Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Just before the holiday season, as he entered his final month as President of the United States, Joe Biden announced that he would be granting clemency to roughly 1,500 American citizens. The clemency acts, which included sentence commutations for individuals placed on home confinement during the pandemic and pardons for 39 individuals with non-violent offenses, were touted by the administration as the most ever in a single day in modern history. A month later, on January 17, he commuted the sentences of roughly 2,500 individuals convicted of non-violent drug offenses, shattering December's mark and giving him the most pardons and commutations of any president in United States history. The unprecedented size of the actions has been underscored throughout The White House’s press materials and has headlined most subsequent news coverage. But for Anton Robinson, JD, associate professor of law and director of Villanova’s Caritas Clemency Clinic in the Charles Widger School of Law, the importance of the clemency went far beyond the impressive scale. “Acts like these bring much needed awareness to the clemency process, and to the epidemic of excessive sentencing in United States courtrooms,” Professor Robinson said. “At our clinic, we are already having people call to ask about opportunities for pardons and additional support for their cases.” Public perception of presidential acts of clemency can, at times, be marred by partisan divisiveness. To some, these latest acts were overshadowed by President Biden’s earlier pardon of his son, Hunter, and eyes are already on incoming President Trump regarding how he might handle those charged in relation to the January 6 insurrection. Professor Robinson acknowledges that acts like these can cause people to “rightfully question the power that is being used,” but those are the outliers, not the norms, and steer the conversation away from the root purpose of clemency. “People deserve a second chance,” Professor Robinson said. “There’s a tendency for system actors to focus primarily on the crime committed when considering whether a person’s sentence should be cut short. But many are different people today—sometimes decades later—than they were at the time of the crime’s commission. “There is also no shortage of individuals in prison for whom a charge doesn’t tell the whole story. For example, a young person’s involvement in a crime, while sufficient for a legal conviction, might be weighed differently today, given increasing acceptance of scientific research on the portion of the human brain which controls decision-making, impulse control and executive function. Research shows all of that continues to develop well into adulthood.” Determining who fits the criteria for clemency, Professor Robinson says, is not always easy to do. Collecting records of good behavior that illustrate change while in a carceral setting is much more difficult than collecting records of bad behavior. That’s why entities like the Caritas Clemency Clinic, in which Villanova Law students work directly on behalf of such clients under Professor Robinson’s guidance, spend so much time talking to anyone who has had a relationship with the incarcerated person. “What we often find is that despite being incarcerated and having very little given opportunity, these individuals make their own opportunities to build community and rich relationships and try their best to contribute to society in a positive way,” Professor Robinson said. A military veteran who helped church members in poor health perform tasks. A nurse who spearheaded COVID vaccination efforts and natural disaster response. A counselor who helps guide youth away from destructive behavior and involvement with gangs. Those are the types of actions Professor Robinson references, all of which were highlighted specifically in the White House’s fact sheet for President Biden's December acts, just before the words “The United States is a nation of second chances.” “I'm hoping that these large acts of clemency encourage folks to think, ‘Hey, what about my loved one? What about me? I am a completely different person than I was 20 years ago, what can I do to try to secure my freedom and my ability to live the life that I've missed out on?’” Professor Robinson said. “It really is a great opportunity to remind ourselves that people are far better than the worst things that they've ever done, and that we have an opportunity to acknowledge that as a society and to encourage more of this action, both on a federal and state level.”
Congestion Pricing Legal Gray Area
Hofstra Law Professor James Sample appeared on CBS News New York to give a legal analysis of the recent New York congestion pricing ruling.
