The post The United States Postal Service: A bank for everyone, everywhere appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

What if I told you that the United States could fund the President鈥檚 鈥減roposed鈥� $1 trillion infrastructure package, the additional $3.6 trillion , a public jobs program similar to Franklin Roosevelt鈥檚 Works Progress Administration, the additional defense spending that seems to be necessary every fiscal year, and even Sen. Bernie Sanders鈥檚 and plans all without breaking a sweat?

Enter a different way of thinking about money 鈥� modern monetary theory (MMT). For those who haven鈥檛 heard of it, it鈥檚 essentially a rejection of the traditional idea of how the federal government budget (and money) works. We all think of the federal government鈥檚 budget like our own bank accounts. You put money in from paychecks, loans, tax returns, gifts, excess aid checks, etc. You take money out to pay your bills, buy food and gas, and spend on services. When your checking (or savings) accounts run out of money, you can鈥檛 spend any more without borrowing on credit.

The federal budget seems on its face to operate the same way. Tax revenue goes in, spending comes out. To offset costs of new government spending, taxes must be raised, spending must be cut in other areas, or the government runs a deficit (more spending than revenue in a year) and adds to the national debt (total amount the federal government is 鈥渋n the red鈥� after adding all the deficit years and surplus years together). Pretty simple.

But why is the federal government鈥檚 budget different than a personal checking account, business bank account, or city or state government鈥檚 budget? Because the federal government can make up its own money. Now it鈥檚 a little more complicated than that, as I鈥檒l explain. In 2013, an idea was pitched from the to alleviate the national debt without raising the debt ceiling. Proponents suggested that the U.S. Treasury mint a $1 trillion coin and deposit it in its account at the Federal Reserve as a way to get around the debt ceiling without raising it. The idea here is, if we need money to spend on programs and services we want, we can make more of it.

Now, again, we couldn鈥檛 do away with taxes, or risk runaway inflation. Essentially, the federal government would pay itself for public works projects, increases in defense spending and to eat costs of new or modified programs for its citizens鈥� care. The basic philosophy behind the idea is that our money is to it having value 鈥� this is called fiat money. There鈥檚 no other value to our paper currency other than the value we have agreed to as a society. A $20 bill is worth $20 because we say it is. Gold, diamonds, silver, shells, and goods in bartering systems have value as currency, but they have intrinsic value because you can do something with them 鈥� this is commodity money.

When the United States still followed the gold standard, dollars were sort of a hybrid 鈥� representative money. We used paper dollars, but they represented actual intrinsic value. What MMT does is take this philosophy to its logical conclusion. The government, the source of all our currency, funds programs by spending money, which flows into the economy. Taxes, a control on inflation, send that money back to the government so that dollars stay in demand. Money flows out from the government first, then back in. It鈥檚 a common-sense adage for smart businesspeople 鈥� you have to spend money to make money.

So, what does this all mean? Under a MMT system, the government can never 鈥渞un out鈥� out of money. As long as we continue to work, maintain our machines, continue extracting raw materials, and pay our taxes, there is no limit to the public services the government can provide. Deficits and budget constraints, as a problem to be debated, will be purely political (and for MMT proponents, like myself, already are) instead of an actual financial barrier to funding programs we want. Compare Sanders鈥檚 plans with defense spending. When Sanders pitched his plans while running for president in 2016, media outlets on the right and the left were agog at how expensive the plans were, and sounded alarms about the possibility of exploding deficits. In interview after interview, Sanders was asked 鈥渉ow are you going to pay for it?鈥� While Sanders had proposals for raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans and large corporations, these proposals would only serve to help mitigate inflation under a MMT regime. Similarly, the U.S. raises defense spending after and no one asks the Congress how they intend to pay for these spending hikes.

Under the current system, either taxes will need to go up or other programs will be cut if we are really concerned with deficits. But, under a MMT system, we wouldn鈥檛 have these concerns. Government spending will . We can have our cake, and eat it too.

