Statistics is a Plural Word

Steven L. Willborn and Romana L. Paetzold

Responding to D. James Greiner, Causal Inference in Civil Rights Litigation, 122 Harv. L. Rev. 533 (2008)

In Causal Inference in Civil Rights Litigation, Professor James Greiner argued that regression analysis is ill-suited and overused as a tool to prove causation in civil rights cases, suggesting that potential outcomes, another statistical technique, should be used instead. In this response, Dean Willborn and Professor Paetzold, although recognizing the limitations of regression analysis, argue that potential outcomes does not necessarily provide a superior way of examining data in civil rights cases. Indeed, they demonstrate how most of the problems Professor Greiner attributes to regression also apply to the potential outcomes approach. This is almost inevitable since potential outcomes would use some form of regression as part of the analysis in most civil rights cases. Furthermore, they disagree with Professor Greiner’s claim that regression lacks an adequate framework for making causal inferences. Although regression cannot prove causation, no statistical method can do that, including the potential outcomes approach. Instead, regression calls on the same basic causal framework used throughout discrimination law and, indeed, the same basic causal framework used by potential outcomes. Dean Willborn and Professor Paetzold argue that the best approach is to allow experts to use the full toolbox of statistical techniques so that a case can be viewed from multiple angles. Statistics will be more valuable in civil rights cases when properly treated as a plural word.

122 Harv. L. Rev. F. 48 (2008) | DOWNLOAD PDF

Should Antitrust Condemn Tying Arrangements that Increase Price Without Restraining Competition?

Steven Semeraro :: In his article Tying, Bundled Discounts, and the Death of the Single Monopoly Profit Theory, Professor Einer Elhauge attempted to demonstrate that tying, the practice whereby a firm conditions the sale of one product on the customer’s agreement to purchase another, always harms consumers. He determined that antitrust law should prohibit tying even when that tying did not restrain competition in the tied product’s market. In this response, Professor Steven Semeraro argues that this form of tying actually benefits consumers in the long term. READ MORE

Disappearing Neighbors

David D. Troutt :: In his article Mobile Capital, Local Economic Regulation, and the Democratic City, Professor Richard C. Schragger explored the consequences of local governments’ attempts to entice — and then exploit — mobile capital. He concluded that cities possess, but must not abuse, the power to assert democratic control over capital flow. In this response, Professor David D. Troutt argues that current foreclosure crisis demonstrates the weakness of cities in relation to mobile capital. READ MORE

Freeing Employee Choice: The Case For Secrecy in Union Organizing and Voting

Cynthia Estlund :: In his article Enabling Employee Choice, Professor Benjamin Sachs provided a nuanced analysis of what is wrong both with current law and with the leading reform proposal. In this response, Professor Cynthia Estlund argues that Professor Sachs’s reform proposal is likely to set the terms for future scholarly analysis and for serious public debate over the role of law in union organizing regardless of the fate of labor law reform in the current Congress. READ MORE

FORUM ARCHIVE

RSS FEED

Harvard Law Review
Gannett House
1511 Massachusetts Ave
Cambridge, MA 02138

Editorial Office:
617-495-7889
617-496-5053 (fax)

Business Office:
617-495-4650
617-495-2748 (fax)