Law school seminars dive deep in FOI, free press, film

RJ Peltz-Steele with Google Gemini CC0 1.0

Students in my spring seminars, in Freedom of Information Law and in Free Press and Film, did outstanding work, and I am indebted both to them and to colleagues who joined my classes for teaching me and enriching my intellectual life.

Recently I spoke on the telephone to a long-time friend in academics, a professor at another university, many miles away. We shared strikingly similar stories of well paid administrators, whose numbers on campus seems to grow faster than the wealth gap, even while they lament cuts of not-nearly-as-well-paid staff and faculty positions to keep us within budget.

Well, the similarity would be striking if we were not accustomed to it. Universities in the United States combating financial exigency now seem to me like the nation of Oceania in George Orwell's 1984. They are forever locked in conflict with one or another enemy that is not in fact the greatest existential threat. Rather, the government itself perpetuates a state of emergency so that apparatchiks (administrators) can consume the fruits of labor while the masses (faculty and students) abide oppressive regulation and a diminishing standard of living.

My friend suggested that I propose and apply for a new university office, perhaps a Vice Chancellor of Financial Exigency. That sounds ironically lucrative. As they say, "when in Rome"; if the empire is falling, grab all the grapes you can.

Our conversation devolved, as it invariably does, into why we put up with it all. Coming in a very close second to paying the mortgage is an answer that I fear is both cliché and self-condemnatory: We are gratified when our students learn and excel.

Faculty Seminar Contributors

In the spring, I had the privilege to teach two seminars, one my recurring offering in freedom-of-information (FOI) law, the other a one-off, a course on free press and film. The FOI class coincided with the conclusion of my term on the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee, which service afforded me an opportunity to expose my students to leading-edge issues in the field.

The free-press-and-film class allowed me and the class to sink our teeth into the captivating book, featured at The Savory Tort in 2024, Filming the First: Cinematic Portrayals of Freedom of the Press (Lexington Books 2025), by my friend and colleague Helen J. Knowles-Gardner, formerly a political science professor and now research director at the Institute for Free Speech (IFS), and co-authors Professor Emeritus Bruce E. Altschuler, retired from political science at SUNY Oswego, and Professor Brandon T. Metroka, faculty in political science at the University of the Incarnate Word (UIW). (Photos: Knowles-Gardner, from IFS; Altschuler, 2017, by Jim Russel, SUNY Oswego '83, Metroka, from UIW).

My classes were enriched by colleagues who gave generously of their time and energy. Professor Knowles-Gardner joined us in person in Free Press and Film to discuss the book's treatment of the films Denial (2016) and Deliberate Intent (2000) (and to give a campus lecture). Professor Altschuler joined us for three classes, discussing his first three chapters of the book and the films Citizen Kane (1941), RKO 281 (1999), All the President's Men (1976), The Post (2017), Network (1976), and The Social Network (2010). Attorney Dan Greenberg, of the Cato Institute, joined Free Press and Film to discuss his documentary film, American Libel (2025), featured at The Savory Tort last year. (Photo: Dan Greenberg, from Cato.)

My FOI class welcomed attorney and information practice Professor Jason Baron, University of Maryland (U. Md.), and a fellow member of the FOIA Advisory Committee; Arkansas investigative journalist Brandon Howard; independent filmmaker and journalism and mass communication Professor Natalie Pattillo, and a university student leader and student journalist; Professor Robert Steinbuch, featured recently here at The Savory Tort, Bowen Law School, University of Arkansas, Little Rock (UALR); attorney and adjunct professor Gregory V. Sullivan, president of Malloy & Sullivan and president of the New England First Amendment Coalition; and journalism and media studies Professor A.Jay Wagner, Diederich College of Communication, Marquette University, a past member of the FOIA Advisory Committee.

Professor Baron discussed the science of artificial intelligence and how advancements in the era will change the practice of FOI law for both requesters and record officers. Journalist Howard joined the class to talk about his past newspaper reporting and ongoing pro se FOI litigation to access a cold murder investigation case file in northwest Arkansas (see, e.g., The Weekly Vista; see also breaking news). Professor Steinbuch discussed his ongoing transparency advocacy in Arkansas and opinion writing for The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Attorney Sullivan discussed his remarkable record of high-profile access litigation and appellate argument on behalf of New England journalists. Professor Wagner discussed his recent work on statutory citizenship requirements to block state access to public records and the ongoing debate over the constitutionality of the laws.

Professor Pattillo and her student, whose identity I am protecting just in case, discussed contemporary challenges facing campus journalists, including recalcitrant administrators. Professor Pattillo's teaching contract at UMass Dartmouth was not renewed this academic year (e.g., LinkedIn, New Bedford Light, Boston Globe (paywall)). 