The post 鈥淲hat鈥檚 in your wallet?鈥�: Why we should start taking modern monetary theory seriously appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

By: Ashleigh Creed

In 2012 the democrats got 1.4 million more votes than the republicans and could not take control of the [House of Representatives]; and when a gerrymander like this, for all intents and purposes, puts a chamber ostensibly intended to mirror popular opinion and the public will beyond control of the voters- that damages the levers of representative government; that is how elections are rigged and that is the kind of rigged we ought to be talking about. Not what Donald Trump is talking about. Author David Daley on how 鈥渢he game changed in 2010鈥�;

The Best of the Left Podcast (January 19, 2018).

For those needing a brief refresher on the subject, gerrymandering is the act of 鈥渞edrawing the lines of a congressional district to give one political party a voting advantage over another.鈥� (See ) The idea was born from a bill signed by Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry that redistricted his state to 鈥渙verwhelmingly benefit his party鈥� back in 1812. This redrawing is effectuated through acts of 鈥渃racking鈥� and 鈥減acking.鈥� Cracking being when the controlling party takes the opposing party鈥檚 vote and divides it up into as many districts as possible- to make it as ineffective as possible; and packing being when the controlling party 鈥減acks鈥� as many of the opposing votes as possible into as few districts as possible, in an effort to take the majority for themselves. (See ). Historically, this was 鈥渂usiness as usual,鈥� and a bipartisan game. However, with modern technology, the threat now posed to democracy through acts of gerrymandering, can no longer be ignored.

Every decade the United States conducts a census 鈥� a 鈥減opulation enumeration鈥� 鈥� the results of which include extremely detailed demographic information that is used to 鈥渁llocate Congressional seats, electoral votes and government program funding.鈥� (See ).This census data comes preloaded on a program called 鈥淢aptitude,鈥� which also provides demographics, ethnicity, economic data, consumer preferences and even voting records. Essentially, 鈥渁 partisan mapmaker now has so much information in front of them that they can draw [district] lines that are essentially unbeatable for a decade.鈥� Author David Daley on how 鈥渢he game changed in 2010鈥�; The Best of the Left Podcast (January 19, 2018). Or, more simply put, 鈥渉e who controls redistricting can control Congress.” Karl Rove, The GOP Targets State Legislatures, (March 4, 2010). See

At this point you may be asking yourself, 鈥渋s this legal?鈥� I certainly was. And, as it turns out, the Supreme Court has been considering that same question for several years now. Since Baker v. Carr in 1962 to be exact. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). Those early cases led to the development of the “one person, one vote” principle which boasted to be profoundly constitutional and in symmetry with the framer鈥檚 intention. However, the principle鈥檚 application wasn鈥檛 without its problems. Further, the Court was struggling with coming up with a standard to satisfy discord amongst Justices regarding judicially manageable gerrymandering cases, or if the area was even justiciable in the first place. Indiana circa 1986, a suit was filed by a number of Democrats against various state officials claiming that the Republican Governor鈥檚 reapportionment plan constituted a 鈥減olitical gerrymander intended to disadvantage Democrats across the state.鈥� Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986). On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court and held that: (1) political gerrymandering claims were properly justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause; and (2), in the case at bay, 鈥渨hile the apportionment law may have had a discriminatory effect on the opposing party, the effect was not “sufficiently adverse” as to violate the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.鈥� But, what then is, 鈥渟ufficiently adverse?鈥� Fast forward a few years to 2004 and Vieth v. Jubelirer, a split decision that had no majority opinion, where the Supreme Court 鈥渄ecided not to intervene because no appropriate judicial solution could be found.鈥� Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004). In this case, Justice Scalia proffered that 鈥渢he Court should declare all claims related to political gerrymandering nonjusticiable鈥� because 鈥渘o court had been able to find an appropriate remedy to political gerrymandering claims in the eighteen years since the Court decided Davis v. Bandemer.鈥�

Now, fast forward to 2017 and Gill v. Whitford: Plaintiffs filed suit in 2015 challenging the legislative re-districting plan drawn by the Republican-controlled legislature following the 2010 Census, alleging discrimination against Democratic candidates and voters on the basis of their political beliefs in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The procedural history is as follows:

On November 21, 2016, the panel issued a 2-1 opinion holding that Wisconsin鈥檚 legislative plan was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander because it resulted in excessive partisan asymmetry that could not be explained by neutral factors such as political topgraphy. Wisconsin filed an appeal on February 24, 2017, asking the Supreme Court to review the decision striking down the map.

