Saxbe Auditorium, The Moritz College of Law
55 W. 12th Ave., Columbus, OH 43210
Stay tuned for our Symposium issue based on this event.
We hosted our annual all-day symposium, entitled Facing Opioids: Drug Enforcement and Health Policy in Today’s Epidemic, on October 19th, 2018. Experts and scholars discussed the opioid epidemic that is impacting countless families and dominating news headlines across the country.
With overdoses on the rise, opioids have taken center stage in high-profile public policy debates. The issue garners attention from national political figures and advocates, who have influence at the state and local level, to Congress and the White House. Despite these efforts, some experts believe the opioid crisis will get worse before it gets better. This Symposium sought an interdisciplinary approach to further legal debate regarding opioid abuse through a variety of contributions from public health experts to criminal justice scholars and observers of relevant civil litigation. The Symposium encouraged consideration of lessons from past drug abuse and prevention efforts. The Ohio State Law Journal seeks scholarship that contributes to principles of equal justice under law, expanding efficient access to treatment and services, and furthering restorative efforts for those impacted by opioids. To view the symposium’s program and meet the panelists, click here.
November 3, 2017 | Saxbe Auditorium
Re-Thinking State Relevance was a day-long symposium about how the U.S. states interact with various levels of government. The symposium aimed to reframe the traditional "Federalism" discussion as something more than just a relationship between the states and the federal government. The state-federal relationship is an important one, but to better understand the way law functions in today’s complex political climate we must contemplate how local and international governance structures also contribute to what it means to be a state and how states should act.
The symposium featured several topic-specific panels that applied the theoretical concepts of what it means to be a state to practical legal subjects. The panels featured Environmental Law, Trade Law, Health Law, and Criminal Law. The final panel of the day was composed of panelists from each of the prior panels; this panel was question-driven and aimed at drawing connections between the areas of law discussed and developing practical takeaways for how states should function.
Please check back for a full issue with all of the articles and essays generated by this discussion.
The Expanding First Amendment
November 18, 2016 | Saxbe Auditorium
On November 18, 2016, the Ohio State Law Journal hosted a symposium on “The Expanding First Amendment.” The Symposium brought together legal scholars from across the country to explore the extent and consequences of the purported recent expansion of First Amendment law. There will be four panels discussing: (1) What Is Speech Now?; (2) Speech, Association, and Democracy; (3) Speech and Public Health; and (4) Speech and Anti-discrimination Law.
Panelists and Moderators included:
- Professor Tabatha Abu El-Haj, Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law
- Professor Samuel Bagenstos, University of Michigan Law School
- Professor Jane Bambauer, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law
- Professor Micah Berman, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
- Professor Ashutosh Bhagwat, University of California-Davis School of Law
- Professor Ruth Colker, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
- Professor Caroline Mala Corbin, University of Miami School of Law
- Professor Margot Kaminski, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
- Professor Leslie Kendrick, University of Virginia School of Law
- Professor Ronald Krotoszynski, University of Alabama School of Law
- Professor Nancy Leong, University of Denver Sturm College of Law
- Professor Wendy Parmet, Northeastern University School of Law
- Professor Christopher Robertson, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law/New York University School of Law (visiting professor)
- Professor Peter Shane, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
- Amanda Shanor, Ph.D. Candidate, Yale Law School
- Professor Daniel Tokaji, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
- Professor Patricia Zettler, Georgia State University College of Law
- Professor Timothy Zick, William and Mary Law School
The History and Future of Election Law
November 20, 2015 | Saxbe Auditorium
The Ohio State Law Journal held an interdisciplinary symposium, “The History and Future of Election Law” on November 20, 2015. The goal of the symposium was to look systematically at the past in an effort to consider the possibilities of future developments in various areas of election law. There were four panels: (1) The History and Future of Redistricting and Gerrymanders, (2) The History and Future of Campaign Finance, (3) The History and Future of Voting Rules and (4) The History and Future of Election Law Generally. The Symposium was generously sponsored by The Democracy Studies Program and The Center for Interdisciplinary Law and Policy Studies. The issue based on this Symposium can be read here.