(Photos: Jason Baron, from U. Md.; Brandon Howard, from LinkedIn; Natalie Pattillo, from the Center for Independent Documentary; Robert Steinbuch, from UALR; Gregory V. Sullivan, from Malloy & Sullivan; A.Jay Wagner, from Marquette University.)

Student Seminar Contributors

Students in both seminars produced a range of thought-provoking papers built upon insightful research and analysis. I am here honored to share selected titles and abstract, with authors' permission. I thank these stars for their work and for their collaborative spirit in learning with and from each other, and I anticipate with great pleasure their shining future contributions to the legal profession.

—in Freedom of Information Law

Jeremy Aylward, Retaining Transparency in the Digital Age: Retention of Electronic Records Under Federal and State Freedom of Information Laws. The proliferation of electronic records and digital communications has fundamentally challenged the legal frameworks governing government transparency and public accountability. While the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Federal Records Act (FRA) establish baseline obligations for the retention and disclosure of electronic records, the enforceability of those obligations remains structurally compromised. This paper analyzes and synthesizes the legal frameworks governing the retention and disclosure of electronic records and messages under federal law and the open records statutes of California, Colorado, and Virginia, with particular attention to how those frameworks can be meaningfully enforced. Drawing on statutory text, agency guidance, and judicial interpretation, this paper examines how each jurisdiction defines "electronic records," what retention schedules apply, how personal device and third-party platform use by public officials is treated, and critically, what mechanisms exist to compel compliance, sanction violations, and remedy the destruction or concealment of covered records. The paper argues that across all four jurisdictions, electronic records retention law suffers from a common structural deficiency: obligations are broad in theory but weak in enforcement. This leaves agencies largely self-policing in an environment where the incentives to retain records often conflict with the incentives to delete them. While California's content-focused judicial approach offers the most expansive access framework, and Colorado and Virginia provide more structured but still under-enforced retention regimes, none of the examined frameworks provides a reliably enforceable mechanism for preventing loss of electronic records at the point of creation or ensuring accountability after the fact. The paper concludes by identifying the enforcement gaps that most critically undermine the transparency purposes of freedom of information law and by synthesizing lessons across jurisdictions for legislative and judicial reform. (Image: RJ Peltz-Steele with Google Gemini CC0 1.0.)

Davis Preston, The Public Records Law Battles with State University Athletic Programs. Universities have taken advantage of state public record exemptions to skirt disclosures of their spending. To combat the skirting of disclosures and to provide more transparency, the NCAA mandates budget disclosures. Public records law exemptions still apply to the schools, but the NCAA mandates force the schools to disclose certain financial information anyway. These mandatory budget disclosures have their own limitations that allow schools to avoid full disclosure. They open the door to what money goes where, but withhold important information, such as who donates, how much they donate, and how the fundraising is organized. There are different structures for how athletic departments operate, but most use private or semi-private entities. Schools use privatization to avoid full disclosure after they meet the NCAA mandate. Different states have different laws that allow universities to avoid full disclosure. The University of Arkansas utilizes a private foundation, multiple universities in Florida utilize direct support organizations, and the University of Georgia utilizes disclosure time extensions. The laws are used to circumvent the public records law, which was enacted to hold public bodies accountable and provide transparency. The universities argue that they should have privacy on financials, as this allows them to keep a competitive advantage over other universities. This argument is met with the public interest in how the government spends money and whether this is done with transparency. There should be statutory change to prevent this circumvention of disclosure. Statutory change would entail eliminating exemption for direct support organizations, standardization of the function equivalent test, and the elimination of time extensions. (Image: RJ Peltz-Steele with Google Gemini CC0 1.0.)

Tryon P. Woods, Prison Conditions and Public Access Or 1(st Am.) + 5(th Am.) + 8(th Am.) + 14(th Am.) < 0—Public Access Math. This paper examines the ongoing problem of prison conditions and the public’s access to information about what goes on inside prisons. I approach the topic as a twin problem in which access and conditions are opposite sides of the same coin. The correlation between access restrictions and the unconstitutional treatment of prisoners has a long history and nation-wide scope. Tracking the aftermath of the seminal case of the Attica Prison uprising in 1971 through several lawsuits arising from institutional failures in Arizona, California, Massachusetts, and NYC, this paper argues that in a "total institution" such as a prison or jail, visibility is the leverage on which control hinges. This relationship between the public’s access to information about prison conditions and the constitutional violations suffered by prisoners is refracted in the Court’s First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence on prisons since the passage of FOIA in 1966. Despite the Court’s best efforts, together with prison administrators, the relational reality of law remains undeniable: the undoing of legal personhood for people inside serves as the precondition for inventing the human outside. (When not appearing in class as a law student to sate his insatiable appetite for learning, Professor Woods also is a gifted faculty colleague in crime and justice studies at UMass Dartmouth.—RJPS) (Image: Attica Correctional Facility, 2007, by Bronayur via Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 3.0.)