So, Wisconsin Democrats are claiming that Republicans have drawn district lines that virtually guarantee their party鈥檚 control of both houses of the state legislature. The Republicans counter that the tests proffered by the Democrats to measure political gerrymandering are 鈥渢oo complex and fail to provide a limited and precise standard for evaluating partisan gerrymandering claims.鈥� 鈥淭his case will force the Supreme Court to tackle questions that have long gone unanswered: Can the courts actually rule on partisan gerrymandering? And if so, how will they evaluate such claims?鈥� David Goldman, One Person, One Vote (September 27, 2017).  With so much at stake, this case will be one to watch; but, regardless of the outcome, I am left still wondering, is this the best we can do? Will the Supreme Court rule that political gerrymandering is nonjusticiable? Likely resulting, then, in further perversion of our democratic system? Or will they rule that gerrymandering is a constitutionally justiciable issue of equal protection and lay out a standard for evaluating such claims? Which, pragmatically, legalizes the perversion to the standard laid out by the Supreme Court鈥檚 decision. Again, is this the best we can do?

The post Not Your Grandpa鈥檚 Gerrymandering; The Rigged Election We Should be Talking About appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

• 4 – 11聽
• 6 – 10听
• 8听
• 10听
• 11 – 17聽
• 12 – 18听
• 18 – 24听
• 19 – 23聽
• 20听
• 24听
• 27听

For more information on materials or trainings feel free to email socialchange@ualr.edu! 

The post March appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

by Kyla Bishop

The views expressed in this post are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect views of the Journal, the William H. Bowen School of Law, or 糖心Vlog传媒 Little Rock.

The term 鈥渟ex-selection鈥� is used to describe . Though there are many methods to control the sex of a fetus (), the method the Arkansas legislature chose to address is sex-selective abortion. Arkansas鈥檚 鈥淪ex Discrimination by Abortion Prohibition Act鈥� prohibits physicians from performing abortions with the knowledge that the pregnant woman is obtaining the abortion based solely on the sex of the fetus. The Act requires doctors to ask if their pregnant patient knows the sex of her fetus and, if so, requires doctors to inform the patient that she may not seek an abortion based on the sex of the fetus and to obtain the medical records of the patient relating to her entire pregnancy history.

Though the Act is presented as pro-female legislation (the Act states that 鈥淲omen are a vital part of our society and culture and possess the same fundamental rights as men鈥�), in reality, it is a gross intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship based on the offensive stereotype that Asian-Americans do not value the lives of their female children. Representative Charlie Collins, the sponsor of the bill, conceded this, stating that the reason for the legislation was This assertion is not only insulting, but baseless.

Chinese, Indian, and Korean families actually have more girls on average than white families. found that Chinese, Indian, and Korean families have an equal number of boys and girls at their first birth (a sex ratio of 1.00), whereas white families have a sex ratio of 1.06 at their first birth. Additionally, Chinese, Indian, and Korean families have a female-biased sex ratio of .64 after they have had two previous boys, whereas the ratio for white families was 1.07. The 2012 National Asian American Survey on opinions asked the question: 鈥淚f, for whatever reason, you could only have one child, would you want it to be a boy, girl, or does it not matter?鈥� 92% of Chinese, 92% of Indians, and 89% of Koreans said, 鈥淒on鈥檛 Care/Doesn鈥檛 Matter.鈥�

Given this data, sex-selective abortions are not as widespread a problem as the Arkansas legislature purports them to be. Representative Collins admitted that he is not aware of a single incident in Arkansas where a woman had an abortion upon discovering the sex of the fetus. In fact, that Asian immigrants are obtaining sex-selective abortions at all in the United States. So why have a piece of legislation meant to curtail something that is not even happening?