Panelists and Moderators included:
- Professor Stephen Ansolabehere, Harvard University, Department of Government
- Professor Richard Briffault, Columbia Law School
- Professor Bruce Cain, Stanford University, Department of Political Science
- Professor Kareem Crayton, University of North Carolina School of Law
- Professor Erik Engstrom, University of California, Davis, Department of Political Science
- Professor Ned Foley, Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
- Professor Anthony Gaughan, Drake University
- Professor Steven Huefner, Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
- Professor Pam Karlan, Stanford University Law School
- Professor Ellen Katz, University of Michigan Law School
- Professor Alex Keyssar, Harvard John F. Kennedy School of Government
- Professor Nate Persily, Stanford University Law School
- Professor Rick Pildes, New York University School of Law
- Professor David Stebenne, The Ohio State University
- Professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos, University of Chicago Law School
- Professor Zephyr Teachout, Fordham University School of Law
- Professor Dan Tokaji, Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
State Constitutions in the United States Federal System
March 6, 2015 | Saxbe Auditorium
State constitutional law has historically been under-studied in comparison to federal constitutionalism and yet, it is an extremely important source of American law. On Friday, March 6, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. in Saxbe Auditorium, the Ohio State Law Journal symposium, “State Constitutions in the United States Federal System: An Exploration of the Construction, Execution, and Interpretation of State Founding Documents,” explored the various structural aspects of state constitutional law. Panelists examined where state constitutions fit in to our federal system and how they are to be interpreted, amended, and utilized by advocates amidst the backdrop of its federal counterpart. They also debated topics including popular constitutionalism, state constitutional independence, individual rights’ protections, state administrative agencies, and more. View the program here. The issue based on this Symposium can be read here.
Featured guests at this event included:
- James Gardner, Professor of Law at SUNY Buffalo
- Sanford Levinson, Professor of Law, Professor of Government, University of Texas at Austin
- The Honorable Goodwin Liu, Associate Justice, California Supreme Court
- Ann Lousin, Professor of Law, John Marshall Law School
- Jim Rossi, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt Law School
- Aaron Saiger, Professor of Law, Fordham University
- Miriam Seifter, Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin
- Virginia Seitz, Former United States Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel and current Partner at Sidley Austin LLP
- Steven Steinglass, Professor Emeritus, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law
- The Honorable Jeffrey Sutton, Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and Adjunct Professor at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
- Alan Tarr, Professor of Political Science, Rutgers University at Camden
- Robert Williams, Professor of Law, Rutgers School of Law
Torts and Civil Rights Law: Migration and Conflict
November 15, 2013 | Saxbe Auditorium
Increasingly, courts and commentators have labeled federal statutory anti-discrimination claims “torts” or “tort-like” claims, without thoroughly discussing the implications of this classification. Particularly since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2011 ruling applying the controversial concept of “proximate cause” to a claim of employment discrimination, the lower courts have stepped up their efforts to reshape a number of anti-discrimination doctrines to align with general tort concepts, often with the effect of limiting the scope of statutory civil rights protection. Thus, tort law is playing a more prominent role in statutory interpretation under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
On November 15, 2013, the Ohio State Law Journal, working closely with Faculty Symposium Advisors Martha Chamallas (Moritz) and Sandra Sperino (University of Cincinnati), presented Torts and Civil Rights Law: Migration and Conflict. This symposium explored the theoretical and doctrinal affinities and clashes between tort and anti-discrimination law, while fostering dialogue between tort and anti-discrimination scholars. Symposium participants explored whether the connections are strong enough to justify robust use of tort principles in anti- discrimination analysis and whether anti-discrimination law should be interpreted through a torts lens. They also discussed whether tort law should selectively adopt anti-discrimination norms and analysis.
The Ohio State Law Journal thanks our co-sponsors for their generous support: The Center for Interdisciplinary Law and Policy Studies, the ACLU–Moritz Chapter, and the Black Law Students Association.
