11:30 AM Course List

11:30 AM – 12:30 PM Courses

• Boston: Byways and Folkways…A Brief History

  From the Great Migration of 1635 to the political upheavals of the late 1960s we will follow the development of Boston through the lens of its geography, its changing population and neighborhoods.

  Teacher: David Moore received his master's degree in American Studies from Boston College in 1966. He taught in the History Department at Newton North High School receiving the Charles Dana Meserve outstanding teacher award in 1993. His particular historical interests include classical Greece, American Studies, fin de siècle Europe, and the Holocaust.

• Bright Moments of Jazz and Rock

  This course celebrates the great bands and stars of pop, rock and jazz. We will listen to recordings, watch videos and talk about a wide variety of musicians and bands. Social, historical and musical context will be provided. Examples of the artists included are Aretha Franklin, Michael McDonald, Elvis, James Brown, Fats Domino, the Temptations, Stan Getz, Miles Davis, Ella Fitzgerald and B.B. King. You will expand your jazz and rock music appreciation and have fun doing it. Come and share your bright moments.

  Teacher: Tom Doran is a bassist/vocalist who plays soul, funk, blues, jazz and rock. In retirement he loves to play music and make abstract art. He loves to talk about music, so if you do too, please join!

• Earth in Crisis Climate Change: Known Causes and Complex Solutions^*

  Sessions 6-10. April 22-May 20 The science is clear: the most pressing technological issues facing humankind today result from the effects of human activity on the future of our planet. In this five-week course, we will discuss how human existence affects our fragile but complex global ecosystem and investigate the profound changes that result from it, like global warming and its related phenomena. The future is up to us. We will explore solutions that will support future generations in living in harmony with the abundant, but limited, resources provided by planet Earth, our unique home in the universe.

  ^*Registration in this course is “bundled” with the ive Supreme Courts Decisions of 2023 course for Sessions 1-5 for no additional fee. See Note #3 on the Registration Page of this website for further explanation.

  Teacher: Frank Villa taught physics and ran his own company that designed laboratories. He has lectured on a range of scientific topics for many years.

• Five Supreme Court Decisions of 2023—triumph of Law or of Partnership?^*

  Sessions 1-5. March 11–April 8 This year, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed water pollution, student debt, sexual orientation/free speech, voting rights and affirmative action. Did the justices honestly try to determine what the constitution, precedent and facts require? Or do their decisions just reflect the majority's policy preferences or partisan behavior? As one justice says, to answer these questions, we must “read the decision.” For five of the court's 2023 decisions, we will do just that by reading the key language of the court's opinions and dissents. For each case, attendees will receive excerpts from the court's decisions as well as a one-page executive summary and may choose to read either (or both), depending on how deeply they wish to explore. For many of us, questions leap off the page. Did the court's majority stay within its judicial lane in each case? Did it jump existing guardrails or put its thumb on the scales? Did it respect the Civil War Amendments' voting rights and equal protection guarantees? The instructor will draw on his experience as a recently-retired trial court judge and, previously, a lawyer who briefed and argued cases at all levels of the state and federal appellate courts.

  ^*Registration in this course is “bundled” with the Earth in Crisis course for Sessions 6-10 for no additional fee. See Note #3 on the Registration Page of this website for further explanation.

  Below is a summary of dates, lecture titles, and speakers. For the entire lecture description and speaker bio, click on the “+” symbol to the right of the course title. To hide the information accessed, click again on either the lecture title or the “+” sign to the right of the title.

  • Week 1

    Clean Water Act - Sackett v. EPA

    Michael and Chantell Sackett bought property near Priest Lake, Idaho, and started building a home by backfilling the lot with dirt. The Environmental Protection Agency found out and told them that the property contained wetlands so that the backfilling violated the Clean Water Act. The CWA prohibits discharging pollutants into “the waters of the United States.” The EPA ordered the Sacketts to restore the site, threatening penalties of over $40,000 per day.

    The EPA classified the wetlands on the Sacketts' lot as “waters of the United States” because they were near a ditch. The ditch fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake. The Sacketts sued, alleging that their property was not “waters of the United States.”

    The Supreme Court's decision resolves the scope of federal water pollution authority by defining "waters of the United States." The opinion provides insight into how the Supreme Court approaches the text of a federal statute$mdash;claiming objectivity, but raising questions about whether, in practice, there is a thumb on the scales.

  • Week 2

    Student Debt Relief - Biden v. Nebraska

    In 2022, the Secretary of Education established the first comprehensive student loan forgiveness program, invoking the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act) for authority to do so. The Secretary's plan canceled roughly $430 billion of federal student loan balances, completely erasing the debts of 20 million borrowers and lowering the median amount owed by the other 23 million from $29,400 to $13,600. Six states sued, arguing that the HEROES Act does not authorize the loan cancellation plan. In another decision that claims to read federal statutes objectively—but raises questions on that score—the court agreed with the six states. Its decision also addresses the recently-named "major questions doctrine." That doctrine is a major tool that may reduce or eliminate federal agency authority in important areas and may play a major role in cases argued this term, which will likely be decided by July, 2024.

  • Week 3

    Free Speech and Sexual Orientation - 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis

    Through her business, 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith offers website and graphic design, marketing advice, and social media management services. Recently, she decided to expand her offerings to include services for couples seeking websites for their weddings. While Ms. Smith has laid the groundwork for her new venture, she has yet to carry out her plans. Specifically, she worries that if she enters the wedding website business, the state will force her to convey messages inconsistent with her belief that marriage should be reserved to unions between one man and one woman.