The practical (and arguably, the intended) effect of the Act is to restrict access to abortion as a whole. This is not surprising, as . Among the new laws were . The ACLU of Arkansas and the Center for Reproductive Rights brought suit challenging the measures, resulting in U.S. District Court Judge Kristine Baker issuing preliminary injunctions against the new restrictions. In her opinion, Judge Baker wrote, 鈥淭hese [laws] do not advance interest in women鈥檚 health because delay and other negative effects instead threaten women鈥檚 health and wellbeing.鈥�

Giving the Arkansas legislature the benefit of the doubt, if it truly wishes to fight against sexism, there is a wealth of data pointing to inequality between the sexes in health, education, and economic status. A 2012 Interim Study Proposal authored by Representative Kathy Webb reported that 16.2 percent of Arkansas women and girls were uninsured, while the national average of uninsured women was 13.5 percent. Regarding education, Arkansas ranks among the lowest in the country of women 25 years or older with a bachelor鈥檚 degree. The Arkansas female high school drop-out rate is 3.5 percent, lower than the 4.7 percent dropout rate of Arkansas men, but still higher than the U.S. drop-out rate of 2.7 percent. Finally, the poverty rate for women in Arkansas is the 7th highest in the nation. A 2016 report found that 20.4 percent of working-age women in Arkansas fell below the poverty line, while the percentage for working-age men was 15.8.

We can all agree that sexism has no place in our society. Using racist stereotypes to restrict reproductive rights, however, solves nothing. Women should feel free to have open and honest conversations with their doctors. Forcing doctors to scrutinize why a patient elects to have an abortion obstructs the doctor-patient relationship and leaves patients feeling humiliated. Rather than acting altruistic in addressing a non-existent problem, the Arkansas legislature should use its time and resources enacting legislation that provides real solutions to the real problems of Arkansan women.

The post Solving Sexism with . . . Racism? appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

Tell us a little bit about who is organizing the event?

Sydney Hunsicker, Brittany Hallmark, Rosemary Hallmark, Ellie Wheeler, and Ruthie Hokans. We are a group of friends that wanted to mobilize our varying social networks to organize a second ‘Write Your Senators’ event to amplify the voices of concerned Arkansans.

 
What can attendees expect to see/do at the event?

Our event is very informal – no set speakers – just individuals engaging in meaningful conversation throughout the evening. We will have stations to write and/or design postcards to send to senators, call or text your senators, and we will have a group of passionate community members from various organizations to engage in conversations about subjects and policies ranging from education, DACA, healthcare, SNAP benefits, the homeless community, prison reform, voter registration, and more. We want this event to be approachable to everyone.

Is there anything else about the event that people should know?

The event is free and open to the public. We encourage anyone and everyone to drop in, mingle, and write a postcard. Last year we really enjoyed the community aspect of the event. People that had never met previously were engaging in discussions with each other. We feel that one-on-one conversations are an important part of building a base that can create real change here in Arkansas.

Our Check This Out series features regional events of interest to Public Service Blog readers. If you would like to submit your event for a feature, please reach out to socialchange@ualr.edu.

The post Check This Out: Hear Our Voices Holds Presidents’ Day Event in Little Rock appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

_________________________________________________________________

The views expressed in this post are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect views of the Journal, the William H. Bowen School of Law, or 糖心Vlog传媒 Little Rock.

_________________________________________________________________

鈥淎wareness is the greatest agent for change.鈥�
– Eckhart Tolle

The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service is a vehicle for identifying and addressing the pressing needs of our society.

That has always been our mantra.

As a group of law students and advocates we strive to bring awareness to current issues going on in the world.

We have discussed policy, academics, and a plethora of different laws. We have shed light on inequality, disparity, and overall, the need for change.

More importantly, the need for advocacy.

Awareness.

Education.

Prevention.

Starting today, we will be sharing an infographic stating the different awareness events for each month.

We also have a link that includes resources, training materials, and ways to stay involved with the cause.

“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.鈥�
-Benjamin Franklin

Thanks, and enjoy!

 Source: 2018 National Health Observances, National Health Information Center, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.

The post February appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

The views expressed in this post are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect views of the Journal, the William H. Bowen School of Law, or 糖心Vlog传媒 Little Rock.