ExpertSpotlight: The History of Presidential Pardons in America
Presidential pardons have long been a cornerstone of executive power in the United States, granting the president the ability to forgive federal offenses. Rooted in the Constitution and modeled after the British royal prerogative, this authority has sparked significant legal and ethical debates since the nation’s founding. Understanding the history and implications of presidential pardons provides insights into American governance, justice, and the balance of power. This topic presents compelling opportunities for journalists to delve into its historical and contemporary significance. Key story angles include: Origins of the Presidential Pardon: Exploring how and why the pardon power was enshrined in the Constitution, including influences from English law and debates among the Founding Fathers. The First Presidential Pardon: Detailing the story of George Washington’s 1795 pardon of participants in the Whiskey Rebellion and its impact on shaping the use of executive clemency. Controversial Pardons in History: Investigating high-profile pardons, such as those granted by Presidents Andrew Johnson, Gerald Ford, and Donald Trump, and their political and social ramifications. Legal and Ethical Perspectives: Examining what legal scholars and historians say about the scope of pardon power, including debates over its limits and potential for misuse. Pardons and Social Justice: Highlighting cases where pardons were used to address systemic injustices, such as civil rights-era convictions or drug-related offenses. Comparing Global Practices: Analyzing how the U.S. approach to executive clemency compares to pardon systems in other democracies and the broader implications for justice. The history and evolution of presidential pardons open the door to meaningful discussions about justice, accountability, and the executive branch’s influence, offering journalists a wealth of perspectives to explore. Connect with an expert about the History of Presidential Pardons in America: To search our full list of experts visit www.expertfile.com
NYS Elected Officials Worry About Retribution
Meena Bose and Lawrence Levy were interviewed for the Newsday article, “NYS Democrats facing a red reality with Trump’s return to power.” New York Democrat officials worry that President-Elect Trump’s return to office may have consequences for federal aid, environmental and public health regulations, and immigrants and marginalized groups. “New York residents and those of others in blue states that again weren’t hospitable to Trump have to hope that he and his allies won’t declare a war of retribution,” said Dean Levy. “If nothing else, it could punish millions of Republicans who live in the same neighborhoods as the Democrats who voted against him.” Dr. Bose added that states have a better chance under the U.S. Constitution to push back on federal measures involving reproductive rights, but less legal authority to fight the White House or Congress on immigration and environmental issues that require national policies. Dr. Bose is a Hofstra University professor of political science, executive dean of the Public Policy and Public Service program, and executive director of the Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency. Lawrence Levy is associate vice president and executive dean of Hofstra’s National Center for Suburban Studies.
Higher Education Enters the Ring
Why it matters Yesterday’s announcement that Linda McMahon is President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Education ushers in a new era for universities and colleges. This signals a sharp pivot toward decentralization and pro-business policies, and it's expected that McMahon’s leadership will focus on dismantling traditional federal education structures, expanding school choice, and aligning education priorities with a business-first agenda. Higher education faces funding uncertainties, new accountability pressures, and the need to demonstrate its relevance in supporting economic growth. The Big Picture McMahon’s appointment reflects Trump’s broader strategy to reframe education policy in a way that prioritizes state control, entrepreneurship, and conservative cultural values. This will likely have significant consequences for higher education, including: Decentralization: Shifting control of education policy and funding to the states. School Choice Expansion: Redirecting public funds to private, religious, and homeschooling options. Economic Alignment: Pressuring institutions to support industry, small business, and workforce development through research, partnerships, and entrepreneurship/startup programs. Cultural Shifts: Rolling back policies on diversity, equity, and inclusion while emphasizing “patriotic” education. What’s at Stake Federal Funding Cuts: Threat: Research funding, Pell Grants, and other federal supports may face cuts. Reality Check: Congressional approval is required to eliminate funding streams like Title I, making complete federal withdrawal unlikely but changes and funding disruptions possible. Policy Shifts: Threat: Federal oversight will likely weaken, and policies favoring vocational and workforce-aligned education will likely put increased pressure on programs such as liberal arts. Universities will also likely face increasing pressure to align with ideological goals, such as restricting DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) initiatives. The new administration could wield considerable control over the school accreditation process, which has been seen by some to force ideological changes on campuses. There has been a movement to decentralize accreditation authority, reduce federal oversight, and align educational standards with conservative values. According to the Council for Higher Education, many of the ideas put forward focus on empowering states to authorize accrediting agencies and even serve as accreditors themselves, shifting control from federal to state governments. Action: Institutions must better identify their options amidst a rapidly evolving agenda at both the state and federal levels, develop strategies and secure the resources necessary. For instance, there are calls to prohibit accreditors from requiring institutions to implement Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies. Institutions also need to understand what the implications of a more diverse accreditation landscape could be, with standards varying significantly across states, potentially affecting the uniformity and transferability of academic credentials nationwide. Reputational Risks: Concern: Growing public skepticism toward higher education