More Perfect

The rules of oral argument at the Supreme Court are strict: when a justice speaks, the advocate has to shut up.  But a law student noticed that the rules were getting broken again and again — by men.  He and his professor set out to chart an epidemic of interruptions.  If women can’t catch a break in the boardroom or the legislature (or at the MTV VMA’s), what’s it going to take to let them speak from the bench of the highest court in the land?

The key voices:

Tonja Jacobi, professor at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law

Dylan Schweers, former student at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law

The key cases:

2016: Fisher v. University of Texas

The key links:

Justice Interrupted: The Effect of Gender, Ideology and Seniority at Supreme Court Oral Arguments

Special thanks to Franklin Chen and Deborah Tannen.> Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.

The rules of oral argument at the Supreme Court are strict: when a justice speaks, the advocate has to shut up.  But a law student noticed that the rules were getting broken again and again — by men.  He and his professor set out to chart an epidemic of interruptions.  If women can’t catch a break in the boardroom or the legislature (or at the MTV VMA’s), what’s it going to take to let them speak from the bench of the highest court in the land?

The key voices:

Tonja Jacobi, professor at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law

Dylan Schweers, former student at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law

The key cases:

2016: Fisher v. University of Texas

The key links:

Justice Interrupted: The Effect of Gender, Ideology and Seniority at Supreme Court Oral Arguments

Special thanks to Franklin Chen and Deborah Tannen.> Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.

On this episode, we revisit Edward Blum, a self-described “legal entrepreneur” and former stockbroker who has become something of a Supreme Court matchmaker: he takes an issue, finds the perfect plaintiff, matches them with lawyers, and helps the case work its way to the highest court in the land. His target: laws that differentiate between people based on race — including ones that empower minorities. More Perfect profiled Edward Blum in season one of the show. We catch up with him to hear about his latest effort to end affirmative action at Harvard. 

The key voices:

• Edward Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation
• Sheila Jackson Lee, Congresswoman for the 18th district of Texas

The key cases:

• 1977: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
• 2003: Grutter v. Bollinger
• 2013: Shelby County v. Holder
• 2013: Fisher v. University of Texas (1)
• 2016: Fisher v. University of Texas (2)

The key links:

• More Perfect Season 1: The Imperfect Plaintiffs
• Blum's websites seeking plaintiffs for cases he is building against Harvard University, the University of North Carolina, and the University of Wisconsin
• Students for Fair Admissions' complaint; and Harvard's response.

“To become leaders in our diverse society, students must have the ability to work with people from different backgrounds, life experiences and perspectives. Many colleges across America – including Harvard College – receive applications from far more highly qualified individuals each year than they can possibly admit. When choosing among academically qualified applicants, colleges must continue to have the freedom and flexibility to consider each person’s unique backgrounds and life experiences, consistent with the legal standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court,  in order to provide the rigorous, enriching, and diverse campus environments that expand the horizons of all students. In doing so, American higher education institutions can continue to give every undergraduate exposure to peers with a deep and wide variety of academic interests, viewpoints, and talents in order to better challenge their own assumptions and develop the skills they need to succeed, and to lead, in an ever more diverse workforce and an increasingly interconnected world.” 

- Robert Iuliano, senior vice president and general counsel of Harvard University 

Special thanks to Guy Charles, Katherine Wells, and Matt Frassica.

Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation.

Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.

On this episode, we revisit Edward Blum, a self-described “legal entrepreneur” and former stockbroker who has become something of a Supreme Court matchmaker: he takes an issue, finds the perfect plaintiff, matches them with lawyers, and helps the case work its way to the highest court in the land. His target: laws that differentiate between people based on race — including ones that empower minorities. More Perfect profiled Edward Blum in season one of the show. We catch up with him to hear about his latest effort to end affirmative action at Harvard. 

The key voices:

• Edward Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation
• Sheila Jackson Lee, Congresswoman for the 18th district of Texas

The key cases:

• 1977: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
• 2003: Grutter v. Bollinger
• 2013: Shelby County v. Holder
• 2013: Fisher v. University of Texas (1)
• 2016: Fisher v. University of Texas (2)

The key links:

• More Perfect Season 1: The Imperfect Plaintiffs
• Blum's websites seeking plaintiffs for cases he is building against Harvard University, the University of North Carolina, and the University of Wisconsin
• Students for Fair Admissions' complaint; and Harvard's response.

