Novalawcity

Student Information Literacy: Reality and and Possibilities

Are today’s college students prepared to be “digital citizens”? Do they have the tools they need to find, evaluate, and use information in today’s wired world? A Northwestern University suggests not, and a white paper offers some minimum standards for information literacy.

A recent study shows that while college students may be able to find information online, they are not very good at figuring out what information is reliable and authoritative. The study was released by the Communications Studies department at Northwestern University (the press release at http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2010/07/Google.html; the article that reports the study is at http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/view/636/423). The students in the study relied on commercial search engines like Google, and could not distinguish useful, unbiased websites from biased ones. For example,  the students confuse search rankings with authoritativeness (higher rankings meaning better websites), and they assume that an “.org” web address gives a web site authority (when any organization, even a well-known neo-Nazi group, can get an “.org”  address).

A recent white paper addressed this gap in information literacy. While it does not present solutions to the problem of digital literacy, it does propose some minimum standards that librarians and other educators can rely on. Titled “Basic 21st Century Technology, Information & Communication Skills for Successful Citizens,” (http://www.tblc.org/DigitalSkillsChecklist.pdf), it was written by Paul Alford, the Learning Services Manager for the Citrus County (Florida) library system. The ambitious list suggests skills in three areas, Digital Skills, Information Resource Skills, and Communication & Cognitive Skills, that are necessary for people to be fully prepared to address their own information needs. The list builds on basic skills to support more complex ones. It outlines the sills necessary to make important decisions, learn for themselves, and be engaged with society and government--very important for the law student and lawyer.

A Trend in GLBT Discrimination Law?

Three recent court decisions, and an ABA policy shift, may indicate a trend in LGBT rights law towards greater protection for the LGBT community. First, a transwoman (a male-to-female transsexual) won a recent federal employment-discrimination lawsuit against the Georgia State Assembly (here is the order in this case, Glenn v. Brumby). Second, a Massachusetts federal judge ruled July 8th in two related cases; in one order, in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act 11 U.S.C. § 7, enacted in 1996, is unconstitutional; and in another order, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. HHS, that the federal government could not deny the benefits accorded to married couples to same-sex couples married under Massachusetts law. And third, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled that a proposed referendum on same-sex marriage was prohibited under the city’s human-rights law (Christian Science Monitor  story; Washington Times story).

In the policy realm, the American Bar Association (ABA) is considering taking a public position in favor of same-sex marriage.  According to an ABA press release at ABANow.org, the website of the American Bar AssociationMedia Relations & Communication Services, the proposal, to be considered by the ABA House of Delegates at the ABA Annual Meeting in August, “would urge state-level governments to eliminate all legal barriers to civil marriage between two persons of the same sex who are otherwise eligible to marry and build on a 2004 ABA policy opposing a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and prohibit states from allowing same sex couples to enter civil marriage.”

The National Organization for Marriage opposes the Massachusetts federal judge’s decisions: as Brian Brown, its president stated, “A single federal judge in Boston has no moral right to decide the definition of marriage for the people of the United States”; and plans to appeal the D.C. Court of Appeals ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court: “The central issue in this case is whether the people of the District of Columbia will be able to exercise their constitutional right to vote on this important issue, just as voters in 31 states have been able to do.” The American Spectator website carried an March 3rd, 2010 editorial written by William C. Duncan, the director of the Marriage Law Foundation. Duncan noted that “With the extreme subjectivity and irrelevance of nearly all of the plaintiffs' evidence, it is fair to ask what illumination this show trial has provided. This "civics lesson" is beginning to look more like a cautionary tale about the dangers of legal hubris. Certainly our fundamental social institution deserves better.”

But even according to opponents of same-sex marriage, there seems to be a dearth of factual support for the idea that same-sex marriage is somehow inimical to heterosexual marriage. In a pretrial hearing in the lawsuit over California’s Proposition 8 ban of same-sex marriage, according to MSNBC coverage on October 14, 2009, there was a fascinating exchange between the judge and one of the attorneys defending Proposition 8 last year. Federal trial-court judge Vaughn Walker asked "What is the harm to the procreation purpose you outlined of allowing same-sex couples to get married?" Charles Cooper, one of the defense attorneys, responded "My answer is, I don't know. I don't know."

Does the apparent increasing velocity of GLBT rights, and the dearth of factual support for opposition to same-sex marriage, presage a decision in the federal trial over Proposition 8 in California--or even in higher-level courts?

Understanding the New U.S. Health-care Environment, Part 2

According to an email from the Federal Depository Library Program:

"The Health Care Reform legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives is available on GPO's Federal Digital System (FDsys). To view the electronic versions of the legislation, debate and vote click here for the press release: http://www.gpo.gov/pdfs/news-media/press/10news12.pdf

"In addition, printed copies can be purchase through GPO's Online Bookstore: http://bookstore.gpo.gov/collections/health-bills-reports.jsp."

The GPO PDF is chock-full of links, so I won't repeat them here.

Understanding the New U.S. Health-care Environment

On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the House passed H.R. 4872, the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010. The Act passed by a vote of 220-211. No Republicans voted for the bill, and 34 Democrats voted against it. The New York Times has an article on the history and context of the new law.