The Second Wave of Global Privacy Protection
November 16, 2012 | Saxbe Auditorium
Co-Sponsored By: Microsoft, Google, Center for Interdisciplinary Law and Policy Studies, Intellectual Property Society at Moritz, International Law Society at Moritz
The mid-1990’s brought a flurry of activity in privacy legislation across the world. The European Directive on Protection of Personal Data, HIPAA, FCRA, and Data Protection Act of 1998 are but a few examples of legislation passed to address evolving privacy interests in the digital age. The first wave of legislation was accompanied by significant legal discussion and scholarship in law review articles, symposiums, and academic critiques. During the years following September 11, legislation and discussion of privacy issues cooled as security interests took center stage.
Recent disputes and questions regarding government access to data, multinational corporations and their use of customer data, the proposed development of privacy laws in developing economies, and the European Union’s proposed changes to their data protection laws have brought the topic back to the center of attention across the world.
On November 16, 2012, the Ohio State Law Journal, working closely with Faculty Symposium Advisor Peter Swire, presented “The Second Wave of Global Privacy Protection.” This symposium brought together practitioners, academics, and government officials from across the world to analyze the latest developments in global privacy issues and provide discussion of the future of privacy legislation and policy.
The FCPA at Thirty-Five and Its Impact on Global Business
March 16, 2012 | Saxbe Auditorium
In 1977, Congress passed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), the first domestic statute governing the conduct of domestic companies in their direct and indirect interactions with foreign officials. For most of its existence, the FCPA was sporadically enforced and of concern to only a small portion of the business and legal community. In the past several years, however, the FCPA has surged to the forefront of concerns for international business. For instance, in 2004 there were five FCPA enforcement actions; in 2010 there were seventy-four FCPA enforcement actions and approximately $1.3 billion in total fines and penalties assessed against businesses. Given the recent increase and aggressiveness of enforcement, the FCPA has become a major legal issue for all multinational companies across various industry sectors.
What are the priorities and goals of the FCPA? Is the FCPA effective and an efficient use of resources? What are the appropriate FCPA risk-management strategies for corporations? What international efforts are being made to fight bribery and corruption? What are the effects of the FCPA on the global economy and civil society?
The Ohio State Law Journal Symposium (2011-2012) convened top government officials, leading academics, and experienced practitioners to discuss the many aspects of the FCPA.
Reflections on Progressive Constitutionalism: Theory, Practice, & Critique
April 15, 2011 | Saxbe Auditorium
This Symposium is an engagement with “progressive constitutionalism.”
Broadly understood, “progressive constitutionalism” encompasses a number of projects that critically assess the U.S. Supreme Court’s practice of judicial review, including its understanding of judicial supremacy, in matters of constitutional interpretation.
How, exactly, do these projects fit together? Do they constitute parts of a larger whole? How does progressive constitutionalism relate to more conventionally “liberal” versions of constitutionalism that also claim a “progressive” mantle? How do they line up with “conservative” theories of judicial review that are skeptical about the preeminent place of the Supreme Court in basic matters of national governance?
The Ohio State Law Journal Symposium (2010-2011) was a day-long exploration of the theory, the practice, and critiques of progressive constitutionalism, joined by some of the country’s leading and emerging lights in law, history, and political theory.
- The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
- Center for Interdisciplinary Law and Policy Studies
- Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race & Ethnicity
- Law School Democrats
- American Constitution Society
- Moritz College of Law Legislation Clinic
Originalism and the Jury, with Keynote Address by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
November 17, 2009 | Saxbe Auditorium
Originalism has increasingly entered the landscape of constitutional litigation. For instance, recently in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, both the majority and dissenting opinions dedicated the bulk of their ink to attempting to discern the original meaning of the Second Amendment. Recently, originalism has also played a prominent role in shaping the mechanics of the American jury system.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in criminal cases. In Blakely v. Washington (2004), the Supreme Court held that, in mandatory sentencing systems, the Sixth Amendment prohibits judges from enhancing criminal sentences based on facts other than those decided by the jury or admitted by the defendant. Justice Scalia’s opinion for the Court in Blakely cited to multiple 18th century sources to support the assertion that “just as suffrage ensures the people’s ultimate control in the legislative and executive branches, jury trial is meant to ensure their control in the judiciary.” Similarly, Justice Scalia relied on historical sources in Crawford v. Washington, one of the most important cases about the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.