—in Free Press and Film

Bryce Mayo, "A Victim of the Modern Age": Soft Law, Private Suppression, and the Gap in First Amendment Theory. Film: A Clockwork Orange (1971). The First Amendment limits government suppression of speech but does not restrict decisions by private actors. Constitutional doctrine therefore provides little guidance when expression is constrained through private pressures, market incentives, or self-censorship. These forms of non-governmental suppression rarely enter the public consciousness until controversy surrounding particular works expose gaps in the protection of free expression. Stanley Kubrick’s decision to withdraw A Clockwork Orange from circulation in the United Kingdom illustrates this limitation. Although the film was not subject to a nationwide legal prohibition, public controversy, media criticism, and local regulatory pressures preceded Kubrick’s nearly three-decade self-removal. The film thus remained legally protected yet practically inaccessible within the United Kingdom. This incident provides an example of how expressive works may be limited without formal government censorship. This paper examines Kubrick’s withdrawal through a United States constitutional framework. It focuses on the distinction between state restriction and private control over distribution and argues that the quasi-ban of A Clockwork Orange reveals a structural gap in First Amendment theory: while speech is protected from government censorship, it may nonetheless be suppressed through "soft law" mechanisms that operate outside formal doctrine. By separating the concept of legal protection from the reality of circulation, the paper clarifies how expression may be constrained outside traditional censorship models. Recognizing this distinction clarifies the practical limits of First Amendment protections and refines how free speech is understood in modern media environments shaped by market forces, rating systems, and distribution controls.

Amanda McKim, Speech is Free, But Lies You (Should) Have to Pay For: Alex Jones as a Case Study for the Inefficacies of Defamation Remedies. Film: The Truth vs. Alex Jones (2024). The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects against government-imposed limitations on freedom of speech and the press. However, the First Amendment does not protect false, defamatory statements. The intersection of these two areas of law has been analyzed at length, but changes in the way society communicates raises new and more dangerous problems regarding the ways in which courts address the impacts of defamation. With the continually expanding use of smart phones, access to endless perspectives in media, and few ways to definitively “fact-check” sources, misinformation is rampant, and defamation remedies provide increasingly less meaningful relief to victims. Alex Jones, a prominent radio show host, was sued in two states and has three judgments against him for defaming victims’ families in the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting. The complaints were filed in 2018 and resulted in final judgements in 2022 of $1.5 billion dollars in damages. Jones has since filed for bankruptcy, has yet to pay the victims. He continues to disparage the proceedings to his audience of 30 million daily listeners. The plaintiffs’ inability to recover and Jones’s continuing perpetuation of harmful rhetoric exemplify the ineffectiveness of current remedies to meaningfully address serious speech-based harms. Despite legal scholars’ critiques of equitable remedies in defamation cases, equity might be the best way to address previous harm, prevent future harm, and provide victims with the most appropriate relief. (Image: Instagram post by WBRC-TV 6 News, 2025. With characteristic wisdom and compassion, Ms. McKim suggested that the visual element for this post might honor the victims of Sandy Hook, rather than draw further attention to Alex Jones, who doesn't need help with publicity. I could not agree more.—RJPS)

Sean Pillai, Embedded Reporting and Freedom of the Press in Contemporary U.S. Military Operations. Films: Restrepo (2010), Korengal (2014). Embedding journalists with U.S. military combat operations highlights the ongoing struggle to balance democratic transparency with the practical realities of fighting a war. The system of embed reporting was created to give the public a clearer view of what happens on the front lines, but it also has raised continuing legal and ethical questions about how independent reporters truly can be when the military controls their access and movement. This paper looks at those tensions through the perspectives offered in Restrepo (2010) and Korengal (2014), while examining the most recent policy behind U.S. military media policy. The embed system shows why some limits on access are required in combat zones and that journalists must continue to expose themselves to risk both in the legal realm and physically in combat to protect speech. 