undermines enrolment and support. Impact: Conservative narratives favoring alternatives like apprenticeships and other programs that support the economy and job growth will likely gain traction. Preserving Institutional Independence: Pressure: Universities face increased scrutiny of their course curriculum and research priorities that may be deemed ideologically contentious. Opportunity: Institutions must tangibly demonstrate their value to society. The more they can do to break down barriers between “town and gown” and counter the narrative that paints them as too expensive, elitist, and out of touch. Demonstrating Economic Impact: Need: Universities must showcase their role in driving economic growth through research, commercialization, and support for small businesses and entrepreneurs. Opportunity: Institutions should communicate their relevance in relatable ways that engage with businesses, emphasizing tangible contributions to research innovation and job creation as a positive return on investment that can be messaged to taxpayers. Key Questions for Higher Ed Leaders Funding: How can we diversify revenue streams and reduce reliance on federal support? Advocacy: How should universities engage state and federal leaders to protect their interests? Reputation: How can higher education rebuild public trust and counter skepticism? Relevance: How do we better communicate the value of university research and its role in supporting a pro-business agenda? Adaptation: Can institutions innovate by expanding industry partnerships, online education, and workforce-aligned programs? Implications of Project 2025 Project 2025 is a comprehensive initiative spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, aiming to reshape the U.S. federal government through a conservative lens. Launched in April 2023, it serves as a strategic blueprint for a potential conservative administration, detailing policy proposals, personnel strategies, training programs, and a 180-day action plan. Analysis from the Brookings Institution states that "many proposals in Project 2025 would require an unlikely degree of cooperation from Congress, though others could be enacted unilaterally by a second Trump administration.” While we don’t know the full extent to which Project 2025 will be implemented, its agenda seeks to reshape federal agencies, including the Department of Education, with a significant impact on the sector. Key areas of focus include: Title I and Student Aid Proposals to give parents more control over federal funds could deprioritize public education. Tax Credits for School Choice Incentives to support private school tuition may shift K-12 pipelines, impacting university enrolment. Economic Realignment Universities will need to align with business priorities, emphasizing innovation, commercialization, and job creation. Diversity Equity & Inclusion Project 2025 explicitly calls for reducing federal spending on what it deems unnecessary or politicized initiatives, and DEI programs are likely to fall under this categorization. This could have wide-ranging impacts, including changes to school ranking systems that have a DEI component. Ranking bodies such as US News & World Report may need to adjust their methodologies to account for changes in diversity initiatives and data availability. With potential reductions in diversity-related data, rankings might place greater emphasis on other factors such as academic performance, faculty qualifications, and post-graduate outcomes. This also could extend to endowments, which direct funding toward diversity programs through scholarships and fellowships. For institutions that rely heavily on DEI as a cornerstone of their fundraising and donor relations strategies, they may experience reduced donor enthusiasm, particularly from philanthropic organizations or alumni committed to these causes. Regulatory Rollbacks There is the potential for significant changes to Title IX protections and federal loan forgiveness programs, creating legal and financial uncertainty. What Universities Can Do Now: Secure Funding Build relationships with private donors, businesses, and industry partners. Strengthen advocacy efforts at the state level to safeguard funding & other resources. Adopt proactive strategies to mitigate potential policy impacts, such as diversifying revenue sources, engaging donors with aligned government priorities, and ensuring compliance with evolving regulations. Reinforce Public Trust Explain complex topics in accessible ways to help the public and policymakers make informed decisions. Help promote and support faculty who can serve as credible sources for the media, countering misinformation and fostering informed dialogue. Strengthen community connections with your experts through public speaking engagements, workshops, and local events. Position the university as a hub for knowledge and innovation that benefits the community. Capitalize on the reach and influence of alumni. Highlight their successes to show how they benefitted from educational programs and research. Position them as important role models and advocates in the community who are contributing to economic growth. Demonstrate Relevance Showcase faculty and their research breakthroughs. Demonstrate how their work benefits industries, supports entrepreneurship and addresses societal challenges. Speak to real-world outcomes in health, technology, the environment, and more. Use accessible language to connect with policymakers, business leaders and taxpayers. Strengthen Advocacy: Partner with peer institutions to shape policy discussions. Position universities and colleges as vital contributors to a pro-business agenda. Innovate: Expand stackable credentials and micro-credential programs that are aligned with private and public sector requirements and emerging skills-based models. Look at new online education options. Embrace partnerships that connect academic research to real-world economic impact. Universities must deliver a more compelling, data-driven, yet humanized story about their institution’s contributions, fostering stronger relationships with government, the private sector, and taxpayers. What's Next This new era will most certainly challenge higher education to rethink its approach to funding, policy, and public engagement. For all institutions, both public and private, there is no place to hide. As they step into the ring, Higher Education leaders will need lots of support as they look to forge new paths for research, teaching, and community service while engaging their stakeholders in ways that more powerfully communicate their vital contributions to society. The bell has rung—are you ready?