While the Supreme Court has used originalism to curb judicial power in favor of jury power under the Sixth Amendment, the Court has not acted similarly with respect to the Seventh Amendment civil jury trial right. This difference has occurred despite the language of the Seventh Amendment, the only part of the Constitution to refer explicitly to the “common law,” and even though the Supreme Court has directed that common law in the Seventh Amendment is the English common law in 1791. Using originalism, scholars debate whether procedures such as summary judgment and the motion to dismiss are unconstitutional and examine under what conditions a civil jury trial right exists, including whether such a right exists in complex cases.
These are some of the issues the Ohio State Law Journal addressed in its symposium, Originalism and the Jury, which featured the late Justice Scalia as the keynote speaker.
The Jurisprudence of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Discussion of Fifteen Years on the U.S. Supreme Court
April 10, 2009 | Saxbe Auditorium
The Ohio State Law Journal held its 2009 symposium on “The Jurisprudence of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Discussion of Fifteen Years on the U.S. Supreme Court.” As a litigator, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was known as a pioneer of women’s rights, “the Thurgood Marshall of gender equality law,” according to President Clinton, who nominated her to the Court.
The Symposium, which featured a number of the country’s foremost legal scholars, considered Justice Ginsburg’s impact on various substantive areas of law and American jurisprudence, more generally. Topics discussed include constitutional law, civil and criminal procedure, statutory interpretation, and labor and employment law.
Justice Ginsburg joined us for a live conversation moderated by Professor Wendy Webster Williams of the Georgetown University Law Center, who is co-author of a forthcoming biography of Ginsburg; and by Professor Deborah Jones Merritt of Moritz College of Law, a former law clerk to Justice Ginsburg.
The School Desegregation Cases and the Uncertain Future of Racial Equality
February 21-22, 2008 | Saxbe Auditorium
Concluding its 2006-2007 term with a historic ruling on race in public policy, the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, struck down voluntary integration plans in the public schools of Seattle, Washington and Louisville, Kentucky.
Although a majority of the Justices ruled in favor of the elimination of race-conscious student assignment policies in elementary and secondary schools except as a last resort, five Justices found that there exists a compelling government interest in addressing the serious harm of racial isolation in our classrooms and communities.
The Court’s decision has sparked a national conversation over the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, the relationship between race and opportunity, and how to achieve racial integration and fulfill the promise of Brown v. Board of Education.
The Ohio State Law Journal convened a Symposium of legal scholars, social science, and education experts to discuss the impact of this decision on the pursuit of racial equality in public schools and beyond. Papers generated from the Symposium participants were published in volume 69, issue 5 of the Ohio State Law Journal and can be read here.
Election Law and the Roberts Court
September 29-30, 2006
In September of 2006, the Ohio State Law Journal (OSLJ) and Election Law @ Moritz (EL@M) co-sponsored a symposium on “Election Law and the Roberts Court.” The topics addressed at the symposium and recorded in the participants’ contributions included the future of Bush v. Gore, campaign finance, redistricting, and many other important election law issues. The focus was on the potential changes in the Court’s philosophical approach to the “law of democracy” with the recent additions of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the bench.
Contributors also discussed the application of jurisprudential themes—like potential tensions between “original intent” and “stare decisis”—as they apply to particular topics of election law, including the future of Bush v. Gore and “Equal Protection” constraints on the vote-counting process. Symposium participants have written articles, some of which are published in Volume 68, Issues 3 (found here) and the others are available in Volume 68, Issue 4 of the Ohio State Law Journal (found here).
The following contributions to the Election Law Symposium have been published and are available in Issue 3 of Volume 68.