If you, like many people, are wondering how this new law will affect the U.S. health-care system, the Atlantic magazine's Web site has a useful, short article on the insurance and tax implications of the new law. The Wall Street Journal has a news story about what is in the new law, and has more coverage of the new law, with a time-line of when the changes go into effect. For example, there has been some confusion in the press about when the Act's restrictions on denials of coverage for pre-existing conditions goes into effect. This article clarifies this. For children, coverage denials for pre-existing conditions are banned starting in 2010. For adults, coverage denials for pre-existing conditions are banned starting in 2013.

The New York Times' David Brooks thinks the new health-care bill is good. For a contrary editorial, see this piece in the Wall Street Journal.

Public Corruption, Part Two: Florida Faces, Tries to Fight Public Corruption

The Federal honest-services fraud statute is being tested after a number of officials in Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties have been arrested for public corruption. Some Florida legislators--and the Broward and Palm Beach County State Attorrneys, Michael Satz and Michael McAuliffe--are advocating strengthening of Florida's public-corruption laws in ways that do not depend on the language of the Federal honest-services fraud statute. Called the "Restoring Faith in Public Office Act," the new state legislation, SB 1076 (bill information page) (bill text), would amend Florida Statutes section 838.022, "Official misconduct," to include failing, with corrupt intent, to disclose a financial interest or a direct or indirect benefit.

The bill is sponsored by Democratic state senator Dan Gelber, and supported by other Democrats. The Miami Herald ran an article about the new public-corruption legislation, and the Sun-Sentinel ran an editorial advocating the legislation. According to the Sun-Sentinel, the legislation's chances of passage are limited unless it acquires bipartisan support.

Public Corruption, Part One: Honest-Services Fraud

Public corruption and honest services fraud are an issue both in Florida and nationally. My next two blog posts will address this issue, first on the Federal level, then on the state level.

Public officials and businesspeople in the U.S. are being charged and in some cases convicted under the Federal honest services fraud statute. The statute, 18 U.S.C. §1346 (1988), is itself an addendum to 18 U.S.C. chapter 63, "Mail Fraud and Other Fraud Offenses," which includes wire fraud and bank fraud. Section 1346, which does not itself define a crime, adds to the definition of "scheme or artifice to defraud." It reads: "For the purposes of this chapter, the term 'scheme or artifice to defraud' includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."

The Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of the honest services fraud statute in three cases this term: Black v. United States, Weyhrauch v. United States, and Skilling v. United States.  (The links are to SCOTUSWiki, a companion site to SCOTUSBlog, brought to you by Akin Gump's Supreme Court and Appellate practice group.) According to the Los Angeles Times, during the arguments over Black and Weyhrauch, on December 9, 2009, the Supreme Court seemed dubious about the constitutionality of the honest-services fraud statute, with no real ideological split. The honest-services fraud statute is analyzed, and its history delved into, in this article originally published on the American Bar Association's Web site, "The Honest Services Statute: Scalpel or Axe?"  The Miami Herald ran an editorial in December 2009 about the necessity of the honest-services fraud statute.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" May Be Repealed

The White House and the U.S. military, with the support of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, are moving to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, codified at 10 U.S.C. §654 (1993). Under "don't ask, don't tell," service members are not questioned over their sexual orientation but are subject to discharge if they reveal publicly that they are gay or lesbian. Accoding to the New York Times's coverage, the Obama administration was faced with a choice: move away from the policy, or defend in court a policy which President Obama had long thought was wrong.

Here are some more links about "don't ask, don't tell":

• Google has a timeline of the debate, starting in 1993.


• Center for Military Readiness President Elaine Donnelly opposes repeal.


• The New York Times published an editorial advocating the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell.


• Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State Colin Powell now favors repeal.


• Retired Navy Capt. Joan E. Darrah, who served 29½ years as a naval intelligence officer and was chief of staff and deputy commander at the Office of Naval Intelligence, describes her experiences under "don't ask, don't tell."

ABA Sends Letter to Attorney General Holder Supporting Federal Trials for Guantanamo Detainees

Saying that the alternative, trials before the original military commissions, "would have failed to provide the credibility that is essential to acceptance of any final verdict", ABA President Carolyn Lamm expressed the ABA's support of the Justice Department's decision to move the trials to federal court.  Read the BLT blog post for more details, including a link to the full text of the letter.

United Nations' International Day of Peace, September 21, 2009

Since 1981, the United Nations has been promoting an International Day of Peace (IDP) as a “day of global ceasefire and non-violence". This year, leading up to the September 21 observance, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon started a campaign with the slogan WMD - We Must Disarm. On the International Day of Peace website, you can sign the WMD declaration, share your top reasons for disarmament, and learn about current and previous IDP activities. You can also follow the WMD campaign on Twitter, Facebook and MySpace.

Financial Institutions Fight Creation of Consumer Financial Protection Agency - Wonder Where the Money in Their War Chest Came From?

The White House has sent a plan to create a new agency, to be known as the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, to Congress.  Whereas now, the enforcement of consumer protection measures is fragmented among the agencies which regulate the various financial institutions, this agency would have sole responsibility for protecting consumers from practices such as predatory lending, arbitrary changes in credit card rates and other deceptive financial practices.  It would be charged with looking out for consumers' financial interests across the board, whether the financial institution involved was a bank or a mortgage broker or a credit union.  Predictably, the very financial institutions we are propping up with our collective taxes are opposed to anything that interferes with their ability to extract more profit from each individual taxpayer.  See this story in The New York Times.