Saturday, March 16, 2019 9:30 am - 1:15 pm
Robert Kapilow / Yale University
As the world well knows, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was a prolific and influential composer of the classical era. Along with Beethoven, his music is generally acknowledged as the most famous ever written. He showed prodigious ability from his earliest childhood, composing from the age of five and performing before European royalty at 17. Mozart composed more than 600 works, many acknowledged as pinnacles of symphonic, concertante, chamber, operatic, and choral music. Famously, Joseph Haydn wrote: "posterity will not see such a talent again in 100 years".
But what is it that makes his music so truly great? This question will be answered with a specific emphasis on Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, his remarkable 1787 chamber music composition generally referred to in English speaking countries as "A Little Night Music". As a special surprise, Professor Kapilow will bring local musicians with him onstage to demonstrate!
Robert Kapilow is an American composer, conductor, and music commentator. Until recently he was an Assistant Professor at Yale University, and initially gained recognition for his classical music radio program, “What Makes It Great?”, produced with the National Public Radio’s Performance Today. As a conductor, Kapilow has led the Philadelphia Orchestra, the Cleveland Orchestra, the National Symphony Orchestra, the Minnesota Orchestra, the Toronto Symphony, the Detroit Symphony, and the St. Louis Symphony.
Alan Pomerantz / UC Berkeley School of Law
In two recent Supreme Court decisions, Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission (decided in 2010 by a 5-4 majority), and Hobby Lobby Stores v. Burwell (decided in 2014 also by a 5-4 majority), the Court seemed to have decided that the First Amendment protecting the right to free speech and practice religion protected corporations and businesses in ways similar to the protections afforded to individuals. The results of these decisions have, according to critics, opened the flood-gates of money in politics, and permitted wealthy individuals and companies to "buy" election; and allowed corporate employees to refuse to provide certain health care for woman because doing so violated the "sincerely held religious beliefs" of the corporate shareholders.
Senator Bernie Sanders famously quipped: "Ben is a person, Jerry is a person, Ben and Jerry's is not a person." Supporters of these decisions and the Court's majority, argue that speech should not be limited based on the "identity of the speaker," and business owners should not be required to violate their religious beliefs when they are engaging in a business activity. Since these two decisions, the efforts to expand them into new and unchartered territory have been fierce, including the introduction of vast sums of money into the election cycles, and the expanding refusal of businesses to serve individuals who engage in conduct that the business owner believes to be immoral or sacrilegious. We will discuss the basis for these decisions, and explore whether or not the Constitution provides better support of the majority rulings, or the dissents.
Alan Pomerantz is a professor at U.C. Berkley, as well as a senior counsel at the international law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP and has been a national leader in the legal profession for many years. Chambers Global has recognized Mr. Pomerantz as one of the “World’s Leading Lawyers.” He is also consistently recognized by the International Financial Law Review’s Guide to the World’s Leading Lawyers. In 2015, he received the Fulbright Award for Global Citizenship from One To World for his representation of the interests of the Fulbright vision of international understanding.
Jennifer Keene / Chapman University
Most Americans possess only a hazy understanding of World War I or its significance for the United States. So why not leave it there? Why bother with this history lesson? How the nation responded to the challenge of fighting its first modern war re-made America, leading to female suffrage, the modern civil rights movement, the drive to protect civil liberties, new conceptions of military service, and an expanded role for the United States in the world.
There are striking parallels between the problems Americans faced a hundred years ago in 1917-18 and the challenges we face now. How do we balance protecting national security with civil liberties? Is it appropriate for Americans to continue to debate a war once the fighting has begun? Are immigrants importing terrorism? Do Americans have a responsibility to participate in global humanitarianism? Can soldiers ever convey to those at home the reality of what they’ve encountered on the battlefield? Can they ever leave the war behind? Americans grappled with these issues in World War I, and these are once again relevant questions for a society at war.
Jennifer Keene is a professor of history and dean of the Wilkinson College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences at Chapman University. She has published several books and numerous articles on the American experience in the world wars, including “Doughboys, the Great War and the Remaking of America”, “World War I: The American Soldier Experience”, and “World War II: Core Documents”. She has received numerous awards for her scholarship, including Fulbright Senior Scholar Awards to France and Australia and Mellon Library of Congress Fellowship in International Studies. She has served as a historical consultant for exhibits and films, and was recently featured in the PBS documentary mini-series, “The Great War”.