As a law professor who obtained my non-law degrees from Penn, I’m intrigued by the flurry of commentaries on advocating the following set of values:

“Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake.  Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness.  Go the extra mile for your employer or client.  Be a patriot, ready to serve the country.  Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable.  Avoid coarse language in public.  Be respectful of authority.  Eschew substance abuse and crime.”

Penn鈥檚 founder, Ben Franklin, famously believed that laws without morals are in vain, but Wax and Alexander do not seem to share this activist view.  Their goal, which did not enlist government to regulate morals, is a modest one. They seek only to persuade.

Wax and Alexander contextualized their advice by:  (1) explaining how it overlaps with the practices of a subset of society in the 1950s; (2) explicitly conceding that their preferred mid-century values resided amongst abhorrent contemporaneous ones; (3) characterizing the preferred values as “bourgeois”; and (4) critically providing modern examples of counter-values in sub-cultures of each of the three largest cohorts in America.  And then all hell broke loose.

Addressing (even listing) all of the responses to Wax and Alexander — some of which assume extraordinary hermeneutic skill at the discovery of hidden meaning in simple language — is well beyond the scope of this piece. Furthermore, I do not write in order to necessarily agree with all the claims made by Wax and Alexander; for example, as a government-transparency scholar, I believe it is no less important to respect public authority than to preserve avenues for questioning it.

One of the milder reactions to the Wax/Alexander op-ed was the cultural-relativistic claim that promoting one set of values above others is inherently bad. Penn Law Dean Ted Ruger — to his credit in this often speech-squelching time — :  “as a scholar and educator I reject emphatically any claim that a single cultural tradition is better than all others.”

While it’s possible to adopt such a view (emphatic or otherwise), this proposition is inconsistent with how most participants in modern Western culture actually operate.  For example, modern Western culture holds that women are equal to men and should be treated so. We’ve enshrined this notion into vast realms of the law so as to punish non-culturally-conforming behavior.

As such, modern Western culture adherents typically believe that the Saudi cultural tradition of subjugating women is not only bad for America, they believe it is bad for Saudis.  In other words, the equality of women in Western culture is clearly viewed as a morally superior norm, regardless of cultural tradition. After all, cultures aren’t preferences regarding ice-cream flavors, which don’t reflect any greater belief system.  Thus, while I prefer chocolate gelato over vanilla, I don’t care whether you disagree when choosing the contents of your cone.  In contrast, I believe in treating women equally, and I care greatly if you act on a contrary conviction.

Indeed, the notion that one set of values is superior to others is ubiquitous in American society, drives much of American politics today, and explains the activities of various advocacy groups.  If you have any doubt, then just try to engage three strangers in a discussion of abortion, gun rights/control, and health care.  You likely won’t find many value relativists.

And we see the same phenomenon amongst religions and religious people throughout this country.  The dominant religious groups in the U.S. believe in G-d and in the supremacy of their view of divinity.  That doesn’t mean they don’t respect or tolerate others’ beliefs and practices.  But let’s be clear, most religious groups believe they’re right and everyone else is wrong (or, at least, less right).

Accordingly, anyone who rejects the claim that a single cultural tradition is better than all others is necessarily not a subscriber to most religions (or has, perhaps, defined the term “cultural tradition” in a meaningless fashion).  This supremely relativistic philosophy is a minority view that is largely reserved to cultural elites and academics, albeit not all of them.

In fact, the Wax/Alexander proposal is not a moral claim of cultural optimality at all.  Rather, they assert, about their bucket of values, that “[a]dherence was a major contributor to the productivity, educational gains, and social coherence of that period.”  This consequentialist position is ultimately subject to empirical verification.  At minimum, it’s a plausible hypothesis — so much so, in fact, as to be mildly banal.

Thus, at bottom, Wax and Anderson have stated a position that certain values lead to better individual and collective outcomes.  If discussants were to address the substance going forward, they would marshal evidence in support of their positions.  Penn Law’s dean chose a different path.  He — somewhat ironically, given his position — eschews the debate entirely.  He’s free to do so, no doubt, but I don’t think that should stop the rest of us from engaging in an intellectual discourse regarding how to improve the well-being of Americans.

