborn, Michigan; police alleged they disturbed the peace while answering questions from Muslim teens. A civil rights lawsuit by the arrestees drew exoneration and an apology from the city. Qureshi was working on his doctorate at Oxford when he died of stomach cancer in 2017, at age 34, only a year after diagnosis and two years after the birth of his daughter (Christianity Today).
After Seeking Allah, Qureshi published two books in 2016: Answering Jihad: A Better Way Forward and No God but One: Allah or Jesus?: A Former Muslim Investigates the Evidence for Islam and Christianity. There also is a video study series associated with Seeking Allah,Finding Jesus.
Not directly related to Qureshi's book, but another book in the genre of religious nonfiction that I read this year with a group of Christian academics, which book I do recommend and might be of interest relative to current events, is Peter Beinart, Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza: A Reckoning (2025). Now a journalism professor at CUNY, Beinart, who is Jewish, has been a New Republic editor and Atlantic contributor. He writes compellingly on the inevitable incompatibility of Netanyahu war policy with the teachings of Hebrew scripture.
Happy reading, and happy new year. Maybe humanity will do better in 2026. Nothing is impossible.
Kayleigh's relentless smile, from the UMass Dartmouth soccer roster
I'm sad to hear and to share news of the death of Kayleigh Dawn Marie Ellison on November 27.
Originally from Troy, Mo., and a graduate in diplomacy and international relations from Seton Hall University, Kayleigh was an alumna of my first-year torts class at UMass Law.
Kayleigh was an extraordinary and inspiring person. Because full-time law school could not keep her busy enough, she played soccer for the campus Corsairs at UMass Dartmouth.
Her remarkable obituary offers ample illustration of life well lived. She met every challenge with unflinching determination, and every setback with joyful resilience, from cancer to law school to defenders on the pitch, and she exuded infectious vibrancy all the while.
Surviving Your Friend's Cancer by Kayleigh Ellison, available at Lulu
Among the countless ways in which Kayleigh made the world a better and brighter place, she authored a book, Surviving Your Friend's Cancer (2015). She told me that as hard as it was to fight cancer, it was just as hard to help friends overcome their anxiety over what to say and how to be present for her. She figured she could help other sufferers and their friends and families by giving some simple guidance. Her characteristic gentle humor outshined painful context.
I appreciated the book when I read it in the abstract. I have treasured it since, when I have needed its advice. I highly recommend it.
And I highly recommend taking inspiration, a recommitment to live every day to its fullest, from Kayleigh's life story. I know she would much prefer that to anyone's overindulgence of grief.
The UMass Dartmouth Torch wrote about Kayleigh and her book in 2016. The same year, Kayleigh appeared in a short UMass Law promo video. A related public relations piece features two fantastic photos from the soccer pitch by award-winning (New Bedford, Mass.) Standard-Times photographer Mike Valeri. Notice Kayleigh's smile in the latter. (If anyone can reach The Standard-Times or Valeri, please ask whether they might contribute the photos to Kayleigh's obituary page. I tried, but The Standard-Times staff directory is 403.)
Surviving Your Friend's Cancer remains available from Lulu at the time of this writing.
A shocking hate crime of vandalism on storied Nantucket Island in 2018 has resulted in sour police-community relations, a free-speech civil-rights claim remanded to trial court just this August, and retention in September of a private firm for an independent review.
In March 2018, the historic 1827 African Meeting House on Nantucket Island was vandalized with hate speech in black spray paint, including the "n-word," as shown in the image below, at bottom, from the appendix to the August appellate court decision. (Sensitive readers be warned.)
To date, no one has been convicted of the vandalism. In a civil rights lawsuit by Nantucket residents Jim Barros and Rose Marie Samuels, the Superior Court in 2022 blamed a suspect, Dylan Ponce, who asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and whom a grand jury refused to indict.
