BU Law Forum Urges Community to Take Action
The Strategic Engagement Forum, organized by the School’s clinical programs and student groups, offered concrete steps to positive disruption.
“What can I do?” That was the sentiment that many students, faculty, and administrators felt in the wake of last November’s election. In response, a call to public service and activism that had been dormant in many students was awakened, but the pragmatic question remained: how can I help right now?
To answer that question, the clinical programs Boston University School of Law hosted a Strategic Engagement Forum on April 15 to share information about changes under the new administration that were affecting a range of legal rights and benefits of many members of the community, to discuss how lawyers and law students could make their voices heard, and to raise strategies about how they could contribute to the effort to protect threatened rights and interests. Clinical Professor Susan Akram, along with many of the clinical faculty and with the help of student groups, organized a series of panels on immigration, anti-Muslim policies, criminal justice, reproductive justice and public benefits, US international treaty engagement, refugees, and cybersecurity.
The day began with a panel on immigration, moderated by Clinical Instructor Sarah Sherman Stokes. Lawyers with the Massachusetts branch of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the American Immigration Law Association (AILA) recounted their experiences at Logan International Airport searching for a plaintiff to challenge President Trump’s January 27 executive order limiting immigration from seven majority Muslim countries. Several lawyers from the legal team that challenged the ban described the intense collaboration involved in drafting the motions and securing a late-night hearing in federal court that culminated in an order enjoining the ban’s implementation. Patricia Montes of Centro Presente, an immigrants’ rights group in Boston, urged young attorneys in the room: “Be an activist. Don’t just sit in front of a computer screen.”
That appeal to move beyond passivity and into action became the underlying theme of the forum. In the next panel on anti-Muslim policies, Anwar Omeish, a sophomore at Harvard College, warned about the risk of McCarthyism in the criminalization of affiliating with Muslim organizations. On the same panel, Barbara Dougan of the Council on American-Islamic Relations detailed the dozens of anti-Muslim hate crimes that have taken place since November of last year. Ms. Dougan warned that it is unacceptable to remain a bystander in the face of this rising tide of hate. She advised anyone observing a hateful act to focus on protecting the victim rather than merely expressing disapproval. She recommended taking one of many trainings available on bystander intervention to help protect victims of discriminatory harassment or hate crimes.
Wendy Kaplan and David Rossman of the Criminal Law Clinical Program moderated two panels on criminal justice under the new administration. Judge Jay Blitzman, US Attorney Michelle Leung, Elizabeth McIntyre (’14) of Greater Boston Legal Services, and Lisa Thurau, director of Strategies for Youth, discussed the school-to-prison pipeline and reforms that have been initiated both in the court system and in schools to reduce the high risks of youth criminalization, and current threats to these important reforms. Professor Rossman began the discussion on mass incarceration and community policing with the observation that the same term is used for astronauts returning from space as for people returning to community after prison: re-entry. Panelists included Jasmine Gomez (’16) of Free Speech for People, Tatum Pritchard, Prisoner’s Legal Services, and Hannah Tanabe (’15), Greater Boston Legal Services, discussed the systemic problems of over-policing and the school-to-prison pipeline that plague many minority communities. They emphasized that once a person is pulled into this pipeline, even release from prison does not allow him or her to start a new life. The individual faces huge post-release bureaucratic hurdles that prevent a successful re-integration into society and limit the ability to really free himself from the criminal justice system.
“We need to take a hard look at abolishing systems that incarcerate people,” ACLU Staff Attorney Carl Williams said, because it imposes on society only one question towards the prisoner, “How can I fix them?” A better question, Mr. Williams continued, is “How do we fix the system?” Gomez suggested that people who want to become involved with solutions can volunteer or collaborate with organizations like the National Lawyers Guild and the Student Immigrant Movement which are in the trenches in the fight against mass incarceration and over-policing.
Panelists in the session on international law and US policy discussed the history and current state of affairs in the US’s involvement in refugee resettlement, the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Robert Kirsch, partner at WilmerHale Boston, and one of the lead lawyers in the Guantanamo Supreme Court litigation, offered a thumbnail sketch of some of the legal complexities and expenses involved in the Guantanamo Bay prison, noting that “we’ve heard the president claim that he wants to put a lot of ‘bad dudes’ at Guantanamo… if I wanted to put bad dudes any place, the last place I would probably bring them would be there.” John Cerone, professor of international law at the Fletcher School at Tufts University and the University of Windsor Faculty of Law, discussed some of the critical issues the ICC is facing with regard to potential war crimes prosecutions against Israel and the record of cases against members of the African Union. He raised the implications of the US’s lack of engagement with the ICC and what that means for US leadership on prosecuting human rights abuses around the world. Angela Bovill (QUESTROM’05), president and CEO of Ascentria Care Alliance discussed the new administration’s suspension of refugee resettlement and the effects that has had on the current global refugee crisis, particularly the Syrians. She reminded the audience that the US has a long tradition of humanitarianism, and urged the community to take action to protect the refugee resettlement program in the US: “hopefully, all of you, like me, are going to dig your heels in and fight like the dickens to make sure that this country, and the Statue of Liberty, actually mean something.”
Closing out the day were two panels on reproductive justice, public benefits, and cybersecurity and privacy. The reproductive justice and benefits panel, moderated by Clinical Associate Professor Constance Browne of the Civil Litigation Program included the founding director of the Abortion Access Project, Susan Yanow. She outlined the extreme restrictions faced by women who seek abortions, abortion and reproductive rights counseling in states such as Mississippi, Missouri, and Wyoming. In these states and others, women have to travel hundreds of miles to find a clinic that performs these services. In spite of these challenges and increasing restrictions on access to abortion, Ms. Yanow offered the insight that: “Women have always figured out how to control their fertility, and they will continue to do so.”
The cybersecurity panel, moderated by the director of the Technology & Cyberlaw Clinic Andrew Sellars, included Kade Crockford of the ACLU, Nathan Freitas of the Guardian Project, and Mason Kortz of Harvard’s Berkman Center. Panelists were unanimous in recommending an abundance of caution in protecting cyber information. They warned that government dragnets to collect digital personal information will continue and increase over time. Individuals must be aggressive in taking responsibility for safeguarding their personal information, as panelists recommended a series of measures, starting with a simple two-step verification for email and social media accounts.
The conference packed a wealth of information over the course of eight hours, focusing on strategies to protect individual rights and privacy at a time when the government has little concern for either. The forum was a one-day practicum aimed at students, faculty, and members of the broader Boston community who want to get involved with issues they care about and learn how to be positively disruptive.
Reported by Trevor Persaud (STH’18)
Resources
Related News
- Immigration, the Environment, Executive Actions, and the Limitations of the Executive Branch
- BU Law Students’ Amicus Examines Constitutionality of Immigration Detainers
- IHRC Students Investigate European Union Policies Impacting Refugees
- BU Law Students Assist Travelers Affected by President’s Executive Orders