- Edward Foley, The Ohio State University, Election Law and the Roberts Court: An Introduction
- Pam Karlan, Stanford University, New Beginnings and Dead Ends in the Law of Democracy
- Michael Solimine, University of Cincinnati, Institutional Process, Agenda Setting, and the Development of Election Law on the Supreme Court
- Richard Briffault, Columbia University, WRTL and Randall: The Roberts Court and the Unsettling of Campaign Finance Law
- Rick Hasen, Loyola Law School of Los Angeles, The Newer Incoherence: Competition, Social Science, and Balancing in Campaign Finance Law After Randall v. Sorrell
- Brad Smith, Capital University, The John Roberts Salvage Company: After McConnell, a New Court Looks to Repair the Constitution
Contributions from the following authors have been published and are available in Issue 4 of Volume 68.
- Edward Foley, The Ohio State University, The Future of Bush v. Gore
- Dan Lowenstein, University of California at Los Angeles, The Meaning of Bush v. Gore
- Edward Foley, The Ohio State University, Refining the Bush v. Gore Taxonomy
- John Fortier, American Enterprise Institute, Foley on the Future of Bush v. Gore
- Daniel Tokaji, The Ohio State University, Leave It to the Lower Courts: On Judicial Intervention in Election Administration
- Michael Kang, Emory University, When Courts Won’t Make Law: Partisan Gerrymandering and a Structural Approach to the Law of Democracy
- Samuel Issacharoff and Jonathan Nagler, New York University, Protected from Politics: Diminishing Margins of Electoral Competition in U.S. Congressional Elections
- Richard Pildes, New York University, The Decline of Legally Mandated Minority Representation
- Ellen Katz, University of Michigan, Reviving the Right to Vote
- Guy-Uriel Charles, University of Minnesota, Race, Redistricting, and Representation
- Heather Gerken, Yale University, Rashomon and the Roberts Court
The Madness in the Shadows of Modern Life: Judicial Security and Politics in the 21st Century
November 9, 2005
Being a judge today has been described as “the madness in the shadows of modern life.” Federal procedural legislation, calls for judicial accountability, and even violence against judges that has shaken courtroom security around the country are among the issues facing the judiciary.
Meanwhile, an increasingly contentious judicial nomination process that has seen filibusters, proposals to change Senate rules, and attempts to discredit judicial nominees continues through the summer and should not be underestimated in the effect it may have on judges and the judiciary.
The 2005 Symposium of the Ohio State Law Journal addressed these developing issues. During the conference, practitioners, experts, and, most importantly, judges openly discussed these issues and how to advance a secure, independent judiciary in spite of these modern pressures.
Meeting the Challenges of Grutter: Affirmative Action in Twenty-Five Years
February 24-25, 2005
Writing for the majority in the United States Supreme Court decision of Grutter v. Bollinger, Justice O’Connor stated: “We expect that 25 years from now the use of racial preferences [in admissions decisions] will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.”
The Ohio State Law Journal, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, the Center for Law, Policy and Social Science, the Kirwan Institute on Race and Ethnicity and Professor John A. Powell joined in the examination of both the legitimacy and accuracy of Justice O’Connor’s prediction and the identification of the practical realities of meeting her challenge. Throughout the weekend, presentations, panel discussions, and receptions commenced, including networking opportunities between panelists and members of the Columbus legal community.
Equality, Privacy and Lesbian and Gay Rights After Lawrence v. Texas
November 7, 2003
The Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas-striking down sodomy laws on constitutional privacy grounds-has been widely heralded as a landmark victory for lesbian and gay rights. What Lawrence means for lesbians and gay men, as well as what it means for privacy, equality, and constitutionalism, more generally, was among the main topics of the Lawrence Symposium, which featured an all-star line-up of legal academic commentators, who presented their views of the Court’s decisions.
By way of background, John Geddes Lawrence and Tyrone Garner were convicted of violating Texas’s “homosexual conduct” law, which had made same-sex sexual conduct a crime. Responding to what turned out to be a false report of a weapon’s disturbance, police found the two men engaging in anal sex in Lawrence’s apartment, arrested them, and jailed them overnight for offending Texas’s sodomy prohibition.