Carson Powell, From Accessible Knowledge to Smoldering Ashes: How a 1953 Novel Reflects a Growing Current Reality. Film: Fahrenheit 451 (2018). A story created in 1953, in which books are outlawed, and "firemen" burn any that are found, illustrates the censorship of knowledge and literature. In Arkansas, on March 30, 2023, the legislature approved Act 372, which included new standards for individuals selling books, whether that be public libraries or small bookstores. Act 372 in theory was approved to protect minors from stumbling onto books and materials of mature topics, but many librarians disagreed with that sentiment. The librarians of Fayetteville Public Library, joined by many other librarians believed that the act forces libraries and bookstores to segregate novels with "mature subjects" into "adult only" areas, with a risk of criminal prosecution for failing to do so. The Fayetteville Public Library, American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, and others filed complaints alleging that Act 372, like outright book banning, violates the First Amendment as overbreadth, vague, and content based. The lawsuit further alleged that the Act was intended to limit access of books and media to individuals who have a constitutional right to the books in question. The Arkansas legislature follows a growing trend around the United States of State’s legislators introducing and implementing acts regarding content-based censorship. Increasing enactments of laws aimed at removing “obscene” materials to protect children effectively discriminates against people of color, underrepresented communities, and members of the LGBTQ+ community. The suppression of media, whether by segregating books in the library or bookstore, or by facilitating their removal smaller institutions having to take the books off the shelves at risk of prosecution, reflects the themes of Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451.

Jakob Resnik, Apocalypse When? Latent Power of 47 U.S.C. § 606. Film: Apocalypse Now (1979). 47 U.S.C. § 606 ("the Act"), "The War Powers of the President," is an unused emergency provision of the Telecommunications Act that threatens freedom of speech. Apocalypse Now contains a scene depicting a Time magazine article reporting inaccurately on the Vietnam War. The movie does not say whether Time published the article of its own volition or at the direction of the Government. In the "real world," the Act enables the President to seize and control certain media outlets during emergencies, possibly controlling public reception of the emergency. The Act lacks clear definitions or statutory guardrails, conferring power so broadly that it is easily abused. Apocalypse Now used a prop magazine article to illustrate dishonesty in the media without showing where the lie really came from. Under the Act, a censored message can easily be spread to deceive the public regardless of free speech objections that outlets may raise. This is a threat to free speech.

Corie Scott, Tried Inside a Story: Pretrial Narrative and the Fragility of the Presumption of Innocence. Film: When They See Us (2019). Ava DuVernay’s When They See Us documents what happens when narrative precedes adjudication. The prosecution of the Central Park Five—who now identify as the Exonerated Five—illustrates how media coverage, official statements, and public discourse can converge to construct a story of guilt before evidence is tested in court. That story proved more durable than the convictions it preceded and more resistant to correction than the exonerations that followed. The case is extraordinary in its consequences. The dynamic it reflects is not. This paper examines the tension between First Amendment press freedom and the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a fair trial through doctrinal analysis and a preliminary comparative study of contemporary criminal reporting. Drawing on a close reading of fifteen articles across local news outlets, national publications, tabloid media, and government press releases, the analysis examines patterns in headline labeling, suspect characterization, moral descriptor language, victim framing, contextual background, and the presence or absence of presumption-of-innocence language. The sample is illustrative rather than representative and is offered to surface patterns consistent with the doctrinal concerns the paper identifies. The findings identify patterns that warrant closer legal and empirical attention. Narrative intensity, humanizing context, and presumption-of-innocence framing vary consistently across source types – and, with regularity that raises due process and equal protection concerns, across defendants. White defendants were disproportionately introduced through professional identity and personal context. Black and Latino defendants were more frequently framed through criminal identity and categorical threat language, with government press releases producing the most authoritative and criminalized framing of any source category examined. These patterns point to a structural gap in existing doctrine. First Amendment protections permit the circulation of narratives that assign meaning to accusation. Sixth Amendment safeguards operate within the courtroom to mitigate identifiable prejudice. Neither framework fully addresses how pretrial narratives shape the ground on which guilt is adjudicated. This paper argues that the law’s current approach is incomplete—not because it fails on its own terms, but because it was not designed for an information environment in which narrative formation is rapid, self-reinforcing, and difficult to unwind. The presumption of innocence survives as a formal rule. Whether it survives as a lived condition of adjudication, for all defendants equally, is the question the paper raises—and the one it calls on doctrine and empirical scholarship to more fully answer.

Alayna Wageman, Accountability Gaps at The International Criminal Court: How States Get Away with Murder. Film: A Private War (2018). Women journalists operating in conflict zones are targeted not only because of their reporting, but because of their gender. Sexual violence, intimidation, and physical assault are deployed as deliberate tools to silence women in the press, yet international law has failed to translate its formal protections into meaningful, enforceable accountability. This paper investigates that failure through the legendary war correspondent Marie Colvin. In Colvin v. Syrian Arab Republic, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted a default judgment of $302,511,836.00 against Syria for the deliberate targeting and killing of Marie Colvin during her reporting in Homs in 2012. Syria has never paid. Additionally, the conduct that killed Colvin, a state-directed attack on civilian journalists in armed conflict, falls within the jurisdictional reach of the Rome Statute as a war crime under Article 8, yet no International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecution followed. Syria is not a signatory and the UN Security Council vetoed the referral. Thus, even when liability is established, the absence of enforceable international laws leaves victims without remedies and states without consequences. Colvin's case is not exceptional. It is representative of a systemic pattern in which gender-based violence suppresses journalistic work and states face no meaningful consequences. This paper highlights three structural deficiencies within the International Criminal Court framework revealed by the Colvin case. This paper contends that addressing these gaps necessitates structural reforms beyond the scope of the current system.

