Source Collect: California Law Review's Podcast

The Algorithmic Racial Proxy

Algorithms shape our modern world, determining everything from which ads we might see on Instagram to who is afforded access to credit. But what decisions go into the development of these algorithms? Professor Fanna Gamal, Assistant Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law, noticed that developers often exclude race and racial proxy variables as an input when creating machine learning algorithms. Prof. Gamal's latest article in the California Law Review, "The Algorithmic Racial Proxy," discusses the difficulty of defining what a racial proxy is, and the implications of allowing those who develop machine learning algorithms to decide. today's episode, Prof. Gamal joins Source Collect to discuss her article. This episode was recorded in April 2026. Host, Script, and Production: Davis Rich (Volume 115 Podcast Editor) Soundtrack: Composed and performed by Carter Jansen (Volume 110 Technology Editor) Introductory Quote: Judge Thelton E. Henderson

What Harvard's Lawsuit Should Have Said

To explain to us how institutional academic freedoms implicate corporate rights—and how Harvard could have leveraged these corporate rights in its 2025 lawsuit over the Trump Administration’s funding freeze—Michael Banerjee, a graduate of Harvard Law School and a Ph.D. Candidate in Jurisprudence and Social Policy at UC Berkeley Law, joins us today to talk about his piece, “What Harvard’s Lawsuit Should Have Said.” This piece was published as an online Article on August 4, 2025. This episode was recorded in September 2025. Host & Script: Juliette Draper (Volume 114 Podcast Editor) Transcript: Davis Rich (Volume 115 Podcast Editor) Production: Jonah Smith (Volume 115 Senior Technology Editor); Petra Hilton (Volume 115 Technology Editor) Soundtrack: Composed and performed by Carter Jansen (Volume 110 Technology Editor) Introductory Quote: Judge Thelton E. Henderson

Ethics & Independence in Trump’s War on Big Law

After beginning his second term in office on January 20th, 2025, President Trump has launched an unprecedented assault on large private law firms in the US. Fondly referred to as "Big Law" by lawyers and law students alike, these law firms have adopted different strategies to respond to executive orders and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission actions. To break down how Big Law is grappling with the administration's assault, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Florida, Levin College of Law, Christopher Hampson, and Assistant Professor of Law at Michigan State University, College of Law, Elise Maizel, join us to discuss their article, Ethics and Independence in Trump's War on Big Law. Authors: Christopher Hampson (Associate Professor of Law at the University of Florida, Levin College of Law); Elise Maizel (Assistant Professor of Law at Michigan State University, College of Law) Host & Script: Juliette Draper (Volume 114 Podcast Editor) Transcript: Juliette Draper (Volume 114 Podcast Editor); Adrianna Vaca (Volume 114 Publishing Editor) Production: Carsten Felicitas Grove (Volume 114 Senior Technology Editor); Maya Parthasarathy (Volume 114 Technology Editor) Soundtrack: Composed and performed by Carter Jansen (Volume 110 Technology Editor) Introductory Quote: Judge Thelton E. Henderson

Civic Duties and Cultural Change

In this episode, we will discuss the duties that Americans owe—and perhaps over time have ceased to owe—the state. Once central to the American constitutional tradition, civic duties like shoveling snow, repairing roads and fighting overseas have faded from our conception of communal obligations. Yet as society evolves, so too do civic duties. To correct the narrative that civic duties are a fixed part of our historical tradition, Daniel Rice, an Assistant Professor of Law at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, joins us to unpack his article, Civic Duties and Cultural Change. Author: Daniel Rice, Assistant Professor of Law, UNC Chapel Hill Host/Script/Transcript: Juliette Draper (Volume 114 Podcast Editor) Production: Carsten Felicitas Grove (Volume 114 Senior Technology Editor); Maya Parthasarathy (Volume 114 Technology Editor) Soundtrack: Composed and performed by Carter Jansen (Volume 110 Technology Editor) Introductory Quote: Judge Thelton E. Henderson

The Complexities of Consent to Personal Jurisdiction

In 2023, the Supreme Court decided Mallory v. Norfolk, Southern Railway Company, which held that consent remains a method of establishing personal jurisdiction independent of the minimum contacts test, first introduced by International Shoe Company v. Washington. On the surface, this decision resolved ambiguities in personal jurisdiction doctrine. But, to explain to us how Mallory failed to consider the many complexities underlying consent to personal jurisdiction, Scott Dodson, a Distinguished Professor of Law at UC San Francisco, joins us to discuss his article, The Complexities of Consent to Personal Jurisdiction. Author: Scott Dodson, Distinguished Professor of Law, UC Law San Francisco Host; Script; Transcript: Juliette Draper (Volume 114 Podcast Editor) Production: Carsten Felicitas Grove (Volume 114 Senior Technology Editor); Maya Parthasarathy (Volume 114 Technology Editor) Soundtrack: Composed and performed by Carter Jansen (Volume 110 Technology Editor) Introductory Quote: Judge Thelton E. Henderson