*Robert Steinbuch joined the Bowen School of Law faculty in 2005 after several years in government and private practice. Professor Steinbuch’s government service includes working for the United States Court of Appeals, the United States Department of Justice, and United States Senate Judiciary Committee. Recently, Professor Steinbuch served as a Fulbright Scholar and continues as a Peer Reviewer. Professor Steinbuch recently coauthored, along with John Watkins and Richard Peltz-Steele, the Arkansas Supreme Court cited treatise: The Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, Sixth Edition.

The post Waxing Nostalgic appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

The views expressed in this post are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect views of the Journal, the William H. Bowen School of Law, or 糖心Vlog传媒 Little Rock.

CW: Rape; Assault

There are several PSAs and programs that proudly claim that 鈥渃onsent is sexy!鈥�. That may be true, but it is not just 鈥渟exy鈥�, it鈥檚 the law, and not obtaining consent for a sexual act is illegal.
In the time it took to write this blog post (about an hour), 78 women have been raped (statistic provided from https://acasa.us/statistics). 78 women, sisters, girlfriends, daughters. But what exactly is rape?

The legal definition of rape in Arkansas states:

(A) A person commits rape if he engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity with another person:

(1) By forcible compulsion; or
(2) Who is incapable of consent because he is physically helpless, mentally defective or mentally incapacitated; or
(3) Who is less than fourteen (14) years of age; or
(4) Who is less than eighteen (18) years of age, and the actor:

(a) The victim鈥檚 guardian;
(b) Uncle, aunt, grandparent or step-grandparent, grandparent by adoption; (c) Brother, sister or the whole or half-blood or by adoption;
(d) Nephew, niece or first cousin.

This is Arkansas Code 5-14-103. There are other sexual assault laws in Arkansas such as 5-14-101, Sexual Assault, and 5-14-110, Sexual Indecency With a Child.

Basically, rape is sex without consent. Which leads to the critical question of what is consent, and when is it required.

Consent is when your sexual partner AGREES to a sexual act affirmatively, that consent is freely given, and the partner has the capacity to agree.

There are multiple ways of analyzing consent.

. The three main questions to ask if is there is affirmative consent, was it freely given consent, and was there capacity to consent.

Affirmative consent: This is an expression of consent. The person will expressly say that they want the sexual act to occur. A few questions to consider are if the person expressed words indicating agreement for sexual acts? For example: Yes, I want this. Yes, I like this. Yes, go on. This is a green light, and consent. It is NOT consent if the person says certain terms such as 鈥淚 don鈥檛 know鈥�, 鈥淐an we stop鈥�, or 鈥淣O鈥�. Typically, any expression with 鈥淣O鈥� or any uncertainty is NOT a green light, and NOT consent.

Freely given consent: The second question to ask is whether the consent was freely given. Was the consent offered of the person鈥檚 own free will, without being induced by fraud, coercion, violence, or threat of violence? If they were forced to agree because they were scared, or threatened that is not consent.

Capacity to consent: This is probably the most confusing part of consent. Capacity to consent means the person had the capacity to agree. The question is did the individual have the capacity, or legal ability, to consent?

Arkansas law states that:

There is a lack of consent if a person engages in a sexual act with another person by forcible compulsion or with a person who is incapable of consent because he or she is physically helpless, mentally defective or mentally incapacitated. Arkansas Code 搂搂 5-14-103; 5-14-125.

鈥淢entally defective鈥� means that a person suffers from a mental disease or defect that renders the person: incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of a sexual act; or unaware a sexual act is occurring.

鈥淢entally incapacitated鈥� means that a person is temporarily incapable of appreciating or controlling the person鈥檚 conduct as a result of the influence of a controlled or intoxicating substance: administered to the person without the person鈥檚 consent; or that renders the person unaware a sexual act is occurring.

Sex and Alcohol

This might be the most confusing topic in regards to consent.