Rebecca Wood, A Relic of the Past: It’s Time To Deal With The Equal Time Rule. Film: Man of the Year (2006). This paper utilizes the 2006 film Man Of The Year to introduce and illustrate systemic inconsistencies in the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) enforcement of the equal time rule. The rule, Section 315(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, requires broadcast licensees providing airtime to a legally qualified candidate must also provide equal air time all opposing candidates. The rule is introduced by examining the absence of discussion and enforcement of it and its requirements throughout the film despite a talk-show host’s presidential campaign. This paper suggests that the omission is illustrative of the inconsistent and arbitrary application of the rule in the real world. Next, the history and origins of the rule are explored beginning with the rule’s origin in the Radio Act of 1927 through present day talk show challenges. Subsequently, the rule’s inconsistent implementation and the question of censorship are investigated with examples in media, case law, and FCC proceedings and notices from the rule’s beginning through present day. Finally, possible remedies such as further defining the rule, post-Chevron challenges, or repealing the rule are considered.

Like first-gen students it's all about, Raposa book breaks new ground in law school academic support

My long-ago law student in Torts, and later colleague in teaching, Brittany L. Raposa (LinkedIn) this year published, as editor and contributor, Fostering First Gen Success and Inclusion: A Guide for Law Schools (Carolina Academic Press 2026). 

"First gen" refers to law students whose parents did not pursue post-secondary education. Here is the publisher's description:

Fostering First Gen Success and Inclusion: A Guide for Law Schools provides law schools with practical and substantive tools to support first-generation law students.... This book illustrates the challenges and characteristics of all first-generation law students by looking at a diverse range of first-generation law student populations. It is designed to assist law schools with creating an inclusive environment for first-generation law students and to foster success in all aspects of their law school journey, from admission to post graduation.

More than 45 contributors (including many former first gen students themselves) offer their experiences and their insights as to how first gen students can be supported and can flourish. Whether it be for situations such as orientation programming, academic success help, doctrinal or legal writing classrooms, experiential education, or career development and bar exam support, this book offers guidance and support. And of course, the voices of next gen students themselves resonate throughout.

Raposa is a Massachusetts attorney at Raposa Law, practicing family and estate law. She came to law school years ago with two bachelors in English literature, writing, and rhetoric, graduated at the top of her law class, and then earned an LL.M. in health law and policy at Northeastern. For about six years, she served on the faculty at Roger Williams Law, specializing in bar support.

My stellar colleague Professor Amy Vaughn-Thomas, who just joined the faculty at University of Detroit Mercy Law and whom already I sorely miss, contributed the first chapter to the Raposa volume, "Speaking from Experience: Profiling the First Gen Perspective to Foster Inclusion in Legal Education." My gifted colleague Professor Rebecca Flanagan contributed chapter 10, "Why Do Law Schools Need to Understand the Special Needs of First Gen Pre-Law Students?"

Raposa herself contributed three chapters, besides a compelling introduction: chapter 20, "Don’t Stop After 1L Year: Incorporating Skills Teaching in Upper-Level Doctrinal Courses"; chapter 24, "The Silencing Power of Expectation: The Need for Law Schools to Amplify Diverse Voices in Legal Scholarship"; and chapter 29, "Bar Talk: Learning from First-Generation Bar Takers to Create Bar Support Programming."

French law students embrace common law; Le Havre confronts modern environmentalism, slave history

Le Havre, France

Our cultural and legal understanding of reputation and privacy are among the countless features of the social contract undergoing rapid evolution in the Trump political era, in Europe as well as the United States.

(All images by RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 with no claim to underlying content.) 

Once a fringe area of tort law to which most new lawyers had no exposure at all in law school, defamation and privacy have taken center stage in society, in part thanks to their weaponization in polarized politics and popular culture. Hulk Hogan famously shut down Gawker with a multi-pronged privacy suit masking a billionaire's vendetta (Holiday). Melania Trump sued a blogger and the Daily Mail for falsely claiming she worked as a high-end escort (DiBenedetto). And Donald Trump, well, Donald Trump... inter alia, won a fee award and suffered a massive loss, not over sexual relationships as much as deceptions that ensued.

