Faculty
Inara Scott
Senior Associate Dean
Law

Inara Scott

541-737-4102

inara.scott@bus.oregonstate.edu

Faculty
Inara Scott
Overview
Overview
Background
Publications

Overview

Biography

Nationally recognized for her work in AI-responsive pedagogy, Inara is an innovative academic leader dedicated to building student success and increasing impact across higher education. As Associate Dean for Teaching and Learning at Oregon State University's College of Business, Inara works to build responsive, relevant, and engaged classrooms committed to active and inclusive pedagogies. In her academic research, she investigates the intersection of sustainability and capitalism, particularly through an interrogation of the role of law in shaping capitalism and democratic structures.

Career Interests

Inara Scott practiced law for over a decade before joining the faculty at Oregon State University. Inara’s research at Oregon State centers on sustainable business, clean energy, and legal and policy implications of capitalism and climate change. In her administrative roles for the College of Business, she has served as the Associate Dean for Teaching and Learning Excellence, the College Hearing Officer, and is currently serving as Senior Associate Dean. She studies and writes on pedagogy in higher education and inclusive teaching, and has been nationally recognized for her work in the area of AI-responsive pedagogy. 

 

 

Background

Education

JD, Lewis and Clark Law School (2000), Summa Cum Laude, Notes and Comments Editor, Environmental Law

MS, Recreation and Leisure Studies, State University of New York at Cortland (1998)

BA, History and Women's Studies, Duke University (1994), Summa Cum Laude, Phi Beta Kappa

Experience

Manager, Rates and Regulatory Affairs, NW Natural (2007-2010) Represented utility in complex negotiations and proceedings before the Oregon and Washington Public Utility Commissions, including resource acquisition and integrated resource planning.

Assistant General Counsel, Portland General Electric (2005-2007) Represented utility in proceedings before Oregon Public Utility Commission and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, complex rulemaking proceedings implementing utility tax measures, and negotiating transactional agreements for gas pipelines.

Associate, Ater Wynne LLP (2001-2005) Practiced commercial, business, and energy law. Advised people’s utility districts, investor-owned utilities, and cooperatives on regulatory compliance, including FERC hydropower licensing and compliance, and contracts with the Bonneville Power Administration.

Additional Information

Looking for a good book? If you're interested in energy policy, business and sustainability or social change, you can find Inara's recommendations, and what's on her bedside table, on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/39084601-inara-scott

Publications

Academic Journal
Marketing

“Morality Appraisals in Consumer Responsibilization”

Abstract: In recent decades, U.S. “pro-gun” lobbying groups, politicians, courts, and market actors have sought to responsibilize U.S. consumers to use firearms to address the societal problem of crime. These responsibilization efforts center an interpretation of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms as an entitlement for individuals to engage in armed protection from criminals. Using interview and online discussion data, this research investigates consumers’ responses to responsibilization for this morally fraught set of behaviors, and the role of consumers’ various understandings of the right to bear arms in these responses. Findings show that acceptance of responsibilization is a matter of proportionality; consumers accept responsibilization for a proportion of specific armed protection scenarios and reject it for the remainder. Acceptance is determined by their appraisals of the morality of the responsibilization sub-processes (Giesler & Veresiu 2014). Consumers’ understanding of the constitutional right serves as a heuristic in these appraisals, with some understandings leading consumers to accept responsibilization across a much larger proportion of scenarios than others. Contributions include illustrating response to responsibilization as a proportionality; illuminating consumers’ active role in appraising responsibilizing efforts; and demonstrating how some consumers come to understand a responsibilized behavior as a moral entitlement.

Details

2023 Michelle Barnhart Aimee Dinnin Huff Inara Scott View on: Google Scholar

Academic Journal
Business Law

“Revisiting Meriwether v. Hartop and Academic Freedom in Higher Education”

Although the nature and extent of academic freedom has been subject to analysis for over a century, recent developments underscore the need to reconsider the proper scope of academic freedom. These developments include Meriwether v. Hartop, a 2021 Sixth Circuit decision in which a professor claimed a Constitutional right, based in academic freedom, to refuse to use a student’s pronouns; the growing science of pedagogy and understanding of how students learn; and the changing role of higher education in the United States. We propose updated factors for assessing the scope of academic freedom that balance the interests of the university, individual faculty members, students, and the general public. In doing so, we specifically address and discuss the interest of the state in delivering an “effective education”—a concept that we ground in both the literature of constitutional rights and also the literature of effective pedagogy, linking the interest of the state in delivering effective learning experiences to the science of teaching and learning. We also address the need for the recognition of gender pronouns and the potential for harm when they are not recognized.
Details

2022 Inara Scott Elizabeth Brown Eric Yordy

Academic Journal
Business Law

“Watered Down Voices, Watered Down Justice: A Demand for Polycentricism, Demosprudence, and Praxis in WOTUS Regulatory Reform”