It is possible that sex can be consensual when two people have been drinking. There are people who drink, and even get drunk, and still consent to sex. But the issue is that after someone has consumed alcohol, it is much harder to convey consent to the other person, and it hard to determine if the other party has consented. Alcohol can inhibit clear communication, and also increase aggressiveness, both problems that can lead to sexual assault. The best option is to continue to check in with the other party, and keep making sure that they want the sexual acts to continue.

So how much do you need to drink to be unable to consent?

Arkansas has a law stating that a person cannot consent to sex if they are incapacitated by drugs or alcohol. But how 鈥渋ncapacitation鈥� is defined is open to interpretation. While having sex with a passed out person is definitely not consensual, that should not be the only measure of consent. There are more things to consider than just consciousness. For example, a responsible partner would be asking themselves if the person can communicate clearly, are they coherent? Could they drive right now? Are they sober enough to be aware of what is happening? If the answer is no to any of these questions, then it is safe to assume the other person is too incapacitated to legally consent to sex. If there is any doubt, or mixed messages- don鈥檛 do it.

What if your partner said they did not want to have sex while they were sober, but changed their mind after drinking? Although there is no clear law, it is still best to tread carefully, and when in doubt, wait until the other person is fully sober, and then check in again. A few good things to consider are how much alcohol has this person had since you last asked them if they wanted to engage in sexual activity? Has this person indicated that they would want to have sex when they were sober? Even if they did say yes while sober, it is still good to keep asking. Also, another good question to consider is if you have been intoxicated with this person before. If you have, are they usually able to make lucid decisions? It does not necessarily mean they are sober enough to consent, but might give some more context to how intoxicated they are at the moment. On the other hand, if you have never drank with this person before, it is a good idea to be cautious, and continue to ask, and wait until you get a clear, affirmative consent.

In conclusion, if one person, or both parties are drinking it is a good idea to ask before, during, after, and continue checking in during any sexual activity. Check in during any change of activity, check in if you stop and start again, just keep asking. If there is any confusion, do not take the mixed signals as consent. If you have not been sexually active with this person before, or have not been intoxicated with this person before, a good rule of thumb is to NOT mix the two for the first time. Be comfortable with what they are like when they are intoxicated, or be familiar with what they are okay with first, before trying to mix alcohol and sex.

鈥淧hysically helpless鈥� means that a person is: unconscious; physically unable to communicate a lack of consent; or rendered unaware that a sexual act is occurring. Arkansas Code 搂搂 5-14-101.

In short, consent is ALWAYS required. If you are not sure if the act was consensual, that is a good indication that it was not.

The post Consent is Not Just Sexy, it’s Mandatory: A Primer on Consent appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

The views expressed in this post are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect views of the Journal, the William H. Bowen School of Law, or 糖心Vlog传媒 Little Rock.

In October 2016, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to discuss how tools associated with 鈥淏ig Data鈥� are shaping the future of human resources administration and, by extension, employment discrimination. The meeting was part of the EEOC鈥檚 ongoing effort to gather information about the use of data analytics in the employment setting as the Commission considers whether new practices will require new guidance or regulation.

鈥淏ig Data鈥� generally refers to the use of algorithms and other data processing technologies to scrape, sort, and analyze massive amounts of information that are too large for traditional database management techniques. Several federal agencies have been exploring the promises and threats of Big Data tools following a 2014 report from the White House titled, 鈥淏ig Data: Seizing Opportunities, Preserving Values.鈥� The report warned that 鈥渂ig data analytics have the potential to eclipse longstanding civil rights protections in how personal information is used in housing, credit, employment, health, education, and the marketplace,鈥� and encouraged regulatory actors to become more familiar with the potential impact of the increasingly widespread technologies. This post provides an overview of some key issues related to Big Data and employment discrimination as part of a larger conversation about the role of technology in the workplace and beyond.

Potential Problems

The increasing use of data analytics techniques to mine and process information has the potential to impact a wide range of employment issues, many of which are already the topic of popular discussion. Privacy concerns, for example, are just as relevant in the workplace as they are in other areas where third parties track and store behavior data. The issue that is likely of greatest concern for the EEOC and employment lawyers, however, is the potential for apparently neutral algorithms used in recruiting and hiring to have an unintended discriminatory impact or to mask intentional discrimination.