Will There Be Legal Challenges to the 2024 Election Certification Process?
James Sample, professor of Constitutional Law, appeared on CBS News to discuss the 2024 presidential election results questions that remain about potential legal challenges.
Digital Contracting Is Broken. A Little "Friction" Could Go a Long Way in Fixing It
In mid-October, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a final “click-to-cancel” rule, which, after its provisions go into effect, will make it easier for consumers to cancel recurring memberships and subscriptions. The rule is an undoubtable victory for consumers who have run into roadblocks attempting to protect their wallets amid the flurry of oversubscription in today’s world, but it also begets an important question: Why is oversubscription occurring in the first place? “One important reason for that problem is that getting into contracts is frictionless, it’s too easy,” said Brett Frischmann, JD, the Charles Widger Endowed Professor in Law, Business and Economics in Villanova University’s Charles Widger School of Law. “The FTC is addressing a real concern in making it easier for people to exit agreements of this sort. But while making it as easy to unsubscribe as to subscribe sounds great – we all like even playing fields and symmetry – it might be better to also make subscribing a little more burdensome, so people understand what they are getting themselves into in the first place.” This idea is the focus of Frischmann’s recent paper, titled "Better Digital Contracts with Prosocial Friction-in-Design," the publication of which coincides with public dissatisfaction over digital contracting processes. In August, Disney attempted to have a wrongful death lawsuit blocked, citing print in terms and conditions from a one-month Disney+ free trial the plaintiff signed up for in 2019. Since then, other companies have succeeded in recently blocking the commencement of similar lawsuits. In the research, Frischmann and his co-author, Rice University computer scientist Moshe Vardi, describe these contracts as “dehumanizing” and that they “undermine human autonomy and sociality, by design,” citing how they elicit behavior in a pre-determined manner (such as clicking on cue) and often include side agreements with other entities, unbeknownst to the users. “One-click” contracts rely on legal fictions, such as presuming that clicking an “I have read the terms and conditions” button actually means that they have. They are structured this way intentionally. “The idea behind digital contracting is ‘Let’s make the contract as quick as possible before people leave or change their mind,” Frischmann said. “They only want to do the minimum that the law requires, and all the law requires is notice of terms and action that says, ‘I agree.’” For these reasons, he argues, modern digital contracting contradicts the purpose of contract law in the first place; enabling people to reach genuine agreements and cooperate. “It’s antithetical to the underlying values of a contract,” Frischmann said. “Autonomy is undermined because people are not able to exercise autonomy in a meaningful way when they are not actually capable of deliberating about the terms to which they are agreeing. As for being cooperative, there is no relationship. Digital contracts are completely one-sided.” So what can be done to combat this? “Speedbumps,” Frischmann says, referring to measures that can cause friction in the contracting process to better protect the user. Physical road speedbumps represent a useful analogy, because while they make things slightly more inconvenient for the user, they are deployed strategically where other values are at stake, like the safety of children playing outside. “People tolerate speedbumps,” Frischmann says, “because they serve a social purpose. Friction in digital contracts is similar.” With respect to improving digital contracting, there are multiple measures that can be taken that inherently have such friction, but not all of them are always appropriate. Completely Automated Public Turing Test to Tell Computers and Humans Apart (CAPTCHAs), for example, are a type of friction-in-design that serve a useful social purpose (security) and have become normalized and tolerated, but some CAPTCHAs are ableist and others may generate proprietary data. Where he sees the most beneficial friction existing is in comprehension, which in software form could be completing a task or passing a test to prove an individual understands the agreement. Comprehension is the basis for one of Frischmann’s proposed alterations to contract law. Currently, the oft-criticized concept of informed consent is utilized. He argues it should be replaced with demonstrably informed consent, in essence requiring entities to further show that people truly comprehend what they are agreeing to. “Right now, individuals assent to contracts, going along with terms someone else insisted upon,” he said. “But assenting to terms is very different than being informed and