My Upcoming Speaking Engagements [Updated]

My upcoming public speaking engagements over the next several months - almost all of which are free and open to the public.

For readers who may be interested, here is a list of my upcoming speaking engagements for the next several months. All are free and open to the public, unless otherwise noted.

August 29, Panel on "Trump, Constitutional Crisis and American Democracy,"American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, 4-6 PM: "Trump and Some Weaknesses of our Constitutional Order" (tentative title). The other panelists will be Victoria Nourse (Georgetown Law),Richard L. Hasen  (UC Irvine), Josh Chafetz, (Cornell Law School), Henry Olsen (Ethics & Public Policy Center & Washington Post),
Matthew Glassman (Senior Fellow, Government Affairs Institute, Georgetown University), and David Karol (Panel Chair, University of Maryland, College Park). Unfortunately this event is open primarily to paying participants in the APSA conference.

September 12, Stranahan Lecture, College of Law, University of Toledo, Toledo OH, 12-1:30 (tentative time): "Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration and Political Freedom." Part of the Stranahan National Issues Forum, which is an annual lecture series.

September 17, Cato Constitution Day Conference,  Cato Institute, Washington, DC, 2:15-3:30: "Knick v. Township of Scott: Ending a Catch-22 that Barred Taking Cases from Federal Court."  Panel on "Potpourri" (miscellaneous cases. Information on this event (including registration)is available here.

September 26, University of Kentucky College of Law,  Lexington, KY, 12-1:15 PM: "Federalism and the War on Drugs" (sponsored by the University of Kentucky Federalist Society).

October 15, Delaware Law School, Widener University, Wilmington, DE, 6:30-8 PM: "How Trump's Plan to Build the Wall Tears Down the Separation of Powers," (sponsored by the Delaware Federalist Society).

Oct. 23, Programme for the Foundations of Law and Constitutional Government, Jesus College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK, Peter North Room, 1-2:30 PM (tentative room and time): "Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom."

Oct. 24, Institute of Economic Affairs, London, UK, 12-1:30 (tentative time):"How Political Decentralization Can Increase Freedom and Happiness"

Oct. 25, Case Studies in Self Governance Conference, Kings College, London, UK, 9-10:30 AM: "Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom."

Oct. 30, George Washington University  Law School, Washington, DC, 4PM: Debate on Executive Power over Immigration (tentative title). Debate with Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute (sponsored by the George Washington University Federalist Society). Yes, this will be an Ilya vs. Ilya debate (the third time such an event has occurred). For a guide to telling the two Ilyas apart, plus links to previous Ilya vs. Ilya debates, see here.

November 9, Conference on "Dispossessing Detroit: How the Law Takes Property," Panel on "Privatization of Land and Urban Renewal," University of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor, MI, 2:15-3:30 PM: "How Eminent Domain Harms the Poor" (tentative title).

November 14, Panel on Sanctuary Cities, Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention, Washington DC, "3:30-5:00 PM: "How Constitutional Federalism Protects Sanctuary Cities." Open to participants in the National Lawyers Convention (members of the media can attend for free).

November 16, Panel on Property Rights and Original Meaning, Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention, Washington DC, 11 AM-1 PM: "Property Rights and the Original Meaning of Public Use." Open to participants in the National Lawyers Convention (members of the media can attend for free).

November 22, Conference on "The Ethics of Democracy," Georgetown University, Washington, DC, exact time TBD: "Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom."

NOTE: I will update this post, as necessary, when I have additional information about the exact times and/or locations of some of these events.

Comments

[Ben_]

As expected. No invitation for random Central American migrants to share the stage.

Random Central American migrants are also excluded from attending the August 29, September 17, November 14, and November 16 events. And some of the others if they don't have papers (a ticket).

Is it fair to assume that exclusion of random Central American migrants from these events is motivated by racism? Such assumptions about others' motivation seem common, even among people who ought to know better.

Participating in exclusionary events such as these seems hypocritical. I guess including migrants is mostly only important when the cost is borne by others.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Ben, I don't suppose that if random Central American migrants arrived unbidden, which is their custom, that Ilya would be a party to throwing them out. Nothing in Ilya's advocacy that I have seen suggests a trace of racist motivation. That can't be said for many movement conservatives who comment here. I suggest you may have developed a sensitivity about racist accusations while hanging out with too many people whose advocacy shows they deserve them. You could give it a vacation, and spend the time attending one of Ilya's events.

[Ben_]

What qualifies you to determine something is not racist? Are you a person of color?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nah, not a person of color. But I am a person who lived to adulthood in the Jim Crow South. Plenty of qualifying experience there.

But in candor, it was later than that when I learned how to recognize what counts about racism. It is that "ism" on the end of it. That is what shows racism is not just about bigotry, but instead about the systematization of bigotry. And that is why racists can be recognized by the content of their advocacy, without need of impossible insight into the state of their hearts, whether bigoted or not.

If what you advocate works toward the systematized disadvantage of historically victimized groups, then you advocate racism, whatever the content of your heart—whether you think you speak with malice, or think otherwise. And advocacy of that sort, when a racist offers it publicly, lets anyone who understands what is being said determine objectively that it is racist. No need to assume anything.

On that basis, it ought to be plain to anyone that President Trump has been advocating as a racist. Likewise, many of the movement conservatives who cheer him on. He and they seek to defend their racism by attributing assumptions to those who resist it. But I, for one among many, am not making assumptions. I am drawing conclusions from what is being said—that these speakers seek to mobilize political power to systematize the disadvantage of historically victimized groups of people. They are racists because they speak as racists, and act as racists. And to know it, I need not give a damn about the contents of their hearts, nor assume anything at all.

