Across the country, federal, state and local governments have used “redlining” and other discriminatory policies with the explicit intent to segregate cities and towns. As a result, black communities have been hobbled by a lack of economic investment, depressed property values, underfunded schools, and violence. Perhaps more than any other single cause, state-sanctioned segregation has contributed to the crisis in policing, gun violence, the school-to-prison pipeline and a host of other devastating effects that an ascendant group of activists has mobilized to rectify. How does housing segregation’s role as a root cause of current racial disparities impact efforts to design effective solutions to these problems? 

An experienced bureaucracy is necessary to conduct the business of government and may be an effective bulwark against executive abuses of power. But at what point are the reasons to serve in an administration with whom one ideologically disagrees or that has an agenda contrary to the central mission of the very agency in which one serves sufficiently outweighed by the risks of serving? For many, the choice to stay may be motivated by the value of maintaining institutional memory, the likelihood of sycophantic replacements, and a hope that one can continue to advance the good work already begun. But when an administration has been demonstrably hostile to the rule of law, what legal or personal ethics guide lawyers in their decision to stay or go? And when should they blow the whistle on agency activities? The 2016 election is not the first time government lawyers have asked themselves some of these questions, but it has thrown them into high relief. 

Social media platforms have the capacity to connect people and facilitate organizing, but with the decline in in influence of traditional media outlets, they have also made it possible to spread disinformation to millions in a matter of seconds. The phenomenon of so-called “fake news” is not without real consequences: In November, a man showed up at a popular pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C. armed with an automatic weapon because he had read online that Hillary Clinton was running a child sex ring on the site. As a result, some have proposed regulating fake news as we do other fraudulent products that may harm consumers. At a time when a robust press will matter perhaps more than ever to the health of our democracy, what, if anything, should be done about fake news? Who defines what news is “fake” and what should be the standards? How should we understand First Amendment rights in this context? How can the perils of social media be addressed without compromising its tremendous promise? And how should we respond to the claims by President Trump that critical stories about his administration carried by the mainstream media constitute fake news? 

Sen. Mazie Hirono's speech at the 2017 ACS National Convention.

Renée Lettow Lerner and Steve Susman debate the future of the jury trial. Moderated by Hon. George Hazel. 

ACS Board Chair Cliff Sloan offers closing remarks on the first day of the 2017 ACS National Convention.