consenting. To demand demonstrably informed consent shifts the burden on the provider to generate evidence showing in fact a person understood and agreed.” In the recent Disney case, for example, demonstrably informed consent would have required not just clicking an agreement when signing up for Disney+, but that Disney somehow explained to an individual that if they sign up for a free trial, they cannot take the company to court, and further generating reliable evidence that the individual understood that. If that were the case, perhaps the individual would not have signed up. “Or, they may not have ever gone to the Disney park if they had [signed up],” Frischmann said. This proposed change in contract law, along with the various potential methods of engineered friction in digital contracts all circle back to the same goal: slowing down contracting where it affects people in ways they do not understand. “You can’t have digital contracting built like a highway, where it’s all as fast as possible all the time,” Frischmann said. “For our digitally networked environment, it needs to be built like a neighborhood.”
#ExpertSpotlight - Remembering the invasion of Grenada
The U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983 stands as a key moment in Cold War history, reflecting the complex dynamics of American foreign policy in the Caribbean. Known as Operation Urgent Fury, this military action was a response to political instability on the island and perceived threats to U.S. citizens and interests. The invasion not only shaped Grenada’s future but also influenced global perceptions of U.S. interventionism, raising questions about sovereignty, international law, and regional geopolitics. The significance of this event continues to resonate, offering numerous story angles for journalists. Key sub-topics include: Cold War Geopolitics and U.S. Foreign Policy: Exploring the broader Cold War context, the U.S.’s strategic interests in the Caribbean, and how the invasion shaped subsequent American foreign policy decisions. Debates on Sovereignty and International Law: Investigating the legal and ethical implications of the invasion, including debates about military intervention, national sovereignty, and international diplomacy. Impact on Grenada’s Political and Social Landscape: Examining the long-term effects of the invasion on Grenada’s political stability, economy, and society, and how the event is remembered locally. Media Coverage and Public Opinion: Analyzing how the invasion was covered by the media at the time, the public’s reaction in the U.S. and globally, and how it shaped perceptions of U.S. military power. The Role of Regional Powers and Alliances: Looking at the involvement of regional organizations like the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), and how the invasion impacted relationships between the U.S., Latin America, and the Caribbean. Lessons for Modern U.S. Military Interventions: Reflecting on the invasion’s legacy and what it teaches about the risks, justifications, and consequences of U.S. military interventions in other nations. As the anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Grenada approaches, this event offers an opportunity to revisit critical discussions on international intervention, geopolitical strategy, and the balance between national interests and global governance. Connect with an expert about the 1983 U.S. invasion of Grenada : To search our full list of experts visit www.expertfile.com Photo credit: Encyclopedia Britannica
Villanova Professor Releases Study on Gender Dynamics in the Beer-Drinking Community
Earlier this month, thousands of revelers donned dirndls and lederhosen to mark Oktoberfest, the annual celebration of Bavarian fare, oompah music and, above all else, beer. The fall festival is just one of many occasions, including happy hours, brewery tours and sporting events, where Americans enjoy the beverage. In fact, based on a recent report by the Pew Research Center, the U.S. population consumes approximately 6.6 billion gallons of beer each year, which averages out to about 26.5 gallons per adult of legal drinking age. However, while ales, lagers and stouts remain popular choices that bring people together, not everyone feels equally included. A new study by Shelly Rathee, PhD, the Diana and James Yacobucci '73 Assistant Professor of Marketing and Business Law, highlights a gender-based divide within the beer-drinking community, with female consumers often feeling overlooked and left out. "Due to the structure of the beer industry and marketplace, there is reason to believe that firms overproduce products that appeal to male audiences and overly communicate masculine aspects of beer consumption," says Dr. Rathee. "As a result, female consumers are made to feel (and may continue to feel) excluded by beer culture, on average. From a business standpoint, the beer industry may be limiting its total market potential in the process." As Dr. Rathee explains, the beer industry