Entitled University of Chicago Podcast Network

The word apartheid gets used in many different contexts to indicate the severity of crimes across the globe. But its use is controversial because the word has a very specific definition in international law. Even more controversial is the concept of expanding the term to include gender.

If there is one place on earth where it could be argued that a gender apartheid designation is needed its Afghanistan. Since the US withdrawal from the country, the Taliban have instituted a brutal repression of women. But is it gender apartheid?

What would it mean for us to create this designation and assign it to Afghanistan? Does cultural relativism throw a legitimate wrench into this argument or does that take the concept too far?

We discuss all these questions on this episode with Mohammad “Musa” Mahmodi, a Research Fellow in Law at the Schell Center for International Human Rights at Yale, Zahra Motamedi, an Associate Research Fellow at Yale, and Karima Bennoune, the Lewis M. Simes Professor of Law at the University of Michigan and author of “Your Fatwa Does Not Apply Here”.

In recent years, book bans have swept the nation. According to PEN America, more than 4,000 books have been banned in some capacity in public schools since July 2021. Books that discuss topics like racial justice or have characters that identify as LGBTQ+ are just some of the examples that have received widespread attention. While book bans are not a new phenomenon, parents rights groups have accelerated their attacks on what books can be put on school's shelves, leaving a bigger question up for debate: Who should decide what books are available, and moreover, who has the right to read certain books?

The American Library Assocation has been helping to support libraries as democratic institutions for decades by providing resources to librarians about what books to select based on the information needs of the communities to which they serve. In this episode, we speak with Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Director of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom and Director of the Freedom to Read Foundation. Caldwell-Stone discusses why book bans have increased in recent years, and why she says the right to read needs to be protected.

As kids, we all heard someone tell us that it's wrong to lie...but as we grew older, we realized that people lie all the time. Politicians, presidents, and even executives at corporations tell lies—big and small. As citizens, there are obvious exceptions where lying is wrong, for instance; perjury, lying on your employment application, or lying to get a bank loan. But do we have a right to lie? And if so, what are the boundaries?

On this episode, we speak with UCLA Professor of Philosophy and Law Seana Shiffrin and George Washington University Professor of Law Catherine Ross. They discuss both the philosophical arguments against lying and the legal arguments against notorious lies made by President Trump and former Congressman George Santos.

We’re doing something special for this month’s episode. In October of 2023, we hosted a live recording here at the University of Chicago. Tom Ginsburg was joined on stage by renowned scholar Genevie Laikier to have a conversation about free speech on social media. In other words, it was very relevant to our current season about the right to free expression.

We’re going to share that recording with you this month. We hope you enjoy and thanks to everyone who listened to our podcast this year.

Some might say one of the most important ways we exercise the right to free expression is through protests. And we’ve certainly seen groups all over the world using that right in the last few years, from the George Floyd protests in the U.S. to democratic marches in Hong Kong to demonstrations in Chile, Venezuela, Iran and Peru.

On the surface this right may seem straightforward, but there are many thorny questions to grapple with: when does a protest become a violent violation of other rights, what does it mean to protest in the age of surveillance, does the content of the protest matter for it to be protected?

We all know the phrase: “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” But is that actually true? Recent research in psychology has shown that words can cause a plethora of different harms. Should this make us re-think our approach to hate speech?

In the US we’ve been hesitant to regulate hate speech, while other countries have been incredibly stringent. Which approach is right, and why? And, how do we even define what hate speech is anyway?

To get some answers we sit down with Yale Professor Robert Post and Laura Beth Nielsen the Chair of the Department of Sociology at Northwestern University.