Indeed, while the purported neutrality of algorithms is seen as a boon for human resources professionals, it can also serve to conceal biases that have been historically endemic to many sectors.

For an example of how employment discrimination can be baked into an apparently neutral system, we can look at a common use
for Big Data in the hiring process: rating applicants based on characteristics and behavior that, while not directly related to employment, are strongly correlated with good job performance.where a tech firm found that fandom of a particular Japanese manga was correlated with high computer programming skill levels. Following the identification of this correlation, the company began measuring the affinity for this manga site in their assessment of applicants.

One glaring issue with this reliance on external information is that it favors applicants with a trail of data that can be mined for a particular characteristic, to the exclusion of those who may not have a significant record of online behavior. A similar issue arises in measures not tied to internet access. For instance, an algorithm that correlates owning a sports car with strong leadership skills will disfavor applicants without a car, as well as those whose car choice reflects more pragmatic choices related to family size and income.

Big Data tools can also act to preserve demographic inertia in industries that traditionally lack workforce diversity. Correlations between certain characteristics and job performance may be tinged by past discrimination in hiring and promotion. Once hidden in the 鈥渂lack box鈥� of algorithmic complexity, spurious correlations may recreate workplace demographics of a bygone era while maintaining an air of scientific neutrality.

Disparate Impact Claims

There are several legal concerns that arise in relation to the use of Big Data tools in hiring and other areas of employment. The legal standard that is most relevant to this blog is the prohibition of employment practices that have a disparate impact on protected groups, enshrined in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (鈥淭itle VII鈥�) as well as the Age and Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). This principle applies to facially nondiscriminatory practices, like an apparently neutral algorithm, which can be shown to disproportionately disfavor candidates on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or age.

Under Title VII, employers can defend a practice by demonstrating that it is both job-related and a business necessity, but the fact that algorithmic hiring practices may rely on correlations with no apparent connection to necessary job skills (e.g., the aforementioned manga fandom) opens the door for successful disparate impact claims. The ADEA sets a lower bar for defending a practice that has a disparate impact on older workers, requiring employers to show only that they relied on reasonable factors other than age. Even this standard, however, calls for consideration of   

Moving Forward

Any claim that a hiring algorithm is unlawful will have to contend with the fundamental complexity of Big Data sorting tools. The webs of correlations and calculations used to parse applicant data are often difficult to disentangle, creating an imposing barrier for would-be plaintiffs. Additionally, employers rarely design the algorithms that they use, making it even more difficult to identify the root cause of the discriminatory result.

Fortunately, employers can pre-emptively avoid many of the potential pitfalls identified in this post through basic diligence in their use of Big Data tools. Businesses wanting to ensure that their employment practices are both lawful and fair should seek to understand the characteristics that their algorithms rely on for sorting and ranking employees and applicants. Further, employers should evaluate new tools before their implementation to assess the potential of discriminatory impact. These simple steps will go a long way towards preventing illegal discrimination.

Conclusion

The use of Big Data is as pervasive in employment as it is in any other area our society. As a reports,

53 percent of HR departments use big data to help make strategic decisions; 71 percent use it for the sourcing, recruitment or selection of candidates; 63 percent use it to identify the causes of turnover and for employee retention strategies or trends; and 61 percent use it to manage talent and performance.

With nearly two-thirds of surveyed employers using Big Data tools for 鈥渟ourcing, recruitment, or selection of candidates,鈥� it is imperative that all parties involved be familiar with the implications of these methods.

Approached with foresight and diligence, Big Data tools have the potential to provide powerful benefits. As with many issues concerning civil rights, public agencies at the federal, state, and local levels will likely need to play a key role in both protecting the public from harmful practices and promoting the development of beneficial technology. As citizens and advocates, it is our job to ensure that the path forward for these new tools is one that broadens and enhances opportunities, rather than constraining them.

This is the first in a series of posts exploring the impact of technology on civil rights, civil liberties, and other areas of public interest.

The post Technical Difficulties: A Primer on Big Data and Employment Discrimination appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.