Ponce's employer, Jeffrey Sayle, pleaded guilty to false statement to police and testified that Ponce confessed (The Inquirer and Mirror). The civil case against Ponce was Barros v. Ponce, Civil Action No. 2175CV00004 (Mass. Super. Ct. June 6, 2022) (paywalled at Mass. Lawyers Weekly).
Sayle is the brother-in-law of Nantucket town manager Elizabeth Gibson, who herself is married to the deputy police chief of Nantucket. Given the close relationships of officials and the slow and ultimately unsuccessful police investigation, rumors picked up steam in the years after the 2018 crime that family members of Gibson and police were being protected.
In 2020, Barros and Samuels appeared at a meeting of the town board, as they had before, to demand accountability in the still ongoing investigation. Their remarks fueled continuing suspicion of a cover-up, which prompted the ire of Gibson and police chief William Pittman.
Samuels's exchange with Gibson was especially heated. Angrily denying untruthfulness, Gibson interrupted Samuels and demanded that the chair stop her from speaking further. Samuels, who also accused police of failure to investigate a hit-and-run crash that injured her son in 2018 (more at Change.org), was cowed back to hear seat. She returned to the microphone after Gibson stormed out of the meeting.
Barros accused police of lying because he he had been told by a detective that a perpetrator was identified, but no charges resulted. Pittman, who carried a sidearm, spoke in defense of the police and accused Barros of fueling rumors of a cover-up while claiming to know the identity of perpetrators and refusing to tell police. Pittman retired in 2023.
The salient part of the public meeting is on YouTube, cued here at 27 minutes, and running for 13 minutes:
Barros and Samuels brought a civil rights action against the board, Gibson, and Pittman for violating their free speech rights under the federal and state constitutions, and for intimidation under state civil rights law. The Superior Court granted defendants summary judgment on both counts. In August, the Appeals Court voted 2-1 to to remand Samuels's statutory civil rights claim only to proceed.
The facts matter, in more detail than I've stated them here, because the pretrial disposition turns on whether the evidence is sufficient to submit the claims to a jury. Interested readers can find more detailed articulations of the facts in the judges' opinions.
In short, the court rejected the constitutional claims because neither Barros nor Samuels was actually stopped from speaking. Samuels was allowed to return to the microphone and continue after Gibson stormed out. Barros was allowed to say his piece despite the objections interjected by Pittman.
The civil rights claims were closer calls, though, because intimidation, threat, or coercion is actionable even if the plaintiffs were permitted to speak. The test is one of interference or attempted interference of a protected right, here to speak at the public meeting.
For pretrial resolution on defense motion, the court views the facts most favorably for the plaintiffs, the non-moving parties. Yet even accepting as true that Barros "was impugned by Pittman, suffered embarrassment, and felt intimidated by Pittman's being armed," the court decided, the sum of Pittman's alleged interference was only impassioned disagreement or disapproval, not intimidation.
However, in the case of Samuels, Gibson expressly demanded that she be silenced, and Samuels evidenced intimidation in once returning to her seat. The court concluded, "Gibson's response to Samuels's comments, including Gibson's physically threatening departure from the meeting and hostile, intimate back-and-forth with Samuels, could be sufficient to establish a violation of the [state civil rights act] at trial."
The court's analysis of Samuels's civil rights claim raised an interesting point of "constitutional tort" law, that is, the way tort law is used to operationalize litigation over civil rights. Under state civil rights law, the court explained, "[i]n determining whether conduct constitutes threats, intimidation, or coercion, we apply an objective or 'reasonable person' standard."
Yet like in tort law, the "reasonable person" standard is not wholly objective, but is a test of the reasonable person under the same circumstances as the person being tested, or standing in the shoes of the person being tested. As the court put it, "'objectivity' does not foreclose consideration of the plaintiff's situation"; "we need not ignore who the plaintiff is."
That subjectivity made a big difference in light of Samuels's personal history with police. Considering the facts favorably to her, "she had experienced, and continued to experience, racism from the Nantucket police," the court reasoned. "She mistrusted Gibson, the town manager, who was married to the deputy police chief."