Faculty of International Affairs, University of Le Havre

Last week, I had the great privilege to teach a one-credit course on American litigation over defamation and privacy to undergraduate law students at the University of Le Havre in the Normandy region of France. You can check out the course and course materials at the blogspot, Litigating Reputation in America. I'll leave the downloadable documents in place for the duration of summer 2026 (Perma.cc for later review).

"Litigating Reputation in America" course site

I centered the class on the fascinating transnational defamation civil suit that French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte Macron are prosecuting in Delaware against American podcaster Candace Owens. The case arises from a host of Owens's sensationalist assertions, especially that Brigitte Macron was born a man. A hearing on a motion to dismiss, on jurisdictional grounds only, is scheduled for June 22.

Notwithstanding the seemingly readily disprovable falsity and outrageousness of the assertions at issue, the Macrons face an uphill battle in U.S. courts. Kalshi thinks they'll win (63.7% presently). But the smart money in American defamation litigation is never on the plaintiff. Cf. Tucker Carlson's successful defense against Karen McDougal on grounds, more or less, that no one takes Carlson seriously, so his outrageous assertions could have done no harm.

Meanwhile, in January, a French criminal court convicted 10 defendants of cyberbullying Brigitte Macron with the born-a-man claim (CNS). The contrast between an uphill civil suit in the States and criminal prosecutions in Paris fairly indicates a profound divergence in how social, economic, and political cultures in the United States and Europe, especially in France, respectively value reputation and free speech, and how law and process accordingly balance the two.

In an intensive 15 classroom hours, 24 Le Havre students learned the fundamentals of defamation and privacy torts and engaged with 11 contemporary, ripped-from-the-reporter case studies I prepared for them. The students explored the development of defamation and privacy litigation from client counseling to discovery and dispositive motions, alongside key rules of civil procedure. They argued Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss and negotiated settlements, then rounded out the week with a two-hour final exam.

Civil-law law books, including obligations, at La Galerne Bookstore, Le Havre

I've been teaching American law modules to English-as-a-second-language law students in Europe for 20 years, and never have I seen students perform so well. They embraced the rough-and-tumble of the American adversarial model, while remaining sensitive to issues of professionalism and public policy. True to European thinking, they evinced skepticism of corporate-protective defense doctrines and absolutist free speech claims. They readily adapted their civil-law-trained thinking to precedent-driven common law and analogical argument.

It happened that the well circulated American news story dropped while I was in France, as Futurism put it, "College Professors Say Incoming Students No Longer Understand Middle School Math and Science." I commented on some of my friend chats that the same surely is true for English and arts; it's just harder to quantify.

When I started teaching legal writing in the late 1990s, the challenge was to get students to pay attention to their choices of subjects and verbs. Now many students don't even know what I mean when I say "subject" and "verb." An aside: Shout out to my own relentless K12 grammar instructors: Sharon Reuwer, who in elementary school literally hit me on the head with a book—you could do that back then—until I got my sentence diagramming right; and to Dr. Barbara Dezmon, who in middle school initiated me in language as forensic art, more than mere mechanics.

So as my undergraduate French students dissected their case studies, synthesizing argument from facts and points of law, I could not help but observe, and wonder why, they delivered work product more adeptly than I can expect from most first-year graduate students in the United States. That's not to impugn my home students' potential, nor to generalize unfairly, nor to disrespect those who put in the work and rise to the occasion, but only to fear that too many Americans are inexcusably ill served by their K16 preparation.

Haropa Port offices, Le Havre

I am deeply indebted to the organizing and teaching faculty of the Le Havre program. Professor Baptiste Allard is the driving force behind the program at the University of Le Havre Faculty of International Affairs, along with his Le Havre collegaue, Professor Pierre Capelle. The students are now in week two of the four-week program, in a comparative study of constitutional and administrative law with Professor Akram Faizer of the Duncan School of Law at Lincoln Memorial University.

In the coming weeks, the French students will further explore American law and legal skills with Professor Christine E. Cerniglia, director of clinical and experiential legal education at Stetson Law, and Professor Melanie Reid, associate dean of faculty at the Duncan School of Law. Professors Cerniglia and Reid aim to develop an ongoing relationship with Le Havre that will see American students participating, too, to exchange learning with their French counterparts.

Catène de containers (2017),
a prominent contemporary sculpture by Vincent Ganivet;
behind: post-war apartments in the brutalist architectural style of Auguste Perret

I had some time in Le Havre for tourism, which afforded me the opportunity to explore some scholarly interests in areas including environmental law and the legal history of human rights and the transatlantic slave trade.

Professor Allard is my partner on the environmental law team of the Global Law Classroom, a project born of Professor Reid's ingenuity. I have learned volumes from Professor Allard about the role of global shipping and sea transportation in global environmental law and climate change. Admittedly, there are times when the ins and outs of EU shipping regulations make my eyelids droop. But in Le Havre, I took a boat tour of Haropa Port, and what I saw there charged the subject with a new vitality for me.

