Enhancing Conservation Options: An Argument for Statutory Recognition of Options to Purchase Conservation Easements (OPCEs)

The most dynamic component of the conservation movement in the United States for the past three decades has been land conservation transactions. In the United States, land conservation organizations have protected roughly 40 million acres of land through transactions. Most of these acres have been protected using conservation easements. Climate change threatens the vast conservation edifice created by land conservation transactions. The tools of land conservation transactions are, traditionally, stationary. Climate change means that the resources that land conservation transactions were intended to protect may no longer remain on the land protected. Options to purchase conservation easements (OPCEs) have long played a modest but important role in conservation law practice. In the world climate change is creating, with its substantial uncertainties and shifting windows of opportunity, OPCEs can serve more complicated and strategic purposes. The ability of OPCEs to serve important roles in protecting land in the context of uncertainty would be significantly increased if state legislatures amend current conservation easement statutes to (1) specifically recognize OPCEs, (2) immunize OPCEs from a range of potential common law challenges, (3) guarantee the durability and transferability of OPCEs, and (4) integrate OPCEs into the burgeoning body of conservation easement law. These statutory amendments would do for OPCEs what conservation easement statutes have done for conservation easements: transform them into an essential multi-purpose tool for conservation in a changing world.

Public Lawyers and Marijuana Regulation

Although 23 states and the District of Columbia have now legalized marijuana for medical purposes, marijuana remains a prohibited substance under federal law. Because the production, sale, possession and use of marijuana remain illegal, there is a risk of prosecution under federal laws. Furthermore, those who help marijuana users and providers put themselves at risk — federal law punishes not only those who violate drug laws but also those who assist or conspire with them to do so. In the case of lawyers representing marijuana users and businesspeople, this means not only the real (though remote) risk of criminal prosecution but also the more immediate risk of professional discipline. Elsewhere, we wrote about the difficult place in which lawyers find themselves when representing marijuana clients. We argued that while both the criminal law and the rules of professional conduct rightly require legal obedience from lawyers, other countervailing factors must be considered when evaluating lawyers’ representation of marijuana clients. In particular, we asserted that considerations of equity and access to justice weigh dispositively in favor of protecting lawyers who endeavor to help their clients comply with state marijuana laws, and we suggested means of interpreting relevant criminal law provisions and rules of professional conduct to achieve this result. This article builds on that analysis, taking on the particular issue of the public lawyer’s’ role in marijuana regulation. For government lawyers, the key issues in exercising discretion in the context of marijuana are not clients’ access to the law and equality but rather determining the clients’ wishes and serving them diligently and ethically. Lawyers representing state agencies, legislatures and the executive branch of government draft and interpret the rules and regulations regarding marijuana. Lawyers for federal, state and local governments then interpret those rules to determine the obligations and responsibilities of those they represent and to help their clients meet those obligations and carry out their required tasks. Both state and federal prosecutors are charged with determining what conduct remains illegal under the new rules and, perhaps more importantly, with exercising discretion regarding whom to prosecute and to what extent. Marijuana regulation is not a niche area of government regulation; it will influence the practice of virtually every public lawyer in the years to come. Public lawyers must understand the changes in marijuana law and the implications for government clients. Given the pervasiveness of the modern regulatory state, the situation is no easier — and, in many ways, it is more complicated — for public lawyers than it is for private ones. Public lawyers face myriad practice challenges with respect to marijuana law reform, and while we do not purport to identify and resolve all of the issues that are sure to arise in this short paper, we hope that the article helps alert public lawyers to some of the risks involved in participating in marijuana regulation so that they can think carefully about their obligations when these issues arise.

Restrictive and Expansive Views of Equality: A Grounded Theory Study that Explores the Influence of Racial Consciousness on the Behaviors of White Faculty in the Classroom

Attempts to address the ever increasing achievement gap among students have failed to explain how and why educational traditions and teaching practices perpetuate the devaluing of some and the overvaluing of others. This predicament, which plagues our educational system, has been of increased concern, given the growing racial diversity among college students and the saturation of White faculty in the academy. White faculty make up the majority, 79%, of all faculty in the academy. White faculty, whether consciously or unconsciously, are less likely to interrogate how race and racism both privilege them within the academy and influence their faculty behaviors. The result of this cyclical, highly cemented process suggests that there is a relationship between racial consciousness and White faculty members' ability to employ behaviors in their classroom that promote equitable educational outcomes for racially minoritized students. An investigation of the literature revealed that racial consciousness and the behaviors of White faculty in the classroom appeared to be inextricably linked. A conceptual framework, Racial Consciousness and Its Influence on the Behaviors of White Faculty in the Classroom was developed by the author and tested in this study. Constructivist grounded theory was used to explore the role White faculty believe they play in the dismantling of the white supremacy embedded in their classrooms through their faculty behaviors. A substantive theory subsequently emerged. Findings indicate that White faculty with a higher level of racial consciousness employ behaviors in their classroom reflective of a more expansive view of equality in their pursuit of social justice, which they consider synonymous with excellence in teaching. This research bears great significance to higher education research and practice, as it is the first of its kind to utilize critical legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw's (1988) restrictive and expansive views of equality framework to empirically measure and describe excellence in college teaching. Implications for faculty preparation and continued education are also discussed.