    [T]he Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA)… prohibits a public accommodation from denying “the full and equal enjoyment” of its goods and services to any customer based on his race, creed, disability, sexual orientation, or other statutorily enumerated trait. §24-34-601(2)(a).

    A 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court held that Colorado may not apply the CADA against 303 Creative because the First Amendment protects an individual's right to speak his mind regardless of whether the government considers his speech sensible and well intentioned or deeply “misguided,”… and likely to cause “anguish” or “incalculable grief.” The court's decision raises questions whether the majority honored existing precedent and whether it looked thoroughly into the facts.

  • Week 4

    Voting Rights and Redistricting - Allen v. Milligan

    This case involves a finding that Alabama's congressional districts reflect racial gerrymandering in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Indeed, after trial, the Alabama District Court in this case found that under the “totality of circumstances,” the political process in Alabama is not “equally open” to minority voters. Alabama's minority voters face bloc voting along racial lines, arising against the backdrop of substantial racial discrimination within the state. This renders a minority vote unequal to a vote by a nonminority voter.

    A 5-4 majority of the United States Supreme Court held that lower court properly applied existing precedent in finding that the plaintiffs met the preconditions for bringing their claim. In particular, Black voters were sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a reasonably configured district, i.e. a district that comports with traditional districting criteria, such as being contiguous and reasonably compact. The Supreme Court declined to overrule its prior precedents. In particular, it did not adopt Alabama's proposed rule that “a reasonably configured district” must be drawn without being aware of racial considerations. Alabama and the dissent also argued that the majority was applying a rule of proportional representation, which the Voting Rights Act prohibits.

    This case also raises questions about what has become known as the court's "Shadow Docket," which consists of unsigned orders issued without argument or opinion. In Milligan, the Supreme Court stayed the Alabama District Court's decision, thereby allowing the state's districts—now known to be illegal—for the 2022 Congressional election.

  • Week 5

    Affirmative Action in Higher Education - Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University; UNC

    During the admissions process at Harvard, every application is initially screened by first readers [who] “can and do take an applicant's race into account.” Harvard [then] convenes admissions subcommittees. The subcommittees can and do take an applicant's race into account when making their recommendations. The next step is the full committee meeting. At the beginning of the meeting, the committee discusses the relative breakdown of applicants by race. The “goal,” according to Harvard's director of admissions, “is to make sure that [Harvard does] not hav[e] a dramatic drop-off” in minority admissions from the prior class. At the end of the full committee meeting, the racial composition of the pool of tentatively admitted students is disclosed to the committee. The final stage of Harvard's process is called the “lop,” during which the list of tentatively admitted students is winnowed further to arrive at the final class. In doing so, the committee can and does take race into account. In the Harvard admissions process, “race is a determinative tip for” a significant percentage “of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.”

    A 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court held that consideration of race during college admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. A racial classification must serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The majority held that colleges' race-based admissions programs do not meet that test. The court does not prohibit universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. The opinion raises important questions about the meaning and implementation of the Equal Protection clause, enacted during reconstruction. It also effectively overrules existing precedent, although the majority does not say so and does not address whether the necessary prerequisites exist for overruling the court's prior decisions.

    A 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court held that consideration of race during college admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. A racial classification must serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The majority held that colleges' race-based admissions programs do not meet that test. The court does not prohibit universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. The opinion raises important questions about the meaning and implementation of the Equal Protection clause, enacted during reconstruction. It also effectively overrules existing precedent, although the majority does not say so and does not address whether the necessary prerequisites exist for overruling the court's prior decisions.

  Speaker: Doug Wilkins recently retired as a judge of the Massachusetts Superior Court, where he served from 2010 to 2023. Before his appointment, he was a partner at the Cambridge law firm of Anderson & Kreiger LLP. He served in several positions with the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office from 1983 to 1999, where he argued over 80 appeals at all levels of the state and federal courts, including numerous briefs and one argument in the U.S. Supreme Court. After receiving his J.D. in 1978, he clerked in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and was an associate in the Boston law firm of Palmer & Dodge. He has taught a course on this year's Supreme Court cases for the Village University, through Concord-Carlisle Adult Education.

• Stories of Conflict as Seen Through a Narrator's Lens, Part XVII

  We will discuss how narrators' perspectives affect our appreciation of works including Edgar Lee Masters' Spoon River Anthology, Thornton Wilder's Our Town and Shakespeare's Twelfth Night.

  Teacher: Helen Smith has taught at the Winsor School, Newton North and in Armenia, Hungary, Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Georgia, Romania and Zambia. A Smith College graduate, she edits texts about writing and journalism. She is the president of the New England Scholastic Press Association.

• Writing Your Story: (Memoir, NOT autobiography)

  Maximum Enrollment: 20 If you enjoy writing and sharing stories of your life with a community of writers that will give you constructive feedback, this class may be for you. If you are writing a memoir or simply want to share your stories with your children and grandchildren, most writers find being part of the group inspires them to write more regularly. The best way to learn about memoir writing is to listen to other writers' stories. Everything shared is confidential. Writing is done at home and shared in class. For those who can stay, the class extends to 1 p.m.

  Leader: Sue Edgecomb, retired from teaching for 35 years in the Wellesley schools, has participated in Amherst Writers and Artists workshops for 12 years. Her memoir, Clearing in the West: Navigating the Journey Through Loss, Grief and Healing was published in July, 2021.