Entrance to Port of Le Havre

I've seen many commercial ports in the world, but never so close, gliding on a small passenger boat through an intracoastal waterway alongside massive tankers and container ships. The Port of Le Havre is the largest container port in France, with three terminals, and also receives world-class cruise liners. Oil is the port's number one cargo commodity, implicating the port in contemporary geopolitics. Seeing the scale of the operation, it's impossible not to wonder at humanity's ability to transform a natural landscape to commercial ends, and also to be fretful over environmental risks and consequences.

Kriti Journey, a crude oil tranker, flagged Marshall Islands

Hafnia Nanjing, an oil and chemical tanker, flagged Singapore

 

Container loading

Almost as intriguing as the physical operations of the port are its works in communications and public relations. The boat tour I took and the port's public exhibition center are awash with boastful facts. There also are brochures and special exhibition days that feature recent and upcoming green initiatives at the port. That's good, of course. Yet for the touristic observer such as me, even unusually informed as I am, it's impossible casually to disentangle fact and propaganda, much less to interrogate the presentation for greenwashing.

Vole au Vent, a heavy-lift, self-elevating, jack-up installation vessel, flagged Luxembourg,
loading locally manufactured wind turbines for off-shore destinations

A register of slave transactions,
Maison de l'armateur

The Port of Le Havre also figures in the history of slavery. People from Africa were trafficked through Le Havre, part of the triangular route, to French colonies in the Americas. Le Havre was the imputed port of origin for more than 450 slave voyages trafficking at least 142,341 persons from 1571 to 1848, according to data at Slave Voyages

Maison de l'armateur

. A memorial plaque in "the slave streets of Le Havre" remembers 90,000 trafficked persons. Either way, incredibly, Le Havre was only the third largest slave port in France, where an estimated 1.38 million people were embarked for enslavement.

"Closet" celebrating accomplished
free persons of color,
Maison de l'armateur

The Le Havre Ship Owner's House, or Maison de l'armateur, is a preserved 18th century residence that showcases the opulent lifestyle of the successful merchant of the time. That lifestyle was built on a range of commodities, slavery included. Yet Africans who passed through Le Havre, including those who remained and were enslaved before definitive abolition in France in 1848, were omitted from patriotic historical narratives—whitewashing.

Socially and legally, modern France has dedicated itself peculiarly, present populist inclinations notwithstanding, to memory initiatives, that is, the compulsory remembrance of historical wrongs. The criminalization of Holocaust denial is probably the most often cited example of "French memory laws." But brutal colonialism and the slave trade figure in too.

Accordingly seeking to balance its presentation, the Ship Owner's House presently features a fascinating tandem exhibition, Reminiscences: Phantoms of Slavery (May 8 to Sept. 20, 2026). The exhibition is not set aside in a single space, the usual museum M.O.; rather, the African story is told right alongside the ordinary exhibition with the juxtaposition of radically differently themed art and information. The juxtaposition is often clever, for example, haunting the vestibule of a genteel bedroom with an amber glow behind silhouettes of African celebrants.

Émile Loubon, Le Port du Havre au XIXe siècle (1843),
with museum tags showing offloaded goods

Diorama depicting post-colonial reparations rally, Maison de l'armateur

Acerbic art characterizing a black stain on whitewashed history, Maison de l'armateur

There's plenty in Le Havre to stimulate the mind, not to mention the palate, of the law student and law professor. I hope the students who endured my lessons got something worthwhile from the week, if I dare not hope they learned as much as I did.

I offer my sincere gratitude to the students and staff at Le Havre, to Professors Allard and Capelle, as well as Professor Allard's husband for his hospitality, and to Professors Cerniglia, Faizer, and Reid, as well as Professor Cerniglia's partner, for their generous friendship and collegiality.

Jusqu’au Bout du Monde (2018) by Fabien Mérelle, Port of Le Havre; St. Joseph's Church, behind

Dean blasts elitism in law, legal ed, then resigns

The dean of the law school where I work recently made two remarkable posts on LinkedIn about what he called "myopic prestige-based foolishness" and the "legal profession's snobbery," and then announced his resignation.

At risk of burying the lead, I want to focus on the two posts. On that score, tighten your seat belt, because you might never have heard these words from me before: I agree with the dean.

Young people's socioeconomic prospects continue to turn in bleak data—this week, a record low in first-time home buyers—spurring growing, alarming, and not characteristically American skepticism of democracy, at least the capital-driven version. (I wrote recently about the fondness of young Bhutanese for their socially minded monarchy.) I wonder whether this century will at last see American voters hit rock bottom and do something about our broken Constitution.