For decades, science has demonstrated that discrete populations have been disproportionately forced to suffer the horrors of living in areas contaminated by toxic and hazardous substances. Communities of color, indigenous communities, and other marginalized communities continuously endure the effects of multigenerational water, air, and land pollution. Whether intentionally or not, EPA and regulatory elites have promulgated so-called “neutral rules” that have resulted in a systemic and ever-expanding national environmental caste. For this to end, EPA must stop being a knowing or unknowing participant in regulatory oppression and become an active agent of regulatory change.
EPA is required to take environmental justice concerns into account when promulgating new regulations; amplifying the voices of traditionally subordinated affected communities is an essential element of this goal. Nevertheless, EPA lacks a systematic method to incorporate direct outreach to and engagement of impacted communities, and has no detailed outline or specific strategy to ensure that the voices of impacted communities are heard. Thus, the Trump Administration was able to promulgate new regulations related to the definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) that are likely to have significant negative impacts on water quality, much of which will be borne by disenfranchised communities, while affording those communities little to no voice in the regulatory process.
This Article maintains that the Biden EPA should adopt a sociolegal approach, informed by the theoretical principles of polycentrism and demosprudence, to address systematic and decades-long environmental injustices. This approach would help shift and redistribute power from environmental regulatory elites to the people most affected by environmental harms. Using the case study of WOTUS regulatory reform, we argue that the Biden EPA has a perfect opportunity to create a more inclusive regulatory process that expands the power of historically disenfranchised people, while addressing known harms that will result from the current regulations. The Biden EPA could use WOTUS reform to establish a new paradigm for expanding the power of non-elites and create a model for a more equitable form of regulatory decision-making and a more democratic form of governance.
Details

2022 Martin McCrory Inara Scott Angie Raymond Paul Levy

Academic Journal
Business Law

“Learning to "Think Like a Lawyer": Developing a Metacognitive Model for Legal Reasoning”

In the area of law, metacognition is an implicit goal of instruction, as legal studies classes often stress learning to “think like a lawyer.” However, the explicit metacognitive model for using legal reasoning to break down complex problems and seek solutions is rarely identified. This article explicitly identifies the metacognitive model for thinking like a lawyer and provides concrete steps for direct instruction in this method of analysis. The method of analysis and the resulting model are useful to beyond the legal studies classroom, as the legal reasoning model is substantially similar to a model for critical thinking.
Details

34-42 pages 2021 Taylor & Francis Ltd. Inara Scott View on: Google Scholar

Academic Journal
Business Law

“The Trouble with Boycotts: Are Fossil Fuel Divest Campaigns Unlawful Concerted Activity?”

Organizations like 350.org, Insure Our Future, and DivestInvest are leading campaigns to urge boycott and divestment from fossil fuels as a means to address climate change. Increasingly, they are finding success, from individual consumers to massive pension and sovereign wealth funds. However, as organized group boycotts, divest campaigns may be vulnerable to prosecution under antitrust law. This article explores the likelihood of success in such a case, considering the history of the legal treatment of organized boycotts, the scope and purpose of antitrust law, and the possible application of the First Amendment to the divestment context. The article finds that fossil fuel boycotts straddle a number of contradictory characteristics, making application of existing theories inadequate. In particular, existing precedent protects political boycotts, but not those with primarily economic objectives, and fails to definitively address whether a noncompetitive actor may undertake concerted action under antitrust law. In the context of climate change, where the political is economic, and political goals may seek significant economic changes (such as undermining an entire industry), existing theories may lead to a result that threatens both free expression and the health of the planet. The essential flexibility of the Sherman Act, however, provides room for protection of political activity, even where the ultimate objective is economic in nature.
Details

5377591 pages 2020 Wiley Inara Scott View on: Google Scholar

Academic Journal
Business Law

“R Corps: When Should Corporate Values Receive Religious Protection”

In this article, we explain how a corporation might invoke religious freedom claims in order to protect corporate values such as diversity, equality, sanctuary, or women’s access to reproductive care which are not exclusively associated with a religion, and are often held by secular entities. In order to do so, we must address the following unresolved legal issues: 1) How can one define whether a set of beliefs are “religious” when those beliefs are held not just by a single individual, but by a diverse collection of individuals? 2) Does the meaning of religion change when it is no longer exercised by a human being but instead by a corporation? 3) Importantly, how would a court evaluate the religious claims of a business entity made up of diverse owners, members, and/or shareholders? And 4) What are the broader consequences, benefits and detriments of protecting such claims?
Details

91-133 pages 2020 Berkeley Business Law Journal Inara Scott Elizabeth Brown Eric Yordy View on: Google Scholar

Academic Journal
Business Law

“Environmental Law. Disrupted.”

The U.S. regulatory environment is changing rapidly, at the same time that visible and profound impacts of climate change are already being felt throughout the world, and enormous, potentially existential threats loom in the not-so-distant future. What does it mean to think about and practice environmental law in this setting? In this Article, members of the Environmental Law Collaborative have taken on the question of whether environmental law as we currently know it is up to the job of addressing these threats, and, if not, what the path forward should be.
Details

10038-10063 pages 2019 Environmental Law Institute Inara Scott David Takacs View on: Google Scholar