[Ben_]

You should definitely check your privilege and let persons of color decide what's not racist instead of presuming to weigh in on it yourself.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I don't agree with Ben's comments. Of course, I don't agree with yours either.

You likely have a "selective" rememberance of what historically victimized groups are.

[Ben_]

What part of my comments do you disagree with?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Making a trite comment about central americans in what's a bookkeeping thread is unhelpful, at best.

[Ben_]

If Central American migrants must be welcomed one place, they must be welcomed every place. Otherwise it’s just some rich law professor advocating for a policy others will pay the price for.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These random clinger bursts are very helpful.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Armchair, I do have a selective remembrance of what historically victimized groups are. I have it on purpose.

I base my own consideration on what I selectively judge to be the worst group abuses in America's historical record, namely the abuses of blacks subjected to slavery and Jim Crow, and American Indians. Because I don't think any other groups suffered comparably, and especially have not suffered with so much continuing effect, I dismiss the notion of policy protections for the others as inappropriate as a matter of degree.

For that reason I oppose the ideology of diversity. I favor remedies based on affirmative action for the two groups I mentioned. However, I think administration of affirmative action remedies ought to be better targeted, and far more carefully constrained. There should be more accounting of the costs such a program imposes on bystanders, and policies to protect non-group-members who sometimes may suffer undue impacts during attempts to advantage members of protected groups.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sigh.

Yes, African Americans and Native Americans suffered greatly, especially if we're only considering American history. Just considering American history is a mistake, especially in the a globalized world. Moreover, just considering history, and not present trends is a mistake.

Historically, religious conflict, discrimination, and bigotry has an even larger worldwide footprint than African American slavery. Large enough so that it was particuarly noted by the founders as an area noted for the need for tolerance and equal protection. And notably in the areas of state discrimination and persecution of those who had different religious beliefs. It's one of the great successes of America, that tolerance to date.

However, increasingly at a government level there is clear and convincing evidence of increasing discrimination by officials against religious and those who have "superstitious" beliefs. Whether it be in a cakeshop review, or a review of Chick-Fil-A, or a demand by members of Congress for judges to renounce being members of a lay organization. And...it's frightening this trend. Because of the road it leads down.

In regards to racial equality, I fully support it and the need for continued vigilance. I don't however support affirmative action. I view it as state-mandated discrimination and state-granted racial preferences. In the long term, it only increases racial tensions and divisions, it does not reduce them. To obtain equality and treat people equally, treat them equally. Don't institute an artificial measure that will bring the concept of "what race are you and what do you get for being that skin color" to the top of the pile.

[Ben_]

I think the plan they have for "historically victimized" groups is to continue to support the current government education system that works for kids in wealthy neighborhoods but mostly doesn't work for kids in poor neighborhoods.

So people from "historically victimized" groups already have extra hurdles that sometimes keep them from getting a good education. They'd add a lot more children of Central American migrants who don't speak English to those schools, so the neighborhood kids there have an even harder time.

Then those kids whom the schools don't teach can grow up to compete for low skilled jobs with the next wave of migrants, bidding down wages to near starvation levels.

That perpetuates the supply of "historically victimized" group members so the power structure can be preserved.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I think anyone who volunteers (or is even paid) to speak on a college campus is a nut these days. But more power to you if you are brave enough!

[Jimmy the Dane]

How has no one here posted about Professor Dan Povey who are FIRED from John Hopkins University for trying to access a building TO JUST DO HIS JOB. He was assaulted by a violent mob of blacks and then fired merely because he is white. This is a disgrace and completely racist. I figured someone here would speak up against this in justice.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Povey? Is that the ‘fairness to whites’ guy who dislikes America and therefore insists on working for the Chinese and/or Russians?

[Jimmy the Dane]

No he was just a guy who wanted to access a building so he could do his job. He was then assaulted by a violent mob and HE was blamed for the fact he was attacked. Then we was FIRED because of his race.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Just another clinger who can't hold a job and is lurching toward replacement.

[RestoreWesternHegemony]

Talk about replacement all you want, but just remember that conservatives have more bullets than liberals have ballots.

[Jimmy the Dane]

There you go folks. Right from the horse's mouth. If you wondered if the Left is trying to replace you evil white people it is right there. AK even uses the word "replacement". Can't make that stuff up.

Also, if you wondered what these bigots think about white people in general. Well can get plenty of that from here too. Assaulted by a mob of colored people for no reason and you are white? Your fault. Why? Because you are white and therefore an evil slave master who deserves it. That is what they think of you.

[RestoreWesternHegemony]

The part that fascinates me is that the white liberal elite somehow think that they'll be immune from this once the country is majority non-white. Did white "anti-apartheid activists" get spared in South Africa? Of course not.

[andrewbgta]

What qualifies you to determine something is not racist? Are you a person of color?
GTA 6

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Plenty of Federalist Society dates, as is customary.

If the Trump experience; conservative' obsequious conduct with respect to Trump; the Republican Party's hard turn toward bigotry and backwardness; and the comments at the Volokh Conspiracy haven't persuaded you that you need (and deserve) better political playmates, Prof. Somin, it seems reasonable to inquire: Is there nothing that could tear you from the right-wingers? If not, why not?

Thank you. And good luck.