Socioeconomic stagnation, or worse, downward social mobility, in American society, irrespective of individual merit, is becoming ever harder to conceal behind starry-eyed paeans to the supposed land of opportunity.

I've written before about my own career track and the not-a-meritocracy that America is and maybe always has been, fabled reputation notwithstanding. It's unusual, though, to hear a law school dean say anything critical of the socioeconomic status quo—much less speaking from personal perspective. Usually deans in public prefer to paint rosy pictures. And I get it: morosity is not conducive to opening the checkbooks of well-to-do benefactors or prospective students. 

Deans have their job, and I have mine. Mine just happens to trade in truth. If you catch a dean just as her or his light is being extinguished, you might catch a rare glimpse of truth even there.

It should be said, I like Dean Sam Panarella. I've always thought his heart is in the right place and that he prizes ideals over self-preservation and bean counting. The latter are the prevalent priorities in the well compensated ranks of higher-education administration. Maybe that's why he wasn't cut out for it. 

My main worry about Dean Panarella always was how long he could stand to beat his head against a wall of willful intransigence. That's no secret; I told him that in our first 1:1 meeting.

I am sad but understanding in reporting that we now know the answer: three years.

Here is Dean Panarella's first post of two days ago. This post might seem innocuous, by the way—it did to me—owing in part to its polite eloquence. So know that things are going to heat up a notch thereafter.

At the time I write this post, there is no negative reaction whatsoever showing under this LinkedIn post. Reactions and comments comprise nothing but heaps of praise and agreement, likes and applause.

But Dean Panarella must have heard some discontent from someone, and fast. Because here goes the second post, within a day.

"Snobbery," you say? Well, the first post did not actually use that word, preferring instead the more genteel "foolishness." Yet the genteel approach "struck a nerve." I welcome the plain language to call out elitism for what it is.

U.S. News recently ranked UMass Law 171 of those nearly 200 law schools. That's bad—inexcusable—for the only public law school in the commonwealth at age 16.

A significant part of UMass Law's inability to better its ranking is forgivable as a function of the elitism problem the dean wrote about. Though U.S. News shrank the proportional input of reputational scoring in its law school ranking methodology since years past, now 25%, it's still a heavy investment in elitist defense of the status quo. U.S. News reported UMass Law at a sad 1.6 of 5 in academic peer review, and an only somewhat better 2.5 of 5 among lawyers and judges.

In turning down the volume of reputation, U.S. News amped up the value of inputs justifiably important to law students, such as placement and bar pass. Placement remains indirectly dependent on reputation. That's the very "class ceiling" the dean decried. It has been notoriously difficult for UMass Law graduates, regardless of merit, even to score interviews in the white-shoe Boston legal market. U.S. News reported mediocre employment outcomes at UMass Law.

Even a seemingly straightforward statistic such as bar pass conceals a bias in favor of privilege. In my experience, and the law school has some research to back this up, the number one obstacle my UMass Law students face in preparing for the bar exam is not being able to afford time off to study. Multiply that obstacle by the relentless demands of career and family for nontraditional students. The problem is money, not merit.

All that said, I am not letting UMass Law and the commonwealth off the hook. The bottom-line problem at UMass Law is and always has been, simply, the bottom line.

A public law school with an access mission sounds great in a speech. Indeed, UMass Law exists in part to combat the very elitism that oppresses it. But to assume that a public law school can be simultaneously more affordable for students and less costly to run than a private counterpart—well, I might call that myopic foolishness.

A school with an access mission will have more nontraditional students than its conventional academic counterparts. An access school will face greater student needs to overcome the serious shortcomings of American K16 education. An access school will have more students unable to afford resources, such as study aids, textbooks, and tutoring, not to mention the opportunity costs of working for free in field placements and internships. The list goes on.

The consequence of these student needs is that the school must shoulder a heavier than usual burden: more financial aid, more library resources, more faculty and teaching assistants, just to start. More resources means more costs. So a public, access school must cost more to run than its conventional counterpart in a competitive private school or foundation-funded "flagship" public school. Cutting pricey hors d'oeuvres from receptions and leather furniture from the lobby is not going to make up that difference.

Massachusetts never reckoned with this reality in creating UMass Law. The Massachusetts model of public higher education does not see universities as a social investment. Rather, academic units such as the law school are expected to pay their own way, balancing tuition and fees with expenditures. 

Idealism doesn't make math go away. A law school cannot take in less than a counterpart, but spend more. Yet that was the calculation with which the commonwealth founded its public law school.

Dean Panarella announced his resignation today, effective at academic year's end. He will move on to be the chief executive officer of the Foundation for Natural Resources and Energy Law. 

What job did he not get? We should call out the enforcers of that class ceiling.

Meanwhile, chalk up another win for the bean counters.

They are undefeated.