Author: Hurley, Brett

Derrick Bell’s Racial Realism Thirty-five Years Later

Derrick Bell’s Racial Realism
Thirty-five Years Later

Thursday, September 24, 2026 | 5:00 – 7:00 p.m.
Stuart F. Smith Reading Room, William F. Starr Hall
55 Elizabeth Street, Hartford, CT 06105

On September 20, 1991, Derrick Bell delivered a speech entitled Racial Realism at the University of Connecticut School of Law. It was a wake-up call to those seeking to advance racial justice, urging different civil rights strategies rooted in a realist understanding of the permanence of racism in the United States. The following spring, the Connecticut Law Review published his speech as well as responses by other scholars. To commemorate the 35th anniversary of the speech, the law school is hosting this roundtable conversation with Professors Robert S. Chang,  Ariela Gross, and Alexis Hoag-Fordjour. Each scholar will revisit Professor Bell’s Racial Realism, considering its legacy and current relevance to today’s racial climate. In the spring, the Connecticut Law Review will publish essays by these scholars as well as additional invited contributions.

Speakers:

  • Devon Carbado, Elihu Root Professor of Law, New York University Law School
  • Robert S. Chang, Professor of Law and Sylvia Mendez Presidential Chair for Civil Rights and Executive Director of the UC Irvine School of Law Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, UC Irvine School of Law
  • Ariela Gross, Distinguished Professor of Law and History, UCLA School of Law
  • Alexis Hoag-Fordjour, David Dinkins ’56 Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Criminal Justice, Brooklyn Law School

Moderator:

Goldburn P. Maynard, Jr., Professor of Law, University of Connecticut School of Law

A reception with credit bar will precede the formal program.

Trump Administration’s Attacks on the Press, Universities, and Law Firms: Five Key Commonalities

MARY-ROSE PAPANDREA

When Donald Trump returned to the Presidency in 2025, the heated rhetoric attacking the press, universities, and lawyers that dominated his first term in office turned to action. These aggressive attacks on our nation’s elite institutions have been remarkably successful. This Essay asks why. This Essay first offers some historical context for Trump’s attacks and outlines their general parameters. Although the current Trump administration attacks on the press, universities, and law firms are more brazen and more aggressive than any we have ever seen before, our own nation’s history laid the groundwork for them. In addition, in recent decades the public’s trust in universities, the press, and elites in general has dramatically decreased, blunting political outrage. The second Part of this Essay identifies five key factors leading to the remarkable success of the Trump attacks: (1) these institutions need money and are run like businesses; (2) legal challenges to the Trump administration’s actions face significant procedural obstacles and substantive uncertainty; (3) the Administration’s actions have a broad chilling effect on others; (4) the institutions under attack have a weak commitment to the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, and academic freedom; and (5) the institutions are fractured and have failed to engage in effective collective action. In light of these weaknesses, saving our democratic institutions from the Trump administration’s attacks will be no easy feat.

Read more here…

Everything Old Is New Again: Attacks on New York Times v. Sullivan and the Weaponization of Libel Law

AMY KRISTIN SANDERS

Free press advocates have lamented the recent uptick in the number of lawsuits news organizations from the Wall Street Journal to CNN are facing for their critical coverage of government and political leaders. But history reminds us that these attacks are not new despite the First Amendment’s purported protection of freedom of expression. Even before the Constitution was ratified, printer John Peter Zenger faced seditious libel charges for criticism of Britain’s colonial leaders. During the Civil Rights Movement, segregationists turned to libel laws to discourage news coverage of their violent efforts to avoid integration. Not long after Watergate brought down President Nixon, conservative political groups launched high-profile attempts to bring the watchdog press to heel. This Essay analyzes these key lawsuits and the historical moment in which they arose in an effort to glean key litigation and advocacy strategies to help news organizations rebut current attempts to weaponize libel law and erode press freedom.

Read more here…