It’s hard to say where you’re most likely to meet Jun Qiu at Chicago-Kent. She has been quick to take advantage of every opportunity that matches her many skills and interests. In her time here, she’s helped create two new student organizations, served as a research assistant in the Law Lab and for Illinois Tech’s Institute of Design, and is now assisting law students as a TA for our Legal Writing Program.
She was recently recognized as one of National Jurist’s 20 “Law Students of the Year” for her contributions to her law school and community in the past year. Last year she attended the ABA TechShow 2017 for the first time and joined Twitter to expand her legal tech network. This week she’ll be speaking at the #LegalTech & Innovation Talks meetup hosted at Skadden during the ABA Techshow 2018.
Jun Qiu was already working as a CPA when she decided to pursue law school because she wants “to change the world, to promote justice and fairness.” Chicago-Kent drew her interest for its location and legal writing program.
This year’s Diversity Week started off with a panel about what diversity means to law students and issues affecting minorities in the legal field.
Moderator Joanna Martin started the panel with prepared questions, then opened it up for a Q&A with the students in the audience. Our speakers shared their experiences in classrooms and courtrooms to show the value of including more diverse perspectives in the legal field.
While the student leaders agreed on many principles, they also offered contrasting perspectives about presenting their experiences in conversations or written statements like scholarship applications.
Professor Forman described how, while working as a public defender early in his career, he saw many of African-American prosecutors and judges using the same history that motivated him to become a public defender to instead justify incarceration of his clients, and he wanted to understand why.
For me, it was telling that story of the criminal system over the last 50 years through the lens of African-American prosecutors, police chiefs, judges legislators, citizen activists, everyday citizens – trying to figure out, through their voices, what was going on and how was it that at least some of them had come to think that these policies that the government, that the United States as a nation was pursuing made sense. Were they tricked? Were they coerced? What was the story?
This week Chicago-Kent faculty, students and staff observed Constitution Day 2017 with a panel discussion featuring Dean Harold Krent and Professors Sheldon Nahmod, Mark Rosen and Carolyn Shapiro. Professor Christopher Schmidt moderated the panel discussion and open Q&A following their presentations.
This panel represented the range of constitutional experts at Chicago-Kent. Each faculty member was asked by the moderator to emphasize issues they saw as the most relevant, important, or pressing issues related to the Constitution and the Trump presidency so far.
The American Constitution Society hosted “Congressional Forum: Holding the President Accountable” at Chicago-Kent on May 31, 2017. The event featured a fast-paced discussion from a distinguished panel, including Congresswoman Schakowsky, constitutional legal scholars and leaders from the American Constitution Society.
If you weren’t able to attend in person, we’ve gathered the social media coverage and videos from the event here so you can explore the many topics they discussed, from checks and balances to congressional investigations and pushback on executive orders for immigration.
Video of the program has been excerpted by speaker and organized into a playlist, but you can also find the full length video here. (You can access the playlist using the three-bar “hamburger” menu in the upper left corner of the video frame below.)
Professor Carolyn Shapiro was a guest panelist on WTTW’s “Chicago Tonight” on May 30, 2017, to discuss the prospect of the U.S. Supreme Court reviewing president Trump’s second executive order on immigration. The executive order, which would temporarily ban travelers from six predominantly Muslim countries, is blocked by an injunction recently upheld by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Professor Shapiro also commented on cases on the Supreme Court docket related to gerrymandering and whether religious institutions have a right to receive government funds.
The American Constitution Society hosted this program with a distinguished panel to discuss a wide range of topics germane to the Trump administration. These included immigration, separation-of-powers issues with the Russia investigations, the judicial vacancy crisis, and how lawyers can use their law degrees to help address these issues.
Aziz Huq, Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law at the University of Chicago
Steven Schwinn, Associate Professor & Director, Clinical Programs Professor, John Marshall Law School and Member of the ACS Chicago Lawyer Chapter Board of Advisors – @sschwinn
Geoffrey R. Stone, the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, Co-Chair of the Chicago Lawyer Chapter Board of Advisors and Member of ACS’s National Board of Advisors – @stone_geoffrey
Amy M. Gardner, Director of Lawyer Chapters, The American Constitution Society for Law & Policy
Join us for “Law, Democracy, and the Right to Vote” on Thursday, April 27. In this panel discussion, civil rights and advocacy experts will discuss the historical developments of the Voting Rights Act, gerrymandering, voter disenfranchisement, access to the polls, ID laws and more. We will address the experiences and burdens on the right to vote and make sure you know your rights.
Ryan Cortazar, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, @RZCortazar
Going nuclear may serve Republicans today, but in the long term, it may do more for Democrats. Today, in response to a Democratic filibuster of Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court, the Republicans voted to eliminate the 60-vote threshold to end debate on a Supreme Court nomination. The Republicans have an immediate victory here: Justice Gorsuch will be sitting on the Supreme Court before its oral arguments scheduled for later this month. But in the long run, the elimination of the filibuster may help Democrats more than Republicans when it comes to Supreme Court appointments. (I’m not alone in thinking about unintended consequences here. Nate Silver of 538.com has an extensive piece today about how Republicans have generally used the filibuster more effectively than Democrats to block legislation and arguing that eroding its power may thus advantage Democrats in areas beyond the Supreme Court.)