and marketplace are predominately populated by men, and academic literature has long indicated that male dominance in a social or business setting can alter the behaviors of women in myriad ways. In her project, "The Female Consumer Response Implications of Male Dominance in a Product’s Online Community," the professor sought to understand how this trend might manifest itself in an internet forum for beer aficionados, hobbyists and critics. By examining customer review data from the online community BeerAdvocate and conducting tests aimed at assessing gender-based differences in contributions, Dr. Rathee found that female consumers are inclined to defer to the male majority in such settings. In general, women either refrain from sharing their perspectives on products or adopt language characterized by what are commonly referred to as "masculinity themes." "Masculinity and femininity themes were drawn from the text of the online reviews and were identified using dictionaries derived from previous research on these topics," shares Dr. Rathee. "For example, if the consumer liked the taste of the beer, a more feminine way of describing this might be 'pleasant,' while a more masculine way might be 'strong.'" In these terms, the difference in expression might seem subtle. However, as Dr. Rathee contends, the prevalence of tens of thousands of reviews that lean toward a more masculine tone, with few offering a counterbalance, can have noticeable effects. A quick look at the beer aisle in your local supermarket reveals its impact, with bottles and cans featuring images of axe-wielding warriors, dinosaurs and gargoyles. "We found in our research that male dominance in a marketplace leads to lower trial intentions [plans to try or buy something] and brand attitudes among women," elaborates Dr. Rathee. "Therefore, we can argue that companies are likely to produce products, and marketing appeals, that are more targeted at male audiences." Although men are currently more than twice as likely as women to name beer as their preferred alcoholic beverage, Dr. Rathee suggests that there is potential to create opportunities that encourage more female drinkers to engage with beer culture. By fostering environments where women can express their preferences and perspectives, she believes the beer industry can become more inclusive and representative, ultimately enriching the community as a whole. "When featuring reviews on websites, an effort to balance out the presentation of ideas from male and female voices could be helpful," Dr. Rathee says. "Special categories could also be created to drive interest based on demographic characteristics that may include gender, among other factors. A more extreme measure would be to simply avoid including gender as a reviewer characteristic that is publicly viewable." Much like opening tents beside a beer hall, these steps could provide the necessary space and conditions for a more open and robust discussion of products to take place—to the benefit of both consumers and the industry. In the event they're increasingly pursued, that's something to which we can all raise a toast.
Life and Legacy of Lily Ledbetter
The life and legacy of Lily Ledbetter stand as a powerful testament to the ongoing fight for workplace equality and women's rights. As the face behind the landmark Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. case and the namesake of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, her story continues to resonate in today's battles for gender pay equity. This topic is especially relevant now as conversations around economic justice, corporate responsibility, and legislative change gain momentum across the globe. Ledbetter's fight highlights the enduring struggle for fair compensation and workplace equity, which remains a vital issue for the public. Key story angles that may interest a broad audience include: The impact of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act: Exploring how this legislation has shaped workplace policies and its continuing relevance in today's legal landscape. Gender pay equity today: Analyzing the wage gap across industries and efforts to close the divide, with data on current disparities. The personal and professional costs of discrimination: Investigating how pay inequality affects families, career progression, and long-term financial security, especially for women of color. The broader fight for workplace rights: Examining the ripple effects of the Ledbetter case on other forms of discrimination, such as race, age, and disability. Economic justice as a human rights issue: Connecting Ledbetter’s legacy to current global movements pushing for equal pay, labor rights, and anti-discrimination reforms. Corporate responsibility and transparency: Assessing how companies are addressing pay equity through transparency measures, audits, and policy shifts. Connect with an expert about the Life and Legacy of Lily Ledbetter: To search our full list of experts visit www.expertfile.com