In that emotional context, the court recalled, "Samuels maintains that Gibson 'stormed' past her when leaving the meeting, 'in a physically threatening manner,' 'glar[ed] down' at Samuels from 'within a few feet,' and stopped to ask, twice, whether Samuels was calling her a liar. Samuels characterized Gibson's voice as 'loud and threatening,' and Samuels was frightened by this encounter."
Samuels therefore made a sufficient case to present her claim of intimidation for a jury to decide.
Justice Paul Hart Smyth wrote a spirited dissent favoring the plaintiffs on all three counts on which the court affirmed judgment for the defense. He would have sent all four claims, for both plaintiffs, to the jury. Be forewarned, I'm going to quote Justice Smyth at some length, because what he adds to the analysis on Nantucket social conditions I find eye opening.
Speaking to those very circumstances that made a difference in Samuels's statutory claim, Justice Smyth painted a different and bleaker picture of police-community relations on Nantucket.
The record demonstrates that the plaintiffs inhabited a different stratum in the town altogether, as they maintained no apparent political, economic, social, public order, or law enforcement influence over town affairs. First, he described Gibson's social and economic power.
Gibson first began working for the town of Nantucket in 1988, when she was twenty-two years old. She has held the position of town manager since 1995. As town manager, Gibson is a remarkably powerful and influential individual. She exercises direct supervision over almost every town department, including the police, fire, building, finance, health, marine and coastal resources, public works, board of appeals, conservation commission, planning board, council on aging, counsel for human services, historic district commission, parks and recreation, and the shellfish and harbor advisory board. As town manager, Gibson maintains appointment and disciplinary (including discharge) powers over the department chiefs and their employees.... Gibson is not subject to general election, but ... had been reappointed for consecutive terms since 1995.
.... As an acknowledgment of Gibson's influence, multiple town residents warned Barros that he might face adverse consequences to challenging Gibson by implicating her relatives as being involved in the African Meeting House crime. These individuals cautioned Barros, "You know, it's [Gibson's] son and nephew; so, be careful. Watch your back."
He then described the plaintiffs in contrast:
The record demonstrates that the plaintiffs inhabited a different stratum in the town altogether, as they maintained no apparent political, economic, social, public order, or law enforcement influence over town affairs. Samuels, of Jamaican descent, became a full-time resident of Nantucket in 1999; she resides on Nantucket with her son. Samuels has worked in the home healthcare field when her health permits.
James Barros, seventy-six years old [in 2020], worked as a part-time drywaller and plasterer. He has lived intermittently on Nantucket since he was eight years old. Barros, skeptical that the Nantucket police were committed to solving the African Meeting House crime, sought assurance that the police were dutifully investigating the matter .... As Barros stated: "That building is part of me. I'm an African. I have a right to ask who is doing damage to my house."
Justice Smyth also put additional facts on the table to suggest that the court majority gave Barros's claim short shrift, particularly insofar as circumstances may subjectify the "reasonable person" analysis.
The record supports a rational jury concluding that Pittman's words and conduct threatened Barros to the extent that Barros was terrified when he stood at the town meeting to respond. Barros's fear was based in part on his experience as a Black man who was distrustful and a vocal critic of the Nantucket police. As a consequence of Barros's continued pressure on the police to meaningfully pursue the hate crime investigation, the lead town investigator, Detective Klinger, responded with hostility toward Barros. In addition, numerous people advised Barros "to watch [his] back," and warned him that the Nantucket police were going to "set him up." ....
The record demonstrates that Barros's fear of the Nantucket police was well grounded. Barros, while driving, was pulled over by the police on two separate occasions following the March 11 board meeting. One Sunday morning, a Nantucket officer pulled Barros over as Barros was headed home from Mass celebrated at St. Mary's Church. The officer approached Barros's truck with his hand on his gun. Although the officer stated that he stopped Barros due to a brake light malfunction, the record indicates Barros's lights were functioning properly and allows the inference of a retaliatory stop.