Lawrence and Garner eventually appealed their case to the U.S. Supreme Court, and on June 26, 2003, the Supreme Court struck down the Texas ban on gay sex, ruling that the law was an unconstitutional violation of the constitutional right to privacy, which protects consensual, sexual intimacies between adults. Along the way to its conclusion, the Supreme Court overruled its 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision, which had declared that homosexuals have no constitutional right to engage in consensual sex in private.
A reception with the presenters, moderators, and participants followed the day’s program.
Addressing Capital Punishment Through Statutory Reform
March 30-31, 2001
Recent events have brought renewed attention to the death penalty. Efforts by some lawmakers and courts to restrict appeals by death row inmates has led to record high numbers of executions throughout the United States in the last few years. During this same period, the American Bar Association and other groups have called for a moratorium on executions, citing concerns about fairness, reliability and accuracy the modern administration of capital punishment. The exoneration of numerous defendants sentenced to die has focused considerable attention on potentially innocent persons on death row and has prompted Illinois Governor George Ryan to declare a moratorium on executions in his state. Throughout this period, bills concerning the administration of capital punishment have been put forward in nearly every state as well as in Congress.
On March 30-31, 2001, a number of prominent law and social science professors, legislators, and attorneys will come together at the Ohio State University College of Law not only to discuss the problems said to be plaguing the current system of capital punishment, but also to assess the value of and possibilities for legislative reform of the modern administration of the death penalty. This symposium, entitled “Addressing Capital Punishment Through Statutory Reform,” will include panels on topics such as:
- The Importance of Statutes and Politics in the Administration of the Death Penalty
- The Need and Means to Reform Who Is Sentenced to Death
- The Need and Means to Reform How Death Sentences Are Ascribed, Reviewed, and Carried Out
- Expanding Our Perspective Beyond the United States and the Death Penalty
- Assessing Ohio’s Capital Punishment System and Possibilities for Statutory Reform
The symposium is co-sponsored by:
- The Ohio State University College of Law
- The Ohio State Law Journal
- The Center for Law, Policy, and Social Science at the College of Law
- The Criminal Justice Research Center at The Ohio State University
- The John Glenn Institute for Public Service and Public Policy
- The Constitution Project’s Death Penalty Initiative
- The Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law
The Ohio State Law Journal published papers written by the symposium panelists in a Fall 2001 issue of the Journal dedicated solely to the conference, which can be found here.
Facing the Challenges of the ADA: The First Ten Years and Beyond
April 7, 2000
Facing the Challenges of the ADA: The First Ten Years and Beyond was held on April 7, 2000, in Columbus, Ohio. The Ohio State Law Journal published all symposium papers in the Winter 2001 issue.
The year 2000 marked the ten-year anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The 1990 enactment of the ADA reflected a decision by Congress to address a form of discrimination many Americans face daily, but that few choose to recognize: discrimination based on one’s actual or perceived physical or mental impairments. Notwithstanding this legislative mandate, the implementation of the ADA has given rise to a range of controversies in the courts and in the academy.
Facing the Challenges of the ADA: The First Ten Years and Beyond: a one-day symposium that brought together prominent law professors, attorneys, and social scientists to discuss crucial questions surrounding the ADA yesterday, today and tomorrow:
- How have courts interpreted the ADA and are those interpretations likely to change?
- What has been the practical impact of the ADA on individuals with disabilities in the workplace?
- How does the ADA compare with laws protecting the rights of women and African Americans?
- What assumptions underlie the conceptualization of “special education” programs?
- Should the ADA serve as a model for international disability rights law?
- What social and political traditions influence the ADA&’s application to the voting rights of individuals with disabilities?
Facing the Challenges of the ADA: The First Ten Years and Beyond was co-sponsored by:
- The Ohio State University College of Law
- The Center for Law, Policy, and Social Science at the College of Law
- The Ohio State Law Journal
- Anderson Publishing Company
- The USX Foundation
- The Nisonger Center at The Ohio State University
- A Multicultural Grant from The Ohio State University