“To become leaders in our diverse society, students must have the ability to work with people from different backgrounds, life experiences and perspectives. Many colleges across America – including Harvard College – receive applications from far more highly qualified individuals each year than they can possibly admit. When choosing among academically qualified applicants, colleges must continue to have the freedom and flexibility to consider each person’s unique backgrounds and life experiences, consistent with the legal standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court,  in order to provide the rigorous, enriching, and diverse campus environments that expand the horizons of all students. In doing so, American higher education institutions can continue to give every undergraduate exposure to peers with a deep and wide variety of academic interests, viewpoints, and talents in order to better challenge their own assumptions and develop the skills they need to succeed, and to lead, in an ever more diverse workforce and an increasingly interconnected world.” 

- Robert Iuliano, senior vice president and general counsel of Harvard University 

Special thanks to Guy Charles, Katherine Wells, and Matt Frassica.

Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation.

Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.

On a fall afternoon in 1984, Dethorne Graham ran into a convenience store for a bottle of orange juice. Minutes later he was unconscious, injured, and in police handcuffs. In this episode, we explore a case that sent two Charlotte lawyers on a quest for true objectivity, and changed the face of policing in the US.

The key voices:

• Dethorne Graham Jr., son of Dethorne Graham, appellant in Graham v. Connor
• Edward G. (Woody) Connette, lawyer who represented Graham in the lower courts
• Gerald Beaver, lawyer who represented Graham at the Supreme Court
• Kelly McEvers, host of Embedded and All Things Considered

The key case:

• 1989: Graham v. Connor

Additional production for this episode by Dylan Keefe and Derek John; additional music by Matt Kielty and Nicolas Carter.

Special thanks to Cynthia Lee, Frank B. Aycock III, Josh Rosenkrantz, Leonard Feldman, Tom Dreisbach, and Ben Montgomery.

Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation.

Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.

On a fall afternoon in 1984, Dethorne Graham ran into a convenience store for a bottle of orange juice. Minutes later he was unconscious, injured, and in police handcuffs. In this episode, we explore a case that sent two Charlotte lawyers on a quest for true objectivity, and changed the face of policing in the US.

The key voices:

• Dethorne Graham Jr., son of Dethorne Graham, appellant in Graham v. Connor
• Edward G. (Woody) Connette, lawyer who represented Graham in the lower courts
• Gerald Beaver, lawyer who represented Graham at the Supreme Court
• Kelly McEvers, host of Embedded and All Things Considered

The key case:

• 1989: Graham v. Connor

Additional production for this episode by Dylan Keefe and Derek John; additional music by Matt Kielty and Nicolas Carter.

Special thanks to Cynthia Lee, Frank B. Aycock III, Josh Rosenkrantz, Leonard Feldman, Tom Dreisbach, and Ben Montgomery.

Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation.

Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.

“Equal protection of the laws” was granted to all persons by the 14th Amendment in 1868. But for nearly a century after that, women had a hard time convincing the courts that they should be allowed to be jurors, lawyers, and bartenders, just the same as men. A then-lawyer at the ACLU named Ruth Bader Ginsburg set out to convince an all-male Supreme Court to take sex discrimination seriously with an unconventional strategy. She didn’t just bring cases where women were the victims of discrimination; she also brought cases where men were the victims. In this episode, we look at how a key battle for gender equality was won with frat boys and beer.

The key voices:

• Carolyn Whitener, former owner of the Honk n’ Holler
• Curtis Craig, appellant in Craig v. Boren
• Fred Gilbert, lawyer who represented Craig in Craig v. Boren
• Mary Hartnett, adjunct professor at Georgetown Law
• Wendy Williams, professor emerita at Georgetown Law

The key cases:

• 1873: Bradwell v. The State
• 1948: Goesart v. Cleary
• 1961: Hoyt v. Florida
• 1971: Reed v. Reed
• 1973: Frontiero v. Richardson
• 1975: Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld
• 1976: Craig v. Boren
• 1996: United States v. Virginia

The key links:

• ACLU Women’s Rights Project

• My Own Words by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with Mary Hartnett and Wendy Williams

• Sisters in Law by Linda Hirshman

• “What’s Wrong With ‘Equal Rights’ For Women” by Phyllis Schlafly

Special thanks to Stephen Wiesenfeld, Alison Keith, and Bob Darcy.

Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation.

Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.

“Equal protection of the laws” was granted to all persons by the 14th Amendment in 1868. But for nearly a century after that, women had a hard time convincing the courts that they should be allowed to be jurors, lawyers, and bartenders, just the same as men. A then-lawyer at the ACLU named Ruth Bader Ginsburg set out to convince an all-male Supreme Court to take sex discrimination seriously with an unconventional strategy. She didn’t just bring cases where women were the victims of discrimination; she also brought cases where men were the victims. In this episode, we look at how a key battle for gender equality was won with frat boys and beer.

The key voices:

• Carolyn Whitener, former owner of the Honk n’ Holler
• Curtis Craig, appellant in Craig v. Boren
• Fred Gilbert, lawyer who represented Craig in Craig v. Boren
• Mary Hartnett, adjunct professor at Georgetown Law
• Wendy Williams, professor emerita at Georgetown Law

The key cases:

• 1873: Bradwell v. The State
• 1948: Goesart v. Cleary
• 1961: Hoyt v. Florida
• 1971: Reed v. Reed
• 1973: Frontiero v. Richardson
• 1975: Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld
• 1976: Craig v. Boren
• 1996: United States v. Virginia

The key links:

• ACLU Women’s Rights Project

• My Own Words by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with Mary Hartnett and Wendy Williams

• Sisters in Law by Linda Hirshman

• “What’s Wrong With ‘Equal Rights’ For Women” by Phyllis Schlafly

Special thanks to Stephen Wiesenfeld, Alison Keith, and Bob Darcy.

Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation.

Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.

Should you be able to say and do whatever you want online? And if not, who should police this?

More Perfect hosts a debate at WNYC's Jerome L. Greene Performance Space about online hate speech, fake news, and whether the First Amendment needs an update for the digital age.

The key voices:

• Corynne McSherry, legal director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation
• Elie Mystal, executive editor at Above the Law and contributing legal editor at More Perfect
• Ken White, litigator and criminal defense attorney at Brown White & Osborn LLP — he also runs Popehat.com

The key cases:

• 1957: Yates v. United States
• 1969: Brandenburg v. Ohio

The key links:

• ProPublica's report on Facebook's censorship policies  

Special thanks to Elaine Chen, Jennifer Keeney Sendrow, and the entire Greene Space team. Additional engineering for this episode by Chase Culpon, Louis Mitchell, and Alex Overington.

Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. 

Watch the event below:

NOTE: Because of the topic for the night, this discussion includes disturbing images and language, such as religious, ethnic and gender slurs and profanity. We have preserved this content so that our audience can understand the nature of this speech.

ADDENDUM: During the debate one of debaters misspoke and said World War II when he meant World War I. The case he was referring to can be found here.

Should you be able to say and do whatever you want online? And if not, who should police this?

More Perfect hosts a debate at WNYC's Jerome L. Greene Performance Space about online hate speech, fake news, and whether the First Amendment needs an update for the digital age.

The key voices:

• Corynne McSherry, legal director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation
• Elie Mystal, executive editor at Above the Law and contributing legal editor at More Perfect
• Ken White, litigator and criminal defense attorney at Brown White & Osborn LLP — he also runs Popehat.com

The key cases:

• 1957: Yates v. United States
• 1969: Brandenburg v. Ohio

The key links:

• ProPublica's report on Facebook's censorship policies  

Special thanks to Elaine Chen, Jennifer Keeney Sendrow, and the entire Greene Space team. Additional engineering for this episode by Chase Culpon, Louis Mitchell, and Alex Overington.

Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. 

Watch the event below:

NOTE: Because of the topic for the night, this discussion includes disturbing images and language, such as religious, ethnic and gender slurs and profanity. We have preserved this content so that our audience can understand the nature of this speech.

ADDENDUM: During the debate one of debaters misspoke and said World War II when he meant World War I. The case he was referring to can be found here.