In sum, Justice Smyth found sufficient evidence to show interference with civil rights of both plaintiffs, as a matter of fact, and of persons of "reasonable fortitude" in their circumstances, applying the objective test.
Frederick Douglass, center left, at abolitionist meeting, N.Y., 1850. He first visited Nantucket for an anti-slavery conference in 1841. Smithsonian Institute/Mr. & Mrs. Set Charles Momjian, via National Park Service
Justice Smyth offered a spirited conclusion that invoked Nantucket's abolitionist history and rallied the judiciary to the defense of speech critical of public officials:
Nearly one hundred and eighty years after Frederick Douglass sought refuge in Massachusetts and traveled to Nantucket to make his first public speech condemning slavery, a person desecrated a site sacred to the island's Black community with the words "Nigger leave." The act was more than an act of property vandalism, as it communicated a direct threat to the plaintiffs' safety and well-being as Black residents of Nantucket. While the United States Constitution, Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, and our laws will never eradicate the hatred and racism in the hearts of individuals who commit such acts, our legal framework guarantees people the right to speak out against such offenses, to petition local officials for answers, and to criticize local government and police officials for failing in their oaths to support our laws and Constitution and to seek justice for all.
Of course, it would be folly to take the force and endurance of these constitutional rights for granted, perhaps lulled by the longstanding welfare and security of our nation and by our courts' historical commitment to safeguarding free speech rights as fundamental to our representative democracy. We do not have that luxury because, even considering the relative strength of our democracy, these rights are subject to the whim of unchecked power that allows for tyrannical tendencies to suppress contrary viewpoints. Thus, the judiciary's vigilance to protect from government interference our people's right to speak to public issues is as critical today as it was when the First Amendment was ratified in 1791.
I get Pittman's frustration at having failed to secure a prosecution for the vandalism, and, presumably with laudable motivations to avoid conflict of interest, in having ceded the investigation to the district attorney and state police. Nevertheless, he and Gibson, as public officials, have to have thicker skin, especially for justifiable outrage at a public meeting.
I share public outrage that such a hateful act defaced a historic place of contemporary cultural importance, and that no prosecution followed, upon whatever tragicomedy of errors. (I include the image below, from the court's appendix, despite the offensive epithet, to demonstrate the severity and offensiveness of the crime.) To be fair to Nantucketers, after the overnight vandalism in 2018, more
than a dozen distraught local residents turned out to scrub the African Meeting House clean by 10 a.m. the next morning (Cape Cod Times). But bad eggs are still at large.
Estimates vary, but cost of living on Nantucket usually is said to exceed the national average by more than 100%, and housing costs run more than 300% over. You can bet that upper-crust property owners aren't doing much of the manual labor on the island to keep that economic engine running. Nantucket depends on a significant Jamaican population to work in the tourism industry. Yet the government on the island is worrisomely non-representative of the population by racial demographics.
Once addressing a crowd in Cork, Ireland, Frederick Douglass was shouted down with cries of, "That's a lie," "He shan’t speak," and "Down with the n—" (Gilder Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance, and Abolition). Justice Smyth must have been conscious of the eerie parallel to the meeting dispute and vandalism here. I do not mean to accuse Gibson and Pittman of the same culpability as slave-owners, nor of racism. Rather, I mean to suggest that Nantucket officials ought be cognizant that those same sentiments surfacing today, leveled against black residents, is not a good look.
At some point, the difference between official incompetence and insensitivity, on the one hand, and willful cover-up, on the other hand, becomes immaterial.
In September, a working group of the town board retained a Texas forensics firm, LCG Discovery Experts, to review the investigation into the African Meeting House vandalism—though not to re-investigate the crime. According to Nantucket Current News, the independent review was spurred by